Loading...
PC 01-09-78 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORP7ZA PC-270 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 75014 Page 1 Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNIP7~ COMMISSION HELD ON JAN[TARY 9, 1978, IN THE COUNCZL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chairman Koenitzer called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM with the salute to the flag. ROLL CALL Co~. Present: Adams, Blaine, Gatto, Markkula, Chairman Koenitzer Comm. Absent: `Ione Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director, Cowan Assistant City Attorney, Kilian Assistant Planner, Piasecki Assistant City Engineer, Whitten APPROVAI. OF MINUTES: None POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None WRITTEN COMhIUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMiTNICATI0N5: None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application 3-CDPR3-77 of MICHAEL G. PISANO: CONCEPTGAL DEVEL- OPMENT PLAN to allow construction of three (3) dwelling units on approximately 1/8 acre. Said property is located adjacent to and easterly of Alpine Drive approximately 300 ft. from the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and Alpine Drive. First Hearing. ` Since the applicant was not yet present at the meeting, it was moved by Commissioner Markkula, seconded by Commissioner Blaine to continue Application 3-CDPR3-77 to the end of the Agenda. ~totion carried 5-0 PC-270 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 2. Application 28-Z-77 of SAI,EEM SHAIKH: PREZONING one lot consisting of , approximately 1/4 acre from Santa Clara County R1-10 (Residential, singie- family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) to City of Cupertino R1-10 j (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) or what- ' ever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said property is located at the northerly terminus of Riviera Road. First Hearing. The Assistant Planner referred to the Sanuary 4, 1978 staff report. He then stated that the staff has changed its recommendation, and is now recon¢nending ~ minimum one month continuation of this application with the possibility of an ! additional continuance until the Riviera Road question has been resolved. There is some problem of erosion that must be resolved. j The Assistant City Attorney recommended readvertising this public hearing for the purpose of calling the public's attention to this matter. Mr. John Rentala, 10350 South De Anza Boulevard, stated he was representing the purchaser of this property. He said he had discussed the problem prior to submitting this application. That creek has changed from its original stream bed and eroded the property to the north quite severely. Lots 7, 8 and 9 have access to Scenic Boulevard. He stated the Plan Line for Riviera Road has 20 ft. dropoffs and a portion of this Plan Line is actually in creek bed. It would be extremely expensive to put in this road. The original subdivision did ~ not dedicate streets. There is not even a valid title for Riviera Road. 1 Moved by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Blaine to continue Application 28-Z-77 for one month to allow the staff additional time to study ~ this proposal and the status of Riviera Road. i Mr. Jerry Root, 10360 Scenic Boulevard, stated Lot Number 8 is buildable ~ the 1/2 acre that he owns. He said someone tried sometime ago to build on Lot I 9 but was not snccessfu L ~ Mr. Rentala asked for some direction from the Planning Commission for the staff. ~ It was his understanding that the staff was short handed. The Assistant Planning Director said the staff would like a one month continuatior i to look at planned development options. Another reason is to consult with the ~ Santa Clara County Water District in regard to the Flood Plain. There is a possibility of no answer other than merger of the property. Kotion carried 5-0 ~ The above application was continued to February 13, 1978. I 3. Application 12-Z-77 and 10-TM-77 of ROBERT NELLIS: REZONING AND PREZONING j 58.5 acres from City of Cupertino A1-43 (Agricultural-Residential 43,000 ~ sq. ft. per dwelling unit) and Santa Clara County RHS (Residential Hill- ~ side Variable Slope District) to City of Cupertino R1-80 (Residential, ~ I i , MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIVG PC-270 ~ Page 3 single-family 80,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit), 11.5 acres from' Ciry of Cupertino A1-43 (Agricultural-Residential 43,000 sq. ft.' per dwelling unit) to City of Cupertino R1-120 (Residential, single-family 120,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) and 24.5 acres ' from City of Cupertino A1-43 (Agricultural-Residential 43,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) and County of Santa Clara RHS (Resi- dential Hillside Variable Slope District) to City of Cupertino "A" (Exclusive Agriculture), totaling approximately 94.5 acres, or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide 94.5 acres into 23 single-family lots and one lot to be held in common and retained in an open space use. Said property is located on the westerly , ridgeline of Regnart Canyon with access to be gained via the southern terminus of Regnart Rd. First Hearing. ' The Assistant Planning Director reviewed the January 6, 1978 lengthy staff report on this proposal. The plan is to prezone 93 acres into 23 lots with co~on open space. This development will be seen from the valley floor. This application is consistent with the General Plan in terms of density. Although the plan at this point is for 23 residences, ' if the Planning Coimmission finds some problem here it could be reduced somewhat. All agencies that are involved have responded to this proposal: Aesthetically the plan is a very low density cluster development. The _ average lot size including open space is over four acres. Approximately ' 6 dwelling units will be built on the ridge. The private drive will ' meander down the slope. The map shows existing oak trees on the lot and ' the staff recommends a condition ensuring that these trees will be prot- ected. There are also mature pine trees and conifers on the property around the building site. There will be erosion control to ensure stab- ility of the building site. The staff has always recommended a loop ' road connecting Regnart Road with Lindy Lane. This was rejected when the ' General Plan was adopted, however, the staff feels it would be very easy I, to connect these roads through the William's property. There is a very dim possibility of an emergency road down to Prospect Road through the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District. The District has stated they; will not maintain such a road. Arguments against the Regnart Road - Lindy Lane connection are traffic and expense. The Health Department has determined each lot is buildable with minor modificaitons to move the drain field for Lot 14 slightly uphill. , Commissioner Gatto asked the Assistant Planning Director to review the alternate access road. It was determined an extension of Regnart Canyon ' Road to Stevens Creek Road would be environmentally disastrous. Coimni- ssioner Gatto asked the staff to review the visibility of the ridgetop homes from the valley. Commissioner Blaine believes we should have a comprehensive road plan for', this area and as people come in with their building plans the Plan Line should be adhered to. The Assistant Planning Director stated the nearest fire station would be ' the Cox station. Colored slides of the Nellis property were shown on the screen. PC-270 MI.NTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1978 PLANNIDIG COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 Mr. Robert Nellis, 22322 Regnart Road, stated he is the developer of the subject property. He offered to answer questions. He would then like to get back to the issue regarding the construction of the road pattern which serves all properties within Regnart Canyon and Lindy Canyon. Much of the land has been in his family for about 25 years. Over the last 10 years there has been extensive reviews. Their present zoning is for one-acre lots. They would like to down zone to approximately one home on four-acres in order to be con- sistent with the General Plan. In the Santa Clara Valley area there is the need to preserve the hills in a somewhat natural state. He said his plan will require a certain amount of grading to make the home sites buildable. If developed on one-acre lots it would require much more grading. His present home was constructed four years ago on a five-acre site. Mr. Vellis said they went to an extensive effart to determine that it would be feasible to transfer density. The geologist was present in the event the Commission or ~ audience wished to ask him some questions. , Mr. Dick Childress, 22025 Regnart Road, stated he moved [o Regnart Canyon 7 years ago when everything was zoned one-acre lots. A group got together and presented People's Canyon Plan for this area. The basic intent was to keep it as rural and natural as possible. He said he working closely with the ! other property owners in Lindy Canyon with this in mind. Twenty-one of the twenty-three persons involved signed a paper indicating they were not in favor of a loop road. In addition to requiring very extensive grading it would provide a lovely road for a Sunday 3river, motorcycles, beer cans and litter, grass clippings and intrusion of privacy. ; Commissioner Gatto asked :ir. Childress to talk about the lots within the Nellis property. Mr. Childress said he would like to move some of the lot lines ! in order to maximize the privacy of the home owners. He pninted out there ' are several ways to get out of Regnart Canyon in case of emergency. Commissioner Gatto commended Mr. Childress on his plan. ~ Mr. Nellis said in regard to Commissioner Adam's question on Lot 14 that they perform percolation tests.A geotechnic study was done. The terrain was the prime consideration in placement of the homesites. Their goal was to not have i any of the homes closer than 200 ft. apart. View was very important. Chairman Koenitzer called a recess at 9:50 PM. The meeting reconvened at 10:12 1 PM. i ~ Moved by Commissioner Blaine, seconded by Commissioner Gatto to continue ~ Agenda Item 1, 4 and 5 to Wednesday, January 11, 1978 at 7:30 PM. I ~ Motion carried 5-0 i Mr. Nellis said after the geologic work they were satisfied there were no ; faults or landslides in the area of the homesites.r,,~@re ever possible there will be 2:1 slope behind the homes. The geologist would except 1:1 cut slope i but he does not believe this would be good. In some areas however, they can not accommodate more than a 1 to-.t 1/2 slope. After approval of the tentati ~ map there will be further geological tests. Each custom home will be designE.. i to take best advantage of the lay of the land and the view. They will be anal- yzed individually. The plan before the Planning Co~issioner at this point is ; conceptual. , MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-270 Page 5 :~r: Nellis's engineer discussed the grading plan. He is a Los Altos Civil Engineer. The grading was well covered by the EIR and the Plann- , ing staff. Mr. Mike Cleary, soils engineer in Los Altos answered Commissioner Adams, they have investigated the slide areas in Lots 2, 3 and 23 and described how the instability would be corrected. Chairman Koenitzer asked about the narrowest portion of the road right at the steepest part of the road. The Assistant City Engineer said there': will still be about 20 ft. of pavement, so he does not see any problem here. Mr. Nellis pointed out the reason for this is to save mature trees. i Mr. Nellis highlighted portions of the EIR. The traffic from this project does not materially effect the air quality or noise impacts or adversely effect the environment. 96% of the property will be preserved as open space e~ccluding this property.Over 80% of the property owners in the area will be served by the private road and have signed the , petition for road i.mprovements. The Assistant Planning Director said Mr. John Olson of the Open Space District had the following comments: 1. Conditions of approval should address fence control. 2. The District would like to see the houses placed on either side of the ridge. 3. Is the open space a preserve or a reserve? 4. The District talked further about long term management of the open , space in regard to the traffic the trips per day should be 10 in- stead of 7 but this would not materially effect the environment. ! They do not want to have the responsibility to make sure the fire trails are kept up. Mr. Nellis answered Commissioner Blaine that along Lots 4 and 5 the District is going to install open rail fences. Dorothy Wright, 22303 Regnart Road, asked for an EIR in that area and ' said Councilman Jackson asked for an EIR on the Nellis property and ~ Regnart Road. She could not understand why this proposal is being con- ' sidered by the Planning Commission at this time, prior to completion of the EIR. The Assistant City Attorney said the decision maker that is ~ going to decide whether or not this is going to be approved is the City ; Council. The Planning Commission is a reco~nending body. It is up to the City Council to certify the EIR. It is being encouraged to have ' EIR discussions along with the Planning Commission recommendation on ~ this property. Jo-Ann Gholson, 22125 Regnart Road, submitted a petition signed by 10 people living right on Regnart Road in Section A assessment district. ~ i She said this district will probably cost her $10,000. She referred to ! a letter she submitted to the City the previous Friday. She is in favor; i PC-270 ?°fINUTES OF THE .TANUARY 9, 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETZNG Page 6 ! of the looped road. Mr. Dick Schumacher, 11331 Bubb Road, stated he enjoys walking up the Regnart , Canyon although he could never afford to live up there. The EIR has addressed ~ the issues he was concerned with. He is still convinced that Mr. Nellis is ~ not "raping the hillsides" but rather is maintaining them. Just as a citizen, he does not believe ^fr. Nellis should be treated partially just because he owns the property. He is a resident owner not an absentee developer. He feels Mr. Nellis has paid his debt to the community in having the study made. He ! believes Mr. Nellis should be allowed to proceed with Mia-proposal and within the controls set by the City. ' Mr. Mel Douglas, 22022 Lindy Lane, said in regard to the loop road concept there are many children in Lindy Lane and in Lindy Place. Further traffic in the area will be detrimental to the children's safety. The loop road would encourage leisure driving in the area. In order to widen this road it would take out a dozen large oaks because there is a ten foot deep creek on the other side. Mr. Ellis Jacobs, 22051 Regnart Road, said whether or not Mr. Nellis develops Regnart Road has to be finished. It is to the advantage of the existing homeowners in the assessment district to get Regnart Road paved. Mr. Mike Akatiff, stated he is building his home there now. He is opposed to ' the loop road because of increased traffic potential. The condition of the road at the present time is very rural which is very desirable to him. The rural atmosphere would be lost with the development of the loop road. Lindy ' Canyon is developed with sewers, Regnart Canyon is being developed on a septic . tank basis. Where do you draw the line? Coc~m~issioner Gatto asked what the status of the district was. The Assistant City Engineer said a Resolution of Intention would be adopted once the EIR is adopted. Mr. Jerry Merkelo, 11119 Sutherland Avenue, stated he attended Mr. Childress's meeting the previous Sunday. He said the majority of people do not want a loop road. The City Council and the Fire Marshal agreed. He believes some people should be willing to give a little and to cooperate. ~ Mr. Steve MacKenow, 21584 La Playa, said in his opinion no EIR is complete until i aired by the public. He would like to see more data on the Lindy Lane loop. He ~ has seen no concrete proposal that the wildlife reserve would remain as such. ' He asked what open space is and what it can be used for in regard to noise along Regnart Road;he pointed out that vertical sound waves do not dissipate as readily as horizontal sound waves do. Mrs. Zarevich, 22043 Regnart Road, said the concept of the Nellis development ~ is good. The only thiag she was against was the loop road. Mrs. Dorothy Wright said her bedroom is closest to Regnart Road of any of them presently in the Canyon. She said we are putting the cart before the horse. She does not want to be put into the position of being either for or against the loop road. Sh^ ~ agrees that the Nellis' will eventually build on their property. Density is _ key here. She wants the Nellis private open space roadway to be considered. ~ She has a petition signed by 40 people recommending this. She does not want to ! see the houses on the ridgetops. , MI~tUTES 0~ Th~ 7AN'?AH~ 9~ 1978 PLANNIf1G COMMISSION t4EF.TIIIG PC-270 Page ~ Mr. Jeff Zeily, 22362 Regnart Road, said he is building on the Lot i~ now, Just about every da~ several people drivA ii~ to the end of Regnart Road nox. There is water in the cree~c up in the private ooer. space. Mrs. Sane Riley, 22000 Regnart Road, said her family has been there longer than the Nellis family. She has a small home over 100 yeazs old. If the road is expanded the amount of noise will be unbearable. She cannot afford the assessment. Mr, Childress, 22025 Regnart Road, stated h? has 26 parcels renresenting over 200 acres.xhere the people have siened a vetition, Sound xill rise uu to the houses. He xould like to not see any develooment in the area. The real issue is many people would not like to have a road in front of their house. ?hey don't want to oay for it. The longer we wait the more it is going to cost. If it had been out in nreviously it would have cost about 1/3 as much ae it will nex, He urged that we not waste any more time. Moved by Commissioner Blaine, seconded by Commi.ssioner Adams to close the public hearings. Motion carried 5-0 _ Commissioner Blaine wanted to discuss the loop road versus no road versus emergency road, She would like conditions of approval to include the statement that in the future there would be emergency drivexay or access. Commissioner Gatto said the prime £unction of the loop road would be to serve emergency vehicles.There are a lot of negative aspects to a loop road which would be detrimental to the people who want +.o live ~ip there and have some privacy, Commissioner Markkula xas also against loop roads.He thinks a drivexay connection is *.he answer for emereency roa.ds. Commissioner Adams and Chair!nan Koenitzer a~reed xith the ot;,er Commissioners. Commissioner Gatto said we have to separate the road assessment question from this project to some degree. Something must be done about that road. There are five or six homes on the ridge. There should be some further study to get those homes of£ the ridge. Commissioner Adams is concerned about the geotAChnical aspects. He is in favor of having the individual sites spotted off of the ridge with a minimum amount of earth movement required. Commissioner Markkula noted that it appeared that a great deal of time and e£fort has been snent on the develooment of this property. Commissioner Blaine said the problem areas are Lots 10, 20 and 8 out o£ the total o£ 23 lots, It xas noted that there are trees around the building sites that should be preserved. Comm~.~sioner Gatto said it appears there needs to be a little fine tuning on those three homesites. He would like more thought to go into the house and have it blend with the terrain. His prime concern, however was that grading for each homesite be minimized and, to prevent erosion, could occur in conjunction with actual construction rather than mass removal of all vegetation and leveling of the site prior to construction. PG270 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 19~8 PLANNING COMMiSSION MEEPING Page S Chairman Koenitzer would like to include a statement that the homes on Lots 8, 10, 11, and 20 shall 'oe limited to sinele story. Condition 16 waG modified to include~ No mass grading shall be permitted. Grading will be permitted a£ter approval of individual house plans. This should be added at the end n£ Sub Item C, Condition 23 the second paraeraph of recommended Condition 23 shall be deleted and replaced xiths The roads shall 'oe main- tained by the homeowners association, An 18 ft, wide privately owned emergency road~easement shall be extended from Regnart Road to Lindv ~ne. And Condition 24, the entire second sentence shall be deleted, And there xill be an added Condition ?6s Exhibit A, ' Moved by Commissioner Gatto, seconded by Commissioner Slaine to recommend to the City Council a;aoroval o£ Apolication 12-Z-'77 subject to Exhibit A, 12-Z-77 AYESs Commissioners Adams, Blaiae, Gatto, Markkula, Chairman Koenitze.r aonroved NOESi None Motion carried 5-0 Moved by Commissioner Gatto, seconded by Commissioner Blaine to recommend to the City Council approval o£ Application 10-TM-~~ subject to the 1-14 Staadard ~ Conditions, Condition lg, 16 as amended, 1~ through 22, 23 as amended, and 26 as added at this meeting. I 10-TM-~7 I AYESs Commissioners Adams, Blaine, Gatto, Markkula, Chairman Koenitzer annroved NOESs None Motion cas2ied 5-0 Commissioner Catto stated the approval of the tentative map was based on the folloxing findin~s and subconclusiones I al That the proposed map is consistent xith the general and specific plans. I b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent ; with the general and specific plans. ~ c) That the site is physically suitable for the tyoe of development. ~ ` d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed densi.ty of development. i e) That the design of the subdivision or the pronosed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and j avoidably injure fish or xi1d11Fe or their habitat. f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design o£ the subdivision or the type of improvements will not ~ conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access i through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. I ~ ~ MINUfES OF THE JANUARY 9~ 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION MEr,"TING PG270 i Page 9 I ~ It xas determined this matter xill be heard by the City Council on I February 6, 1978. ADJOURNMENT • Chairman Koenitzer adjourned this meeting at 1~15 AM to Wednesday, Januazy 11, 1978 at 7:30 PM. APPROVED: . . --~%~CF~~~ Chairman ATTEST: City C1erY. l~ I 1 i : ; ~ i i ~ - ~ ,