Loading...
PC 05-30-78 CITY Of CCPERTI~O, STATE OF CALIFOP~IA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: 252-4505 iPC-282 age 1 I!lNUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD MAY 30, 1978, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Vice-Ch. Gatto called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance. Ch. Blaine arrived at 8:30 PM. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Comm. absent: Adams, Claudy, Gatto, Ch. Blaine (8:30) Koenitzer Staff pr esent: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Engineer Whitten Assistant Planner Toby Kramer Housing & Community Dev. Coordinator Sue Hastings APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. POSTPONEMENTS OR NEì-I AGENDA ITEMS: Upon request of the staff, it "as moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Claudy to continue Agenda Item 4, Amendm~t to O~dinance 2l4(a) to June 26, 1978. Motion carried, 3-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL CQM}lliNICATIONS None. PC-282 Page 2 HlNUTES OF ¡.I.AY 30, 1978 PLAlmI~G COHIIISSION MEETl~G PUBLIC HEARINGS I. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider a comprehensive amendment to the General PIan. First Hearing continued. a. Land use for key Core Area properties. b. Individual requests for land use changes outside Core Area. A map was displayed on the board showing the key Core Area properties under discussion. The Assistant Planning Director reviewed that at the April' 24th meeting the Planning Commission agreed ',in concept with the staff of the serious possibility of changing Some ôf the Core Area properties from permitted land uses to very specific designation of residential. ,The staff plans to have some specific r'ecommendations ready by the end of July or first of August. The staff would like direction at this time from the Planning Commission in regard to the "Below Market Program". Key properties in the Core Area: North De Anza Blvd. Area, the Mariani Packing Plant, the Otis,Forge agriculture property. Stevens Creek Blvd. at Ste1J.ing, the 50-Acre Town Center, Stevens Creek Blvd. between Randy and Blaney, Stevens Creek Blvd. between Blaney and Portal and Blaney Avenue south and north of Price. The Assistant Planning Director explained the density ranges proposed for each of these pr open ies. The staff feels this plan is consistent with the General Plan because it is designed to increase the housing range within Cupertino., There is no practical way for this City to develop an affordable type of housing for low income families. A very 10w density is not feasible at the present time because of the ma,ket value of the property. The staff recommends that, by introducing residential on De Anza Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd., the continuity of strip commercial is broken. Residential was recommended along these streets during the General Plan deliberations in 1973 but the property owners were not amenable to it. The Planning Commission has recently approved a residential development on Steyens Creek Blvd., east of Randy Lane. Econom,ic considerations: The housing will help the industrial that is having a very difficult time attracting employees because of the housing shortage we are currently experiencing. Also, the removal of commercial potential along Stevens Creek Blvd. and De Anza Blvd. tends to enhance the commercial viability in the Town Center. In terms of property tax, it is much more attractive for commercial development to occur~ In view of the tax reform issues on the ballot, it is very difficult to assess at the present time. Based upon the staff's work thus far, it was not felt this should be a major point in the Planning Commission's decision. MINUTES OF MAY 30, 1978 PLAN);]NG CmrnSSIOtJ t1EETEìG ;PC-282 age 3 Based on discussions with apartment house owners, it would appear the densities being proposed are feasible. The staff does not feel it can at this point designate specific properties for apartment houses. The land use changes recommended by the staff and the intensities proposed allow the developers the latitude to come up with something imaginative. It would not infringe on the quality of life, environ- ment, of the already established homes. Policy 1 provides so~e design guidelines for the Planning Commission and private developers and assurances for adjacent home owners to provide quality of environment and privacy. Policy 11 would allow flexibility to expand land use designations. At the present time, this sort of thinking requires a General Plan Amendment, which is a very cumbersome thing. The staff was commended for doing an excellent job on the staff memo. Comm. Claudy, however, noted the absence of fencing and landscapin~ screening being addressed, as was requested by Ch. Blaine. The Assistant Planning Director said this would be an appropriate tim~ tn add wording regarding the noise attenuation. Comm. Claudy would like some words to the effect that fences would be minimized. The staff noted that Dr. Brown has once again made application to be heard by the Planning Commission on June 12th in regard to Light Industrial on his property: Since there were no comments from the audience at this time, it was decided to start reviewin~ specific areas. Area A is the 50+ acres Town Center Property. The staff recommenda- tion was to allow 20-35 units per acre. The traffic generation shoul not exceed 25 trips per hour. Area B is comprised of the 3 lots on Blaney Avenue, south of Price Avenue. A very minor change was recommended: 5-10 units per acre instead of 4-7. Comm. Adams said he would prefer to stay with the original 4-7 units per acre here because of the proximity to the school and the fact that the canal is there. Area C is the propPTty on Blaney Avenue, north of Price Avenue. It is presently zoned 0-4 units per acre. There are single-family homes adjacent on the east and it is served by Price Avenue. The staff recommended maintaining the 0-5 units per acre here. PC-282 Page 4 ,!I~lJTES OF MAY 30, 1978 PLANNING COI'MISSION MEETING A letter from the property owner at the corner of Blaney and Price Avenues was introduced, indicating a request to build two duplexes, translating into 8 units per acre. Comm. Adams said he would like to retain the present zoning there. Comm. Claudy believes Area C would be a little more dense than Area B. Vice-Ch. Gatto asked for comments from the audience. Dorothy Heldman, 10144 South Blaney Avenue, said she has 17,000 sq. ft. at the corner of Blaney and Price Avenues, across the street from the Biltmore Apartments. The future townhouse complex is just 5 lots from her. She would be putting in sidewalks and gutters. She was willing to build with the idea of maintaining and improving the same character of the neighborhood. She does not want to be a pocket in the middle of higher density. The existing smaller structures on her property are old and used to be chicken coops. Area D is 2.5 acres on Stelling, across from De Anza. There are 9 individual lots south of the existing service station and the A & W. Faria School is adjacent to the south. The staff feels 10-20 units per acre density would be appropriate here. The Assistant Planning Director answered Vice-Ch. Gatto that it would be possible to build garden-type development here without all the amenities. There could be underground parking, also. Area E is the 5.3 acres at the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Portal. Because of the size of this property, it would be possible to do something imaginative and 20-35 units per acre could still be compatible with existing adjoining single-family homes. Vice-Ch. Gatto said he was not sure the Council would approve a pro- posal with this density. Mr. Gary Hansen, 3255 Scott, Santa Clara, said he represented the owner of a portion of this property; the 5.3 acres are not under One ownership. This property has been owned by Franchise Realty since 1968 at which time it was approved for four equal lots. The map was not recorded, however. In 1969 it was again approved but not recorded. In 1971 the application for 2 lots was approved by the Planning Commission but not by the City Council, and it was withdrawn. He said this property has been recognized at least three times as commercial. The staff was asking for residential. Re said his firm, Cornish & Carey, is now asking for approval to locate their own offices here. This would be compatible with the adjoining residential and commercial. He said 10 of the 13 properties discussed tonight are mixed uses. He said they have been paying taxes for commercial property and believe they should be allowed to develop. There would be no significant traffic problems. The Assistant Planning Director said a building permit could not be issued on this 30,000 sq. ft. lot at this time because it is not a legal lot. MINUTES OF HAY 30, 1978 PLA:,NING Cl\'-f}érSSION MEETING 2C-282 :Page 5 I Mr. Martin L. Hall, 10737 Par 3 Drive, Cupertino, said his corporatio~ owns the majority of Site E. They feel very definitely that this I property should be residential, and that it should all be one zone. I I They did attempt to purchase this property at one time. He said they ¡ have gone allover California to get ideas for a unique development I to put here. They plan 120 - 122 units with entire underground I parking. Any developer who goes to the expense of underground parking for all 3 buildings wil1 be doing a high quality job. They are I cognizant of the 5 adjoining homes, which will be screened. Another I reason this is good planning is there is shopping across the street and one block to a park. Area F is 4.8 acres at Stevens Creek Blvd. between Blaney and Portal. The staff recommended 10 - 20 units per acre range; a typical town- house development. This is on the north side of the Blvd. It is under two ownerships at the present time. Attorney.Robert Dempster, 20235 Stevens Creek Blvd., said he repre- sents the owner of a portion of Area F: l.a acres, 395' deep with 200' frontage along Stevens Creek Blvd. He said they wish to be excluded from this plan, They are about to apply for approval of a PD, high-class furniture sales store directly adjacent to the existin furniture store~ There is another furniture store across the street. The building will be 20,000 sq. ft., and t)1o;, can meet the trip end constraint. He said he does not see how those three parcels proposed for housing will eliminate strip commercial along Stevens Creek Blvd. He questioned the statement in the staff report in regard to providin housing for highly technical employees for electronics industries. He does not see how his furniture store will attract nor detract from the Town Center. They will give the City more sales tax. than propert tax would. He asked for retention of PD with commercial underlying intent. Mr. Dempster said his law office has been on Stevens Creek Blvd. for some 10 years and he is impressed by the amount of traffic and noise on that busy street. He thinks residential along here will only create rather than solve problems. The furniture store, in the cente of the property, would be a better neighbor to those existing homes along Wheaton Drive than multiple units. He understands there is a shortage of housing in the Planning Area. There is no way of pro- viding houses for anyone earning less than $20,000 per year here. Re does not think the staff's plan for Area F speaks to that problem. Re said his client is not inclined to get together with the adjacent land owner to develop in the suggested manner. He asked that when the motion is made, that the Planning Commission remove this particul r site from any recommendation sent to the City Council. His client does not want to participate in a residential development. PC-282 Page 6 HlNUTES OF MAY 30. 1978 PLf~;:Ht:G CO''!'lSSlON MEETl:JG The Assistant Planning Director acknowledged noise is a real problem. He cited Sunnyview Manor, which is located 120' from the busiest street in Cupertino, with 1400 diesel trucks going by each day. The architect was able to employ techniques to diminish this noise impact on the people within Sunnyview Manor. The staff is relying on the developer to employ such techniques. The Assistant Planning Director also single family homes on De Anza Blvd. for commercial and residential mix. stated that BAS Homes built This property is master planned Attorney Dempster stated he was on the Board of Directors of Sunnyview Manor for many years. In order to expand, they had no choice but to expand toward Foothill Blvd. It should be pointed out, he felt, that this is a completely different kind of development. He charged that the staff is now spot zoning with residential just because there is a shortage of homes. Mr. John Callahan, 19954 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino, said he would like to consider Area F in view of the radically increased traffic. This proposal could very easily generate 200 additional cars. To get out of this property, they will have to turn right and if they want to go east they must go down to Blaney and do a U-turn. Schools: Portal School rÞ~~ntly absorbed children from other schools that have closed so it is full. Stevens Creek Blvd. would be ruined for the Pioneer Day Parades, etc. Mr. Callahan said the furniture store proposal sounded like a workable solution to him. Mr. Herman Hymans, 19975 Stevens Creek Blvd., said he is one of the owners of the furniture store. They are planning to upgrade their building soon. He agreed a furniture store next door to him might be good for business. He does not want to see a future slum area here in Cupertino. Mr. Dan Navenburg, 19964 Wheaton Drive, said the residents now call it "Wheaton Freewayll because of the speeding~ which, it seems cannot be stopped. The Assistant Planning Director said traffic is a major concern. It is important to note that a commercial venture generates more traffic per day than residential. This property is lim1ted to 16 trip ends, regardless of the use. At 3/4 trip ends per unit, there could be 20 units here. Area G - Southeast corner of Bandley at Lazaneo. There is an old home on the corner of the property. It could go 20-35 units. Area H - 7 acres, consisting of 3 parcels on future Bandley Drive. The Water Department wishes to retain their present use in that area. ~E,,1¡TES OF MAY 30, 1978 PL&"1NING COMHISSION !'EETING PC-282 Page ï Dr. Joe Brown, Peppertree Lane, said a few years ago we were worried about being called the city of service stations. Now we are the city with walls. He displayed a site plan for this entire area. He said that realistically, we are talking about 5 acres, not 7. He said his property will not be developed if zoned residential. He said the nursery next door has indicated the same. Area 1 - De Anza Blvd. to Bandley Drive. This is now master planned for industrial/commercial/residential. The staff now recommends res id ent ia 1. Area J - along #280. At the present time, this is master planned for light industrial. Area K - #280 north of Payless on Romestead Road. This property is owned by Otis Forge. There were no comments from the audience. Area L - Otis Forge property, north of Homestead Road. cent to apartments at 12 units per acre. The staff is 12-20 units per acre on this property. This is adja- recommending Mr. Burrel Leonard said Òtis Forge has a considerable amount of agriculture in another area. He questioned whether the owner of this I property or the Mariani property were notified of this public hearing. I The Assistant Planning Director stated he had spoken with Mrs. Forge's I attorney on 3 occasions. Re was contacted by Mr. Forge. He also contacted the purchaser of 6 acres in Area 1. Area N - This is involved in the Domus application. It is essentially landlocked. Because of the fragmentation of ownership, the staff feels this should be left commercial/residential mix. Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Ch. Blaine to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Adams stated he is generally against increasing density. Comm. Claudy is concerned about these multi-ownership properties. Unless they agree to get together, he questioned whether these plans are architecturally viable. Ch. Blaine said some of these higher densities will probably come in as condominiums rather than apartments. Comm. Gatto said that in Area E we can't achieve what is proposed because the trip ends will not allow it. Re said we are making the wrong trade-offs in trying to get increased housing. By providing straight across the board housing, it would mean we are bypassing other needs of the community. PC-232 2age 8 MINUTES OF t1AY 30, 1978 PLA~NING CO'~ISSION MEETING CONSENSUS: A - No problems here. B - 3-1 (Comm. Adams dissented) C - Should be 5-10. 3-1 (Comm. Adams dissented) D-~ E Camm. Adams would like 4.4-12. Further discussion. Ch. Blaine would like 20-35 Comm. Claudy and Ch. Blaine would like 20-25 Comm. Adams & Gatto would like 10-20 Comm. Adams, Claudy and Gatto would like mixed uses. Area F - Comm. Adams, Claudy & Ch. Blaine would like 10-20 Comm. Adams, Claudy and Gatto would like mixed uses. Area G - Ch. Blaine & Comm. Claudy would like 20-35 per acre. Area H - Comm. Adams, Claudy would like 10-20. Ch. Blaine would like 5-10. Camm. Adams & Gatto would like this residential. Ch. Blaine & Comm. Claudy would like mixed uses. Area 1 - Nobody liked 20-35 units per acre. Ch. Blaine and Comm. Claudy would like 20-25 Comm. Adams & Gatto would like 10-20 Comm. Adams.&·Gatto would like mixed uses; Comm. Claudy on De Anza on' Ch. Blaine would like residential. Area J - Ch. Blaine & Comm. Claudy would like 20-35 Comm. Gatto would like 10-20 Comm. Adams would like Industrial here. Area K - Ch. Blaine, Comm. Adams & Claudy would like 20-35 Comm. Gatto said this is too high. Area L - All four liked 10-20. Area M - Ch. Blaine, Comm. Adams & Claudy would like 10-20 Comm. Gatto dissented. All four liked mixed uses here. Area N - All four liked 10-20 here. Area Area Area Area Area Comm. Gatto likes the mix. r~cass was called at 10:17 PM. The meeting reconvened at 10:30 PM. 1. b. Individual requests for land use changes outside of Core Area. The Director of Planning and Development said the staff recommends existing land use designation remain intact for the area bounded by Stevens Creek Blvd., Tantau Avenue and the Freeway. Mr. Eugene Gelitz, 440 Upas, San Diego, said he was speaking on behalf of --Mr. Will Lester, and would like to add commercial to the industrial designation on this property. He said Federated Department Stores wish to develop a community shopping center - a junior department store or discount department store. They were not aware this property was under discussion at this time. They asked for continuance to allow time to prepare a proposal. MINUTES OF MAY 30, 19ï8 PL~,NING CO¡"'I55TON ;1EETI~G Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Blaine to continue this item until July 24, 1978. Motion carried, 4-0 Private request #2 involves 3/4 acre on Bollinger Road at De Anza Blvd. They were asking for general commercial. The staff suggested the boundary between two different types of land uses as long as the change amalgamates the two properties. They would like the applicant to com- bine their proposal along with the adjoining undeveloped property. Mr. M. LaMonico, 1349 Joplin Drive, explained this concerned the Bachman property -- his wife's parents. He explained his exhibit wherein they want to consolidate and put in a small neighborhood shopping center. They want to remove the existing service station and level the land. Ris rendering was of two tile-roofed buildings -- one with three stores and the other with four stores. They have 12 more parking spaces than required. Ingress would be on Bollinger Road and egress on De Anza Blvd. This proposal would not generate any additional traffic. Policy II Was explained to the applicant by Comm. Gatto. The Planning Commission will be acting upon Policy lIon June 12th. CONSENSUS: Keep the present designation and wait until Policy 11 is acted upon. The Director of Planning and Development said private request #3 has been considered by the staff. It is recommended it stay with its present residential designation and Policy 11 should be employed, whereas adjoining properties would be amalgamated. Mr. Ken Small, 20545 Blossom Lane, said his concern is because the service station on Lot #41 is a source of noise and other problems. If Lots 40, 41 and 42 are combined they will probably put the service station building back, next to his back yard. He said he would not object to something other than a service station. CONSENSUS: Go with the staff's recommendation. PC-2S2 age 9 ester property continued to July 24th PC-282 Page 10 MINUTES OF MAY 30, 1978 PL¡~~NING COMMISSION MEETING Private request #4: ~~. Hugh Jackson, 22608 San Juan Road, said he is the owner of the property in question, which is presently in the Countv. It is the site of the old Hoo Hoo Inn, with neighborhood commercial County zoning. Mr. Jackson said the owners of Lots #14 and #15 have no objections to his proposal. The property should be cleaned up. It is an odd-shaped, large piece and does not lend itself to residential. With the proper architect, he said it could be a credit to Cupertino. He wants each of his two Sons to have these lots; he sold Lot #2 to his eldest son who is an attorney. His eldest Son does not object to his Father's proposal for this property in question. CONSENSUS: Maintain present designation. Private request #5. Mr. Clark Holman, 10112 Camino Vista Drive, said he has had Lot #6'5 for 21 years. He would like to put a "communal residence" on Lot #65. Assistant Planner Toby Kramer reviewed her recent informational memos regarding Below Market Housing Program. Ms. Sylvia Semens described Palo Alto's approach to this subject. Section 8 funds have been used effectively, particularly for those people living and working in Palo Alto. The City of Pal0 Alto has the first right of refusal to purchase a home that is for sale. The seller notifies the City they are selling their unit. The City has 60 days in which to locate a buyer. After that, the developer has the option to sell. Ms. Semens answered Assistant City Attorney Kilian that the City of Palo Alto is not considered the co-developer. She also said Article 34 does not apply here. She and Ms. Kramer then went on to explain Section 8. Ch. Blaine, Comm. Adams and Comm. Claudy were in favor of incorporating Palo Alto's approach to addressing the housing problem into our Housing Element. 2. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider an ordinance regulating hillside residential development including building setbacks and height, fence locations, permitted uses and vegetation removal. First Hearing continued. The Director of Planning and Development of the Hillside Residential Ordinance Hillside Subdivision Ordinance. briefly reviewed the Fourth Draft and Third Draft of the MINUTES OF :lAY 30, 1978 PLAN"Ul' C()~!.'!ISSION ~ŒETlNG PC-282 Page 11 Mr. Richard Childress, 22025 Regnart Road, said one thing that still bothers him is control of the height of a house. The way the Ordinanc reads now, a house could look 70' high from the Valley Floor. (Page 3 Page 9 Section 4.11 and 9.2) It is a question of placing the homes on the ridgetop versus the side or the hill. Mr. Childress suggested screening be set up to minimize the view of the ridgetop home from the Valley Floor. In regard to parking spaces, Mr. Childress asked if 2 parking spaces can be on the driveway. The Director said this is true. Mrs. Lucien Hertert, San Juan Road, wanted to call attention to pages 14 and 15. She would like to emphasize the impact on adjacent properties in the hills. The Director said the Grading Ordinance will speak specifically to this issue. Comm. Claudy said pages 10 and II are unfair in their present form. After discussion, it was decided the present wording would be adequate Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to approve the Ordinance regulating hillside residential development, amending Ordinance #002 per this fourth draft and with changes made at this meeting to Section 9.2 and definition of height, incorporating the cosmetic and editing changes; and Section 10.5 A as amended at this meeting. AYES: Cornm. Adams, Claudy, Gatto, Ch. Blaine NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Koenitzer Motion carried, 5-0 This was scheduled to go to the City Council on June 19th. 3. CITY OF CUPERTL~O: Public Hearing to amend Sections l8.16.260 through 18.16.310 of the Municipal Code relating to the regula- tion of Hillside Subdivisions. First Hearing continued. On page 2, item C2, it was felt this should be a part of the Building Permit. The Grading Ordinance should take care of the grading. The Assistant City Engineer said that when the developer does all the grading the City doesn't have this enforced. PC-282 Page 12 HlNUTES OF HAY 30, 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETl~;G Mr. Mel Douglas, 22022 Lindy Lane, said he believes more attention should be paid to the developer. He would like to see a minimum lot size spelled out. Since there were no further comments from the audience, it was moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Claudy to recommend to the City Council amended Sections' 18.16.260 through 18.l6.310 of the Municipal Code relating to the regulation of Hillside Subdivisions. AYES: Comm. Adams, Claudy, Gatto, Ch. Blaine NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Koenitzer, Motion carried, 4-0 This goes to the City Council June 19th. 4. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Amendment of Ordinance 214(a) -- CONTINUED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS 5. Determination concerning continuation of non-conforming use - Southeast corner of Imperial Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd., Monta Vista area - Reverend Shirley Jean Hansell. The applicant had been present earlier in the evening, but had left the meeting. Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Gatto, that the present use is more restrictive use than the previous retail use and, therefore, the Planning Commission recommended continuation of this non-conforming use. AYES: Comm. Adams, Claudy, Gatto, Ch. Blaine NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Koenitzer Motion carried, 4-0