Loading...
PC 03-12-79 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFO~;IA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR HEETING OF THE PLAi.\!NING COMUISSION HELD ON MARCH 12, 1979, IN THE COw~CIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALI FO~IIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Ch. Blaine called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM with the Salute to tile Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Comm. absent: Adams, Gatto, Koenitzer, Ch. Blaine Cl aud y Staff present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant Planner Piasecki Assistant City Engineer Whitten Assistant City Attorney Kilian Deputy Assistant City Attorney Aikens APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hinutes of Regular !!eeting of February 12, 1979: Pages 7 anù 8 -- the spelling of a name should be changed from "Baten" to "Bateh". Moved oy Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer to approve the Minutes of February 12, 1979 as corrected. :!otion carried, 4-0 Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 26, 1979: twved by Camm. Gatto, seconded by Camm. Koenitzer to approve the llinutes of February 26, 1979 as submitted. ~fution carried, 4-0 POSTPO¡Œ:1ENTS: None. ~RITTEN Cm~fu~ICATIONS: None. ORAL COI~,ICATIONS: None. PC-30l Page 1 I I II Feb. 12th Minutes apprcveé Feb. 26th l1inutes approve¿ PC-30l Page 2 MINù~ES OF THE MARCH 12, 1979 PLANNI~G COMMISSION MEETI~G 1. Applications 2-Z-79 and I-TM-79 of C&~ON VIEW ESTATES (Richard Childress): REZONING approximately 25 acres from Rl-80 (Residential, Single-family, 80,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size); Rl-120 (Residential, Single-family 120,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) and Al-43 (Agri- cultural, Residential, 43,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to RHS (Residential, Hillside, Slope-Density Formula) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to resubdivide four parcels consisting of approximately 25 acres into six parcels equaling approximately four acres each; and ~¡VIRO~ŒNTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the westerly ridge in Regnart Canyon approximately 800 ft. north- westerly of Regnart Road approximately 1,000 ft. southwesterly of the terminus of Lindy Lane. First Hearing. The Assistant Planning Director reviewed a series of maps on the bulletin board, one of which was labeled Master Plan - Lindy Canyon/Regnart Canyon. He stated the zoning and the tentative map are consistent with the General Plan. In terms of new building, there will be two new homes on the 25 I acres. From a geological point of view, the plan is acceptable. The Health Department feels that, because of the proximity to a sewer line, I that these homes should be sewered. The staff has explained to the Health Department the position taken by the City Council that it is the property owner's option to go to either sewer or septic tanks. The Equestrian Trail was reviewed. The most logical route from the Grandview Estates to the Open Space District would be through the Kaiser Permanente property. Comm. Koenitzer was answered by the Assistant Planning Director that it will not be possible for these lots to be further subdivided. He said the Canyon View tentative map cannot be recorded until after the Nellis map is finalized. !1r. Richard Childress, 22025 Regnart Road, said this subdivision is the remaining link between the two canyons with an emergency road and few lots. This subdivision has been worked on for a long time. He asked the Planning Commission for approval. Since there were no comments from the audience, it was moved by Cemm. Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Gatto to close the Public Hearing. tfotion carried t 4-0 Comm. Gatto commented that the zoning and final configuration will help iinisl.l up the area between the ~¡ellis property and Grandview. If we are talking about 5-6 horses, perhaps we are over-emphasizing a problem with the horse trail. ~INu"ES OF THE rlARCH 12, 1979 PL&~¡ING COr~ISSION ~ETING Comm. Adams said Condition 16C should be reworded. Comm. Gatto said he would be willing to strike Condition 18. Ch. Blaine agreed. Mr. Childress said that apparently, Buck Norred stables are going out of business~ Sin~e it was reopen it was apparent a member of the audience wished to speak, moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer to tne Public Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 Ms. JoAnn Gholson, 22125 Regnart Road, stated she is going to file suit against this proposal. She quoted portions of a real estate board report. She charged that Mr. Childress has not gone by the rules. He has stated he owns all this property when, in fact, he àoes not at this point. She objects to the fire route and the loop road. She said this proposal before the Planning Commission tonight is in violation. She requested the City investigate her charges. She wanted everything she said put in the Minutes. All her statements are recorded in the Minutes on tape. The Assistant City Attorney said the charge here is that the proposed Tentative Map and Nellis and Childress violate the Map Act. Comm. Gatto asked the City Attorney if this Body should be pro- hibited from acting upon this proposal. The Assistant City Attorney said Nellis has an approved tentative map but no final map as yet. It is his understanding the final map of the Nellis property will be recorded prior to the City Council public hearing on this proposal. Gholson said Regnart Road is overburdened with houses. Sne requested this proposal should not be acted upon by the City until tae ~ellis matter is settled. Attorney John J. Hayes, Jr., speaking for the Nellis', said this is not tile forum before which this Subdivision Act should be judged. Mr. Childress said he has not purchased property. He has intended to do so for two years. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the Public Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Gatto to reopen tne Public Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 PC-301 Page 3 PC-301 Page 4 !!IN1.'TES OF THE MARCH 12, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETDIG Kathy Nellis, 22325 Regnart Road, said she would be happy to answer any questions in regard to the horse trail. They do not anticipate many "horse people" will be living here. Cn. Blaine's concern is whether or not we are going to require any horse trails to be put in4 Do we put in new trails and easements? Ms. Nellis said we are not talking about high volume here. The long range trail plan is through the Kaiser property. The Assistant Planning Director said the only public. concern here is 50% of the Grandview Estates may have horses. There is no legal access to the Open Space. The public matter is horses on public streets. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the public hear ing. Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Adams observed that the emergency fire road is going to be there anyway. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comma Adams to support the determina- tion of the ERe and grant a Negative Declaration. Motion carried, 4-0 2-Z-79 approved Moved by Carom. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer to recommend to the City Council approval of application 2-Z-79 subject to the Findings and Subconclusions on page one of the staff report of March 9, 1979. AYES: NOES: AD SENT : Comma Adams, Gatto, Koenitzer, Ch. Blaine None Comm. Claudy Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comma Gatto, seconded by Comma Adams to recommend to the City Council approval of application l-TI1-79 sub;ect to the Findings and ' Subconclusions and Conditions 1-14, 15, 16-Mcdified, 17, delete 18, and Conditions 19-26 in the March 9, 1979 staff report. AYES: ¡,¡oES : ABSENT : Camm. Adams, Gatto, Koenitzer, Ch. Blaine ~'fone Comm. Claudy Motion carried, 4-0 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 12, 1979 PL~~I~G COMMISSION MEETING Tne Assistant City Attorney reconfirmed the Findings and Sub- conclusions were acknowledged and approved by the Planning Commission. This goes to the City Council on April 2nd. 2. Applications 3-Z-79 and 4-U-79 of STATE MUTUAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION: REZONING approximately two acres from CG (General Commercial) to P (Planned Development with residential and commercial intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to allow construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. commercial/office building and 24 residential townhouse/con- dominium units; and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE·"¡: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Finch Avenue. First Hear ing. The Assistant Planner reviewed the proposal with the aid of tne maps and elevations on the Bulletin Board, per the March 9th staff report. In terms of site layout and architecture, this proposal is very good. The density, in terms of General Plan Consistence, snould be discussed, however. He stated the 3elow Market Rate will be instituted here. The parking needs have not yet been met. The Policy ",..integrate commercial and residential and help to meet social goals..... II has been met. The staff is not suggesting Condition 20 be deleted. Base 1.3 acres x 12 DU per gross acre 3 16 units (15 + 1 Blffi) 20% Bonus 1.3 acres x 14.4 DU per gross acre = 19 units (13 + 1 B¡ffi) Added Bonus for Social Goal (B¡ffi; high density; design excellence; ' and combined residential and commercial. 19 units x 25% = 24 units (22 @ Market + 2 B¡ffi). I Ch. 31aine is concerned that the developer is given all these bonus but we are only getting 2 Below Market Rate units here. Another of her concerns is that she is not sure she is in favor of less than 20 units would not have to be rounded. Corom. Gatto was concerned where we should draw the line. Secondly, on the Land Use program, we have here a daytime office/bank use and night-time and weekend residential parking. The bank will have a community room so there will be meetings at night and the parking spaces will be used. There will be some landscaping but no wall between tae residential and commercial. It appears there is a parking problem here. PC-301 Page 5 ?C-301 ?aga 6 I ,mIU::ES 0 F T:1E :!A."c? 1 7 -- , 1979 Pt.~;~¡~G CO}~rISS~ON ~SZ~I~G ArcÜi:ac::. Tad Br:Jwn, ot Bond & 3rcW'n, o.jjQ oac,=:ry Street, Sa~ Francisco said t~ey have thoroughly ¿iscussed ::'~e parki~g. :~e 3~'!R wlit will be assigned one par~<.ing s-pace and the ochers will eacil bave 2 ?arking spaces. The B~æ ~i:s ~ill ~ave t~o bedrooms and they are en one grade level. ~ach unit has 1:"....·0 enclosed parking spaces. -::îe garages a=,= oversized so C",.1o small cars can ~o inside. T:le o;ues::. ;:arking is l.oca:.e.d off-site. The BMR units have 900 sq. ft. excluding terrace and stair~ell. The other units vary from 1350 to 1450 sq. ft. and A unit has lóOO sq. ft. The central courtyards will be or brick paver. The intention is to make it look more like a European ~ar court. Garbage cans can go in the garbage. Garbage people will have a key to the garage. This last statement was not well received. :~. 3row~ said tne BMR P~ogram is a very good ene. ~. 3ill Lauderdale, lOGiC Craf~ Drive, said he has 3 units on Craft D~ive and there is never enough room :or parking. ~ach unit has a 3-~ar garage and there are al~ays 5 or 6 cars parked i~ the street. ~. ~. ~ariani stated ~e has :r~uol¿ witn parking rrow because of the high schaal studencs. There are 3000 scuåents at the high school and either their parking is inadequate or located in the ~rong area. He said t~e ~revious plan for thi3 property called for triplexes. ~e woul¿ like to See the entrance for this development on Fi~ch rather t~la¡¡ C:.-aft wrive. Lynsel Miller, 10Q60 Craft D~ive 43, stressed the poi~t there is li~i:ed parki~g. ria sometimes has to park across the sidewalk. iuasåay and Ttlursday nights there is night sellool e Unless there are ?e~its the anile parking along Craft Drive will be used by t~e studen~s. ~hè Assista~t PlannL¡g Direccor acknowledged pre£a=~ntial parking ís used in some are.as. i:cwever, tt1e proble'C. is enforc.ement. Isabel Lau¿e.rdale, lOGiO Craft Drive, said slle has 9 units and each a2.S an enclosed garage and not: cne uses the garage :..J:- ~heir car. I:: is used for storage. They all have two cars. Mr. for tae Bro~vn said this proposal Qas a 2ó' deep storage and cars. The carport is 22'. pool for t.ile people to use, also. garage so there is room TQere is storage area naar r~e Assistant Planner sugges~e¿ ~oving t~e 3~~ ~i:3 ~c=~i and ~a~~n3 garag~s ~U: 0: tie car?crt5. :1::-. :'filler emphasized :::'1at ':1e obj¿c:e¿ to t:1e derrsi.~:..·. C:l. j.:.a::.::.e called a :acess at: :"J ::0 ?~.!. ~~1e ::I!.ee:i.:1€ r.:c.cm....-::-:.¿¿ at 10: 25 2:-1. :mIL"TES OF THE ~!ARCH 12, 1979 PLAJ.'NING COMMISSION MEETING Ch. Blaine commented that this proposal is an interesting concept. However, she does not see any interrelationship between the resi- de~tial and the commercial. She did not object to not having any great distance between the two. She is not happy with the density. The number of BHR units is not equitable. She is not convinced tlIat the Unit B needs to be as small as it is; it is not a very "livable" unit. She would like to see some reworking on the number and size of the BMR units. There needs to be at least 2 parking spaces per unit in this development. Comm. Koenitzer said a 900 sq. ft. BMR unit in relation to a 1350 sq. ft. unit is not equitable. And tucking them in there makes it obvious they are BMR. If we did not have a BMR program, this property would yield only 15 units. The parking will be a problem. He suggested some cut in density_ Comm. Gatto said we are giving the developer 3 additional units here. The bonus s~lOuld be something that only absorbs the BMR w1i ts . The Assistant Planner suggested a postponement m~gnt be in order now, so the developer can restudy his plan, taking tonight's comments into consideration. Mr. Brown said he would have no problem in increasing the size of the a,fi( units and making 2 parking spaces for each unit. Moved by Comm. Koenitzer, seconded by Corom. Gatto to continue the public hearings on 3-Z-79 and 4-U-79 until after Unfinished Busi- ness item on this agenda. Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams that Item 5 be moved to after Unfinished Business and continuation of the item just heard. ~~tion carried, 4-0 3. Application 3-U-79 of KATHRYN M. WITTMERS: USE PE~~T to allow a dance studio consisting of approximately 1,200 sq. ft. in an existing commercial building; and E~VIRO~Œ~TAL REVIEW: Tbe Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a ~egative Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd. approximately 300 ft. easterly of Adriana Avenue in a CG (General Commercial) zoning district. First Hearing. PC-30l Page 7 3-Z-79 and 4-U-79 cont'd to later in this agenda , PC-301 Page 8 3-U-79 approved m"UTES OF THE :·IARCH 12, 1979 PLA::NING COM!!ISSION ,IEETING The Assistant Planner reviewed this proposal. It consists of approxi- mately 1200 sq. ft. The existing building is nonconforming because of the lack of on-site parking. He then reviewed the '~rch 9, 1979 staff report details of this proposal. The Assistant City Engineer acknowledged a safety program through the railroad crossing on S~evens Creek Blvd. is taking place at this time. Mr. Bill Wittmers, 10210 Adriana, said that at the time of the original application he did not realize they have access to parking by the Manta Vista '~rket. They now have sufficient parking. Since there were no further comments from the audience, it was moved oy Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer to close the public ~learing. Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to grant the Negative Declaration in support of the findings of the ERC. Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer to approve application 3-U-79, subject to the Findings and Subconc1usions in the March 9, 1979 staff report and subject to Conditions 1-14, 15, 16-modified, and 17. AYES: NOES: ABSE¡IT : Comm. Adams, Gatto, Koenitzer, Cn. Blaine None Comm. Claudy Motion carried, 4-0 This agenda had no Item 4. Agenda Item 5 was continued earlier in the meeting. m,FI"ISHED BUSINESS Continued Discussion of Below ~rket Rate Housing Program. The Assistant Planning Director reviewed the February 28, 1979 "BELm.J- MARKET RATE PROGRÞ.M A PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTION" with the Commissioners. On page 1, it should be pointed out that duplexes are excluded. l, .' ~U':l1,¡"r~S OF Till: ~!A..~c..;. 11., ~979 1?u:~mG Cmß!.ISS'ZO~ ~t:n}1G' ?C-30~ Page 9 ,- I i Come. Gatto said cae key here is cae percentage at the total units.) ~e would like to see the initial calculation cased on the actual I number of units permitted not including the BMR units. If the developer wis"es to build additional B~~ uni~s, ~here is the bonus? The Assistant Planning Directo~ said trafÍic, sewer capacity, etc., all must be taken into ~onsideration. I. I If you apply the bonus first, the potential is to have more BMR units and the coSt burden may be too much for the developer to absorb. The bonus is to help :ake up the cost or the BMR units. I Ch. Blaine believes 20: bonus is plenty. She questioned whether ! they should be given a ;onus for a good design since that is their I JOO. Comm. Koenitzer said there should be some criteria for the BMR unit in comparison to the other units in the project. He stressed that I . the BMR units should not be singled out. Comm. Gatto said a project should come in with no SMR designation. ! Example: 15 units per site; 2 SMR; and 3 bonus. It should first be figured out how many units the land can support. The Assistant City Attorney advised that on page 2, Buyer quali- fications is discriœina~ory. Comm. Koeniczer said the Buyer Selection on page 4 needs some criteria from which to select those who draw ror the units. Item 6 on page 5 is a condition placed on the zoning. ~ntals are excluded from this Prograc. After discussion of this document, the ~eeting returned to the material method on calculating bonus and BMR units (Agenda Item 2: 3-Z-79 and 4-U-79). This should include (1) determine reasonable number or units for property involved and ror the surrounding area. (2) subtract 20% of that number or units and (3) then calculate the ~~ requirements on that reduced number or T.1nits. Comm. Gatto said that using the e:'tercise just completed would 1" mean 16 units plus 3 ;onus units equal 19 units. ~is would allow additional on-site parking; 1 unit at 100% and 1 at 120: level. Ch.. 31a:i:1e believes this land could con:ain at !e.as: 20 units vi~~ ?arki:1g. C~mm. .~ams could see za uni:s ~ere as vell as :era on-si:e ?arki~~¡ . : ?c-301 P~..ie 10 3-2 ~ ~-I.:-ï9 conti:1.ued I I Seismic Safety 3/26/79 ~IT~t~tS OF ~h~ ~L~CH ~2, 19i9 Ptk~NI~G CO~~ISSION ~ŒETI~G Comm. Kae~ic:er said the~e·are 46 on-siee parking spaces ~ow, whic~ would allow 23 units and ~o guest par~iag. He said the 3MR units :ust be of generall:r tile same size. If everybod:r else has garages, tile:r s"oul¿, too. This parcel will probably yield 22 units. Camm. Gaeta would look more favorably on ~2 units if there was one mars ~(m unit, providing they can solve the par~ing problem. There should oe a minimum of 3 spaces for each unit plus 4 or 5 guest parking spaces. C~. Blaine said that if the par~ing problem is solved she would li~e to see 2 more units here. It is close to Vallco Shopping and employment and co.ere is a 'Jlarket. wit:'lin p,,¡alkicg di5cance. The A5sista~t City ~'gi~eer said i~ will be almost i~possible to enforce t~le preferential parking program. If tilis is granted ~lere, the!! m.a.nyo ot~er areas in the City will want to nave i~. Mr. Brown said it is important. to a~ to have the configuracicn ot che project, and would like some guidelines. ~ved by Comm. Adams, seconded by c~~. ~oe~iczer Co continue 3-:-ï9 and 4-U-79 to :1.ar<:h 26, 1979. Motion car~ie¿, ~-O OT:'¡ER m..I~nSHED Bt;S~ESS: None. :'ÏEW BUS ¡¡.;ESS : ~lo[1e. REPORT OF P~<NING COMlilSSION: ~oved by Comm. Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Adams to continue Seismic Safety Element to Marc~ 26, 1979. Motion carried, 4-0 ADJOURNMENT Ch. Blaine adjourned this meeting at 12:15 AM. ATTEST: ,(,c:Z~ ~ 4.:, APPROVED: I ~.~ ~ ~ Ch. Baine