Loading...
PC 04-12-82 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 12, 1982 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Chairperson Claudy called the meeting to order in the Council Chamber of City Hall at 7:32 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Adams, Binneweg, Blaine, Koenitzer, Chair- person Claudy Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan City Clerk Cornelius Associate Planner Piasecki Assistant City Engineer Whitten (left at 9:15 p.m. ) CDBG Coordinator Hendee APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 22, 1982 - It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed with Chairperson Claudy abstaining to approve the minutes of March 22, 1982 with the following amendments: Com. Blaine: Page 3, paragraph 3, last sentence, the word "he" was changed to "developers". Page 3, paragraph 6 should read, "Jason Chartier, devel- oper, stated that the few BMR units he has available are the only ones being sold." Com. Blaine also requested that her remarks expressing other concerns be included in the minutes. Com. Koenitzer: Page 3, paragraph 5, should include a statement as follows: liRe pointed out that the BMR units are the first sold re- sulting in an immediate expense to the developer. He would like to spread the BMR sales over the general sales time." Minutes of the Regular Adjourned Meeting of March 23, 1982 - It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unanimously to approve the March 23, 1982 Planning Commission minutes with the following amendments: Com. Koenitzer: "riparian plain" Page 1, last sentence, next to last paragraph, was changed to "southwest hillside". Page 3, paragraph 4, last sentence was amended to read, "He felt the slope density formula should be applied to the hillside areas, and additional units not be allowed in these areas. II PC-380 Page 1 Approval of March 22 min- utes Approval of March 23 minutes pc- 380 " 2 MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7, paragraph 5 - A consensus was also reached regarding one access to Upland Way. Com. Adams: Page 6, paragraph 3, last sentence should read, liRe liked the integration of the two neighborhoods and felt perhaps a blending could be achieved through island planters to guide parking on Rainbow. II POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application 26-TM-8l of Lawrence C. Mayerle: Tentative Map to consolidate and adjust the lot line of six parcels consisting of approximately 1.5 acres into three parcels ranging in size from 18,000 sq. ft. to 26,650 sq. ft. and Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Nega- tive Declaration. The subject proeprty is located on the north side of Mercedes Road, approximately 500 ft. west of Cordova Road and on the west side of San Felipe ~oad approximately 230 ft. south of Alcalde Road in an Rl-lO (Residential Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district and RHS (Resi- diential, Hillside Development) zone. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - April 19, 1982. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the application with the Commission. He stated that the soils consultant, Mr. Cotton, had recommended that the soil off the site be checked before the map is recorded. Com. Adams asked if this application could be approved with the lot lines still not determined. The City Attorney informed him that it would be all right to approve the tentative map but not the final. He also stated that the City is defendant in a suit by Mr. Mayerle regarding the proposed cul-de-sac. Chairperson Claudy asked if the have any effect on the lawsuit. is a possibility. application were approved, would it City Attorney Kilian said that it It was stated that any conditions on the Nolan property would be appro- priately placed on the Mayerle property. Com. Koenitzer requested clarification of Condition No. 17. Lawrence C. Mayerle, Mercedes Road, stated that if Condition 17 pertaining to Application 26-TM-8l were included, he would want it on everyone else in the area. He further stated that he did not want a deferred agreement for improvement on Madera Road that mayor may not occur. He is already providing access for emergency vehicles. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In regard to Condition No. 19, he informed the Commission that the lawsuit has to do with misunderstanding that occurred before the tentative map was approved. He stated that the City gave verbal agreement to certain things. He said the lawsuit with Mr. Pisano has no impact on the boundary shown on the map, and he should not have to wait for settlement in regard to a final map. He inquired as to a variance to deal with the location of the detached garage (Condition No. 20). He would like to apply for a variance of setbacks City Attorney Kilian replied that he did not need a variance; the condition could be eliminated and there would be a legal non-conformin use. Mr. John Lien, architect for Mr. Mayerle, stated that he had been re- viewing the conditions and he felt that Mr. Cotton's suggestion that the applicant pinpoint the Monta Vista Fault and go off-site of the location was not reasonable. Assistant City Engineer Whitten informed Mr. Lien that this did not mean trenching off site and that Mr. Cotton wanted to see additional information. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimsouly to recommend the grant of a Negative Declaration for Application 26-TM-8l. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to recommend approval of Appljcation 26-TM-8l per Planning Commission Resolution No. 2297, Condition 1-14 as per staff report; Conditions 15 and 16 as submitted; Condition 17 amended to read as follows: "Street improvements required under the standard conditions shall include deferred agreements for the frontage along that paper street identified as Madera Road. Acquisition of right-of-way and installation of full cul-de-sac improvements at the terminus of San Felipe Road shall be required subject to the Unimproved Street Ordi- nance. Improvements along the existing public street frontage of Mercedes Road shall be required. The street improvements and/or agree ments apply to all existing or future street frontages of the Mayerle property and the Nolan property." Condition 18 as submitted; Con- dition 19 amended to read as follows: "The final map shall not be recorded until the location of the northerly property line and the cuI de-sac area are resolved. II Condition 20 as submitted; findings and subconclusions per the staff report. 2. Application 6-TM-82 of Cupertino Commercial Development: Tenta- tive Map to allow subdivision of a 9,700 sq. ft. commercial/office building into eight office condominium units and Environmental Review: The project was previously assessed, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 85 at the termina- tion of Alhambra Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue in a P (Planned Development with Neighborhood Commercial intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - April 19, 1982. -----,--~---~---_.__._-- -_._..._-~---_...__...._-------_. PC- 380 Page 3 Public hearing closed Negative Dec. for 26-TM-8l 26-TM-81 rec- ommended for approval PC~380 p, 4 Public hearing closed 6-TM-82 recommended fa approval Public hearing closed Granting of Negative Dec. recommended l-Z-82 recom- mended for approval MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the application with the Commission. Mr. Kier from Kier & Wright, engineers, informed Commission that he was available for any questions. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Avenue, asked if copies of the plan were available and for a definition of "condominium offices!;. She was informed that people basically bought air space in condominium offices. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unan- imously to recommend approval of Application 6-TM-82 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 2298 with Conditions 1-15 as submitted and findings and sub conclusions per staff report. 3. Application l-Z-82 of Dzidra Silver: Prezoning approximately .5 gross acre from Santa Clara County Rl-8 (Single-family Residen- tial, 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino Rl-7.5 (Single-family, Residential 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Dolores Avenue approximately 200 ft. west of Orange Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date, May 3, 1987.. Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the application with the Commission. He stated that this was a prezoning for potentital annexation. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unan- imously to close the public hearing. Com. Koenitzer pointed out that with this particular zoning the property could be divided into two lots. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Adams and passed with Com. Binneweg abstaining to recommend granting of a Negative Declaration. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Adams and passed with Com. Binneweg abstaining to recommend approval of the application per Planning Commission Resolution No. 2299. 4. Applications 7-TM-82 and l-V-82 of Michael Lynch: Tentative Map to consolidate three parcels consisting of approximately .4 of an acre into one parcel, Variance from Section 118.5 of the Light Industrial Zoning Ordinance to permit a building height of 26.5 ft. on the property line in lieu of the 20 ft. maximum allowed by ordinance and Environmental Review: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the east side of Imperial Avenue at the intersection of Olive Avenue (approximately 300 ft. south of Lomita Avenue) in a Light Industrial zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - April 19, 1982. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the application with the Commission Mr. Ellis Jacobs, architect, stated that the reason for the request for variance was that the code was either for larger lots or for indus- trial lots located next to residential property. He stated that the property being discussed is surrounded by industrial. He is asking for a 25 ft. high building, 2~ ft. of which is parapet. He informed the Commission that the Fire Marshal does want the parapet. He feels that this particular design was a good one for Cupertino. Corn. Koenitzer inquired about exceptional circumstances which would allow the granting of a variance. Mr. Jacobs felt it was the size of the lot. Com. Adams inquired as to why the height was necessary, and was in- formed that there would be high stacking of supplies and the height was necessary for the storage. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Avenue, objected to the comment made by the archiect pertaining to small lots in the Monta Vista area. She felt that if the lot was small, one just did not put as much on it. Mr. Jacobs informed the Commission that the floor space had been approved by ASAC and at present the height of the building was being discussed. Jim Forsythe, adjacent property owner, told the Commission that he had no objection to the height of the building. He submitted a letter in support of both applications being discussed. He further stated that the height of that building would have no potential effect on any type of solar system to go into his building. Mr. Michael Lynch, applicant, pointed out that the resolution pertain- ing to the tentative map said three parcels; however, there were ac- tually only two. It was further pointed out that all property being considered is in the City. It was moved by Com. Binneweg, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed unanimously to approve Application 7-TM-82 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 2300 with Conditions 1-16 as submitted; Condition No. 17 added to require reciprocal ingress/egress easements with property to the south. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unan- imously to recommend denial of Application l-V-82 as the applicant has not substantiated exceptional circumstances. PC-380 Page 5 Public hearing closed 7-TM-82 recommended for approval I-V-82 recom- mended for denial pC' 380 1 ,6 MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECESS: 9:25-9:40 p.m. 5. Review of the Below Market Rate (BMR) Program and Subcommittee Final Report: Consideration of modifications of BMR Guidelines regarding implementation of the BMR Program. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - May 3, 1982. Chairperson Claudy expressed certain concerns regarding the procedural manual for the City of Cupertino Below Market Rate program. Page 1, Section I.A.2 should read, "Section III", not "Section II". Page 2, Section II.A, he felt there was a conflict between the two sentences and felt it should be stated IIlesser of" if that is what is meant. Page 2, Section III, Chairperson Claudy felt Equity Sharing Plan should be defined. Page 2, Section III.B., Chairperson Claudy requested that the first sentence read, "If the City Council approved developer/ owner participation in an Equity Sharing Plan. . . " Page 3, Section IV.B, first sentence, "General Plan will be permittedll should be changed to IIGeneral Plan may be permitted". The second sentence should also be changed to "may" or perhaps that item should be eliminated. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of decreasing the number of BMR units if the applicant were not allowed to develop at maximum density. Page 3, Section IV.F, the end of the sentence shall read," ., project, and/or may provide low cost financing . . . " Page 4, Section VI.F, the following sentence shall be added: "Exceptions are to be approved by the City Council*." *Or BMR Advisory Committee Com. Koenitzer asked what are our objectives. Is it realistic to expect to provide moderate or low income housing? He stated that the City could not provide housing for 60% of the people. There was a review of income figures and discussion followed regarding what percent of the population falls below 120% of the income. It as concluded that over 50% of the population falls below that income figure. Chairperson Claudy offered the suggestion that the number of BMR units could be reduced as a function of the difference between actual costs and limits set. The Commission expessed concern regarding the great difference in cost between the BMR units and the regular units. Com. Blaine informed those present that Palo Alto has an in-lieu fee of $1 per sq. ft. per unit that is charged developers. In this way the cost was spread out and older homes were purchased as well as land for BI1R '; s MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-380 Page 7 City Attoraey Kilian expressed the opinion that this was a special tax and would require the vote of the people. The Commission felt that perhaps this tax was not charged to develop- ers of residential units. CDBG Coordinator Hendee said that the Palo Alto Housing Corporation handles this particular duty. Com. Blaine also stated that the City of Sunnyvale has an ordinance that if a building creates more than 35 jobs, the developer is charged in-lieu fees. Chairperson Claudy suggested that perhaps a developer shall have maxi- mum out-of-pocket costs of X number of dollars per project or unit and a maximum add-on for other units. Com. Koenitzer stated that perhaps there should be an option of units or in-lieu fees, and in that case what would be done with in-lieu fees. Com. Blaine inquired about the selection of applicants. CDBG Coor- dinator Hendee stated that Alternate No. 1 in her report would allow for a bigger pool of potential buyers. Alternate No.2 changes the purchasers' qualifications. Janet Wright, Valley Green Drive, Cupertino, member of Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, spoke in favor of Alternate No. 1 and stated the organization was against suspension of the program. She submitted a letter from the organization. Bill Hurley, attorney representing John Vidovich, requested that the City cancel the BMR program. However, should the program be kept, the developer should recover costs. He requested that the City act expeditiously to give the marketplace back to the industry, and re- quested that the Commission recommend elimination of the program to the City Council. Otis Forge, 20691 Homestead Road, stated that if the developer could not make money in Cupertino he would go elsewhere. He felt that the BMR was no longer a valid program. Assistant Planning Director Cowan stated that on April 19, staff would ask the City Council for a firm date of Planning Commission involve- ment in the General Plan process. He was recommending the week of May 10. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to continue consideration of the BMR Program to the time of consideration of the General Plan Housing Element (week of May 10). BMR Program consideration continued Discussion followed regarding the General Plan timetable.