Loading...
PC 08-11-80 -- CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC-338 Page 1 MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Johnson Chairman Koenitzer Absent: Commissioner Claudy WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Assistant Planning Director Cowan produced a letter from May Investment , Inc. regarding the Below Market Rate Housing Program. He said he had not had a chance to read it, but if the request was to make major modifications it could be discussed as part of the General Plan Hearing at the end of August. If changes were relatively minor, it could be changed informally by the Commission and the changes adopted by the Council. Further action could be discussed at the end of the Agenda. ,~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of July 28 (PC-337) and July 30 (PC-338) were continued until the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting. PIJjjLIC HEARING ITEM #1, Applications 12-TM-79 and 19-U-80 of MAY INVESTMENT, INC.: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide the subject property into five parcels ranging in size from approximately 4,500 sq. ft. to 14,700 sq. ft.: USE PE&~IT to construct five single-family homes; and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located at the northwesterly terminus of Scenic Boulevard just south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council Hearing date, August 18, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Côwan explained that the question tonight was to seek approval of two follow-up applications, the Use Permit, the detailed site plan for the project and the Tentative Map which physically divided the property into six separate lots. The Use Permit and Tentative Map had been continued from July Meetings because of technical problems, relating to access and lack of information regarding the slope line for a fill condition on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project was somewhat unique, in that two units would be served by a mechanical lift device, and the Fire District had requested there be closer access taan Scenic Boulevard to these two homes, because of concern with the emergency medical service. Staff suggested there be an access from a common driveway to Unit #4. If this access was not feasible, then an MINUTES, AUGUST 11, 1980 REGU'AR PLANNING COMMISSION ~ŒETING PC-338 Page 5 ITEM #3, Application 38-Z-80 and 22-U-80 of ROBERT E. AND DIk~E H. SCHEY; PREZONING approximately 1.356 gross acreS from Santa Clara County Al (residential and Agricultural) zone to City of Cupertino P (Planned Development with single-family residential, 1-5 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct seven resideatial dwelling units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located adjacent to and southerly of Bollinger Road at its present westerly terminus approximately 120 ft~ west of De Foe Drive. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - September 2, 1980. Associate Planner Piasecki pointed out that the property had been part of the 8 acre area considered recently in prezoning applications, when the Commission naci recommendeå to the City Council that they prezone to Rl-7.5. The applicant had submitted two plans and was now requesting approval of plan no. 2. Both were seven unit plans with the same density but a differen net lot area. Due to the dedication of 30 ft. of half-street along Bollinge the gross aqreage comprised 1.263 acres, instead of 1.356 acres, and the typical general plan density was 5.5 dwellings per gross acre. The General Plan density was being exceedeã, though the Plan included a policy statement that density levels might exceed the levels stipulated provided the commission could make a finding that the density bonus was necessary to better reflect the general development character of the surrounding neighborhood. The revized plan had much larger lot sizes, and all were in excess of 6,000 sq. ft., but Staff was convinced that the property could not bear 7 units. The applic~lt was proposing a reduced dedication on Bollinger Road, which depended on the outcome of the General Plan hearings. Staff felt, unless the applicant wanted to take a continuance to redesign, or to accept Rl-6, giving bigger lot sizes reflective of the neighborhood, denial was recom- mended. COM. ADAMS inquired what was to the east. Assaciate Planner Piasecki advised there was a child-care facility. COM. BLAINE thought that it had been established that the area be Rl-7.5, and wondered why this piece was reverting to Rl.-6. piece reverted, would it not set a precedent? was all to If this Associate Planner Piasecki pointed out that the application had been submi- tted at the time the Commission had made the decision on the Rl-7.5 desig- nation. The dedication was going to be quite excessive, and without that requirement Rl-7.5 could perhaps be met, CRR. KOENITZER observed that the average home size proposed was 2300 sq. ft. and he suspected that homes in the area were under 2,000 sq. ft. He felt that homes be'ing larger with lots being at best the same size as the neighborhood presented serious problems. Mr. Whaley of W.G.W. Engineering, representing Mr. and Mrs. Schey, said tha in the past a 10% variance had been given for projects having a unique MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1980 REGULAR PL&~NING COMMISSION MEETING PC-338 Page 7 It was unanimously decided, with Mr. ~fhaley's agreement, to continue for one month. MOTION: Com. Blaine to continue Applications 38-Z-80 and 22-U-80 to the Meeting of September 8th, Com. Adams PASSED COM. CLADDY 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: ITEM #4, Application Il-TM-80 Df DENNIS BARRY; TENTATIVE XAP to subdivide approximately .6 acre into two parcels and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declara- tion. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Stevens Canyond Road and Ricardo Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 18, 1980. Associate Planning Director Cowan explained that the property was involved in prezoning for the entire Inspiration Heights area, and was prezoned RI.lO. Three lots of record were being proposed to be consolidated into two lots. The only issues of Staff related to the need to extend a sewer line to Rancho Deep Cliffe. Associate Planner Piasecki had made it clear in his report that some of the lot lines had to be adjusted to make sure each lot contained 10,000 sq. ft. There was an existing home on the property, and it was felt the setbacks for single family areas could be maintained. The garage on Parcel A was to be moved to provide space for a right of way. CHR. KOENITZER wondered why the right of way was 50 ft. Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that the City had reduced the standar to 50 ft., and this had been done several times. CHR. KOENITZER observed that it would be a significant expense to take the sewer line 400 ft. do,ro the road. COM. BLAINE wondered if there was a sewer line down Stevens Canyon Road. Assistant Planning Director Cowan quoted the Cupertino Sanitary District, tha there was no sanitary sewer facility on Stevens Canyon or Ricardo Roads, but there was at the eastern terminus of Ricardo and Miramonte. The owner would be unable to develop until sewer lines were hooked up, as septic tank drain- fields could not be used. CHR. KOENITZER wondered whether the garage on parcel A was to stay, and if it should be so close to the lot line. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said it was to stay somewhere in the ~ront yard, but a variance might be required for it to stay where it was. Assistant City Engineer Whitten felt that unless the garage encroached more than 2 ft. into the right of way it could be tolerated. Bob Champlain, resident across the street from the garage, said that even now, it was a problem for the owner to get out of his driveway without coming down his (Mr. Champlain's) and another house and driveway w~uld certainly be a problem. He would like,to know what building was proposed. The present wate service was old and inadequate. These questions had to be addressed. MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-338 Page 9 He advised that the p~esent proposal did not involve the office component, and was evaluating the residential component and Tentative Map to basically eliminate the previous approval of sites for each unit, making it a common area condominium development. He placed the approved architectural render- ings on the board, to compare with tße latest submittal, and said that Staf felt the latest submittal was an improvement, though the solar requirement might be more difficult to accommodate. However, this could be dealt with at Architectural and Site ·Control level. The paving was asphalt, not textured block, as previously,and the trellis work tied in with the corner office building. The pool had adequate privacy protection and fencing. CRR. KOENITZER commented that the BMR Units did not seem to meet the specifications laid out in the Program, as they were both together, and were significantly smaller than other units. Associate Planner Piasecki observed that it was important that they not be detectable, and it would be ensured that they conformed. Pat Jackson,rep~esenting Far West Savings, said they were pleased to be in the final stages. They had had a few changes, but now everything seemed to have worked out for the best. Will Blessing, the architect on the project, was concerned with the comment in the Staff Report that all previous conditions were applicable. He wanted to be sure they had an opportunity to continue the architectural excellence of the project without being hampered. He hoped Item 5 of the Minute Order would not be continued. Standard condition 12 seemed to have been included in the Staff Report, but he pointed out that this had been removed by Council at the Meeting of May 19, 1980 when the Savings and Loan building had been approved. Re wanted to ensure those two elements were left out of the mandatory conditions. CHR. KOENITZER pointed out that the Use Permit 21-U-80 only addressed the conditions and resolution 1924 approving 4-U-79, so would be the only ones for consideration. Mr. Blessing thought it was written with 14 standard conditions, one of which was a masonry wall between the commercial and residential use, but the Council had demanded a heavy landscaping buffer. Associate Planner Piasecki conceded there was a standard condition for the masonry wall, but that the planned development zone superseded in this particular case. He went on to state that Staff was concerned with the timing of the development, the idea of a two-stage map process, to divide the residential from the commercial and then come back to divide the air space. They were concerned about the possibility of the bank being built and the other half never being built. He wondered whether Far West would be opposed to a condition that the final occupancy of the office would not be issued until construction started on the residential. CRR. KOENITZER agreed with this. There had been problems with developments in the past, and while he did not think Far West was a problem, safety would be assured by adding a' condition 17 to the Use Permit in this respect. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine to close Public Hearings. Com. Johnson PASSED 4-0 MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1980 REGULAR PLk~NING COMMISSION MEETING PC-338 Page 11 COM. BLAINE agreed with Mr. Chartier, that BMRs* should come on the top of the density and thought the standards should be printed up and passed out to the Commission and Council members again. COM. ADAMS wondered if there was any feedback from BMR*agencies in other cities. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said Palo Alto had one, but it was not the same type. The State was looking at Cupertino as a model to evaluate the program. He felt Mr: Chartier was just looking for a fine-tuning of the rules, though~some developers wanted complete and absolute revision. COM. BLAINE did not want to look at revision at this time, until some units had actually been transferred. She questioned Item 6, regarding provis.ion for the City to absorb developers' carrying costs from completion of BMR* units through closing of escrows; what period of time was there on Gardenside, for instance? Assistant Planning Director Cowan said it had been worked out, and ~hat within a reasonable period of time from issuance of building permit, 90 days, be believed, the unit, if not sold, would go back. In some cases the units were sold before construction began, causing a slight burden. COM. BLAINE said it seemed to her that if they were sold, people should be able to move in the day they were finished. Assistant Planning Director Cowan agreed, and said the developers did not want to go through a pile of red tape, when people wanted to get in. The City Council had identified all fees and established some ground rules. P~rk dedication fees had been waived for B~ffi* units. CHR. KOENITZER thought that three months after the units had been occupied would be the right time to review the program. COM. BLAINE requested that a list be drawn up and sent to developers on items to be raised. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHR. KOENITZER reported he had heard of an article in a Contra Costa County Newspaper that Hayward was trying to hire an a~torney from Fresno who had got Caltrans to provide a freeway they had been promising for year He felt this was something to be researched. Assistant City Engineer Whitten recalled that they had had an executed agreement for the construction, and as Caltrans had not honored the agreement they had a case. REPORT OF THE PLk1NING DIRECTOR: Assistant Planing Director Cowan reported that the Goals Committee had had two meetings and a field trip, part of which had involved the Nellis site, which they felt to be too sparse, so that he thought the hillsides would *BP~ - Below Market Rate Housing