Loading...
PC 04-11-83 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNLA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 11, 1983 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Chairperson Adams called the meeting to order in the Council Chamber at 7:30 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Binneweg, Blaine, Claudy, Koenitzer, Chair- person Adams Staff Present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki Director of Public Works Viskovich Deputy City Clerk Villarante City Attorney Kilian APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 13, 1983 Page 2, item 3, indicate that the dedication applied to both tentative maps. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and passes unan- imously to approve the March 14, 1983 minutes as corrected. Minutes of Regular Adjourned Meeting of March 16, 1983 It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unan- imously to continue the minutes of March 28, 1983 to the next meeting. POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application l-V-83 of Norman Delucchi: Variance from Section 8.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a front yard setback of 15 ft. in lieu of 20 ft. required by Ordinance and Environmental Review: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the west side of Scotland Drive approximately 100 ft. north of Kingsbury Drive (1165 Scotland Drive) in a Rl-6 (Residential Single-family, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - Apri 18, 1983. PC-413 Page 1 PC-413 ['age 2 MINUTES OF THE APRIL 11, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Associate Planner Piasecki gave a staff report presentation with overhead requesting a variance for an addition to an existing single family home. Request is to permit a reduced front yard setback for a portion of a new living room. St~ff recommends approval. Mr. Walter Chapman stated to the Commission that the only realistic place to add on to the property is on the front yard. The encroachment is rather small. He went on to state that they felt they were trying to apply to all three of the requirements of the variance application. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimoulsy to recommend approval of Application I-V-83 subject to the findings in the staff report in that there are extraordinary circumstances that the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights and that the granting will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of other residents, with the conditions as set forth in the letter most explicitly that the garage shall be converted back into a garage as per City Code. Com. Adams stated that the application will go before the City Council on April 18, 1983. 2. Application l-GPA-80 of City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment: Continued Public Hearing to consider a comprehensive amendment to the City of Cupertino General Plan and a Specific Plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Area. The General Plan will concentrate on land use, traffic circulation, housing and economic issues which affect the entire community. The Stevens Creek Boulevard Specific Plan will concentrate on the development of a more detailed land use, circulation and urban design plan for properties which abut the reach of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road on the west and Stern Avenue on the east. A. Development Fees. Discussion of l-GPA-80 will continue after Item #3 is heard. City Attorney Kilian requested that the Commission keep in mind that the construction tax that was proposed represented a general tax and was not earmarked. He went on to, explain the reason for designating the fees as such and expressed his concerns. Discussion ensued between Commission and staff regarding use of assess- ments and terms to be described in agreements. Discussion of Stevens Creek Boulevard followed with regard to traffic. Richard Maddigan, 20370 Town Center Lane, introduced himself to the Commission as the Vice President of the Government Relations Committee for the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce and explained that the Chamber was reviewing the General Plan Amendment process and how they were approaching it. Mr. Maddigan went on to state the Chamber's position as follows, MINUTES OF THE APRIL 11, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-4l3 Page 3 that traffic is a major problem and is ~ndependent of new development, that they felt the City has substantial finacial reserves specifically designated for traffic, that new development can only bear a limited amount financially , that the City should encourage new development for continuing tax revenue, and that the development community is willing to bear a fair share of the costs they will generate. Mr. Maddigan continued by stating the Chamber's concerns, such as potential inequity of developmental potential on existing parcels, having the City share the costs of traffic correctives measures, making sure that assessments are weighted more heavily against high density projects and that assess ments are amortized. John Volckmann, Stevens Creek Office Center, recommended to the Com- mission that those with Tier 2 developments be assessed primarily, that those who build within the existing density should pay less, that citizens should pay for traffic improvements through the general revenue system and that an assessment should be amortized. He went on to state that he felt first tier should pay $.50 a square foot and Tier 2 pay twice that or a dollar a square foot and explained to the com- mission the situation he is facing with his own development. Dr. Stouffer stated to Commission that if her report card at school ever looked like the City traffic plan she might not be alive today. Com. Blaine suggested that the 272,000 sq. ft. in the second tier be reinstated to the first tier and stated that she did not see any reason why the public should pay for off site improvements since they had not paid in the past. Com. Binneweg stated that she did not feel comfortable with the fact that the development funds were undesignated an~ that citizens would not be required to pay. She went on to state that the development fees being considered would penalize all new development. Discussion ensued between staff and Commission regarding fees and col- lection mechanisms. Com. Blaine expressed her concern with having development fees waived 0 BMR units. Director of Public Works Viskovich explained that the City Council had waived certain fees for BMR units and that this one could be included. Commission reached a majority consensus on the $1.00 sq. ft. develop- ment fee for first tier and that BMR units should be waived of fees. Com. Binneweg stated that she felt 50¢ a sq. ft. was reasonable. Commission reached a unanimously consensus on the $80.00 a room hotel fee. Discussion followed between staff and Commission regarding second tier development fees and development agreements with regard to amenities. '013 '~6e 4 MINUTES OF THE APRIL 11, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commission reached a unanimous consensus on the $2.00 a sq. ft. develop- ment fee for second tier. Com. Adams explained that Commission would continue the discussion of the General Plan hearing until after they had reviewed Item 3 on the agenda. 3. Application 9-U-83 of Interland Development Company (Seven Springs Ranch): Use Permit to construct 4l3± residential dwelling units on approximately 107 acres in a P (PLanned Development with res- idential intent) zoning district and Environmental Review: The project was previously assessed, hence, no action is required. The units shall consist of detached houses, semi-detached townhouses and attached townhouses. The subject property is bounded by Rainbow Drive to the north, Stelling Road to the east, Prospect Road to the south and Fremont Older Preserve/Upland Way to the west. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - April 18, 1983. Assistant Planning Director Cowan presented to commission a staff report describing the differences between the use permit plan and the zoning plan which was approved last August and gave a step by step review of the conditions of approval. Discussion ensued between staff and commission regarding the various conditions of the use permit. RECESS: 9:40 p.m. Com. Claudy stated that he felt enough of the issue had been raised on the Seven Springs and that he would like to see some other sketches before passing the subject on the the City Council. Jim Jackson, 10401 Somerset Ct, stated to commission that he would give his remarks as concepts only and explained to commission why there was no current tentative map presented. In his item by item presentation he stated that items 1 through 15 he had no questions or problems, item 16A questioned the limitation on two story units and stated that he preferred to leave it to the design guidelines and that he felt an arbitrary limit of 50% second story dwelleings had no great rational, item l6B he explained that Interland was complying with the Planning Commissions request to have yard type facades facing Rainbow Drive, item 16C Mr. Jackson stated there was no problem complying with any changes put forth, there was concern regarding item 17 as to the commencement of construction and it was suggested that there be a no later than type date added, it'wàs atated by Mr. Jackson that the phasing clause should actually read, phase one 1/5 of four units and non phased hillside units all as part of phase one. Items l8A Mr. Jackson deferred to Mr. Stolle~ adding that they could just eliminate the exit point thats furthest up on Upland Way and consolidate. Mr. Jackson stated there was no problem with l8B, 18C he stated that they agreed with Com. Koenitzer's suggestion that the four ten foot pedestrian MINUTES OF THE APRIL 11, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-4l3 Page 5 walkways be eliminated and replaced with two, twenty foot pedestrian walkways. He stated no problem with l8D, l8E Mr. Jackson stated that the phasing of traffic improvements/road- way improvements be tied into the commencement of phases 2 and 3. Mr. Jackson addressed commission with a concern from his client with regards to the conditions of dedication and landscaping along the railroad track area which is owned by Southern Pacific Railroad. With regards to item 19 Mr. Jackson stated that the city may want to close off Rainbow Drive entirely and suggested that the condition read that the improvement on Rainbow Drive be the standard width and improvement conditions for the typical standard collector. He also stated that he did not agree with the clause which states that the development is contingent upon 51% of the residents affected agreeing to it. Mr. Jackson agreed with the comments from the Assistant Planning Director regarding the water districts, item 20. He stated he would like the clause to neither approve or disapprove and felt that the clause involves a policy which the City Council should set. With regards to item 21, Mr. Jackson stated that in a letter received from the Central Fire District the proposed 40 foot wide fire station was not ade- quate and requested that commission have the Central Fire District state what an adequate site size should be. Item 22, the recrea- tion area, Mr. Jackson stated that he would like the commission to consider letting the furture homeowners decide on the use of the allocated area. He stated there was no problem with item 23, item 24 preference was stated as keeping the lots there and to have the grading plan approved at the stage of H control or staff level. Mr. Jackson stated that there was no objection to item 25 and deferred to Mr. Stoller the architect. Chairperson Adams expressed concerns about the pedestrian walkways to the north of the development. Mr. Stoller, architect, addressed the commission stating that he thought the principal of separating pedestrian and vehicular circulation was preferable and concurred with Com. Blaine's idea of putting opposite the two streets. He went on to state that he also thought the 20 feet for the walkways were enough. Mr. Jackson commented to commission on the various problems he was aware of regarding walkways adjacent to schools and residential areas and concurred with the idea of the 20 foot walkways. Chairperson Adams questioned grading along Rainbow Drive. Mr. Stoller replied that there was no intention of raising the grade for any reason. Discussion ensued between Mr. Stoller and the commission regarding the solar elements being integrated into the development. Mr. Stoller gave a brief explanation to the Commission regarding th situation of the driveways on Upland Way. 'C~413 ?age 6 MINUTES OF THE APRIL 11, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION Discussion ensued between Mr. Stoller and commission regarding the facades of the homes to be facing Rainbow Drive. Com. Koenitzer suggested that the commission delete the last sentence of condition l6B which says the units that do not have direct vehicular access from said street shall have a minimum 10 foot setback between street right of way and residential structure and privacy fence. Discussion ensued between Mr. Stoller, Mr. Jackson, Assistant Planning Director Cowan and commission regarding the structure of the developement lots. Paul Sonnenblick, 11525 Upland Way, requested that the cOlnmission not plan any public hearings for the following week due to school district vacations. Mr. Sonnenblick concurred with the commissions feeling that they did not have all the necessary details for making a decision that night. He went on to state that the City Council had made a very clear cut statement regarding consolidation of the Upland road exit with the driveway and questioned staff as to what efforts had been made to secure the Southern Pacific right of way. Mr. Sonnenblick expressed his concern with condition 16 permitting decision by the Director of Planning and Development without going back to A.S.A.C. or to the Planning Commission and with no input from the public. He went on to state that he would like the new homes facing Upland Way and Rainbow Drive to be zoned the same RL explaining that he felt there was a lack of symmetry between the houses on the west side and the houses on the east side. Mr. Sonnenblick expressed his desire to see a bike way provided on Rainbow Drive so that the children biking to and from Regnart school would have some degree of safety. In closing Mr. Sonnenblick stated that he felt it did not make sense to use Cupertino Water Works when San Jose Water Works is already there and brought the death of John Rakich, a member of the West Cupertino Homeowners Association to the attention of the commission. Chairperson Adams expressed condo lances regarding the death of Mr. Rakich. Ray Shannon, 1157 Yorkshire Drive, President of the Cupertino Homeowners Association questioned commission as to whether the public hearings could be earlier in the evenings. Mr. Shannon expressed his concern with the wording on item 17, the start of phasing, stating that the improvement of Bollinger Road had nothing to do with the improvement of Stelling and that what they really want is something that deals with the issue of getting commute traffic off Stelling. Two suggestions by Mr. Shannon were, additional lanes on DeAnza Bouleveard and the closure of Stelling at Prospect. He went on to question the existence of a road between Stelling and Prospect on one of the maps explaining that there had been previous decision made not to have one. Mr. Shannon also commented on the phasing, fee in lieu of park site and dedication of common land clauses. Barbara Stouffer, M.D., presented some pertinent thoghts to the commision reading from the article "Will Mankind Conquer Pollution or Will Pollution Conquer Mankind" by Mr. Donald Schroeder. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 11, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION PC-413 Page 7 Donald Senuta, 1249 Weymoth Drive, expressed his concern with havi two story houses across the street from his home due to the fact that he has solar panels on his home. Mr. Senuta stated that the circuitous route on Rainbow Drive had always been an integral part of the plan and that making Rainbow Drive a standard neighborhood roadway would continue the speeding. Chairperson Adams questioned Mr. Senuta regarding the maintenance fee that would be required on Rainbow Dr. Mr. Senuta stated to commission that the danger outweighted the costs but that only 8 or 10 people out of the 30 homes affected" had attended the meeting. Discussion ensued between Director of Public Works Viskovich and the commission regarding the traffic situation on Bollinger Road and De Anza Boulevard. Com. Blaine stated that she would like to have conceptual plans that they needed to pass the use permit for planned development, would like to have Director of Public Works Viskovich come back with information on the three additional lanes proposed for DeAnza Boulevard, would like to see no more than 50% two story homes with 20 foot setbacks facing existing homes on Rainbow Drive and Upland Way. Com. Koenitzer stated that all the homes should meet the criteria for the Rl setbacks for front and side yards. Discussion ensued between Assistant Planning Director Cowan and commission as to the criteria of material commission would like to see regarding the type of design for the development. Jim Jackson commented to commission that the intention of the developer was to have a conventional appearing subdivision that would attempt to integrate with the other residential homes. Com. Blaine concurred with the idea for the bike lanes. and felt they should be included. Com. Claudy commented on the end lots on Upland Way stating that the conditions state that the particular amount of lots is not approved at this time and that they should come back with tentative maps and grading charts. Com. Koenitzer commented on the pedestrian access to the north. Discussion ensued between Director of Public Works Viskovich and commission regarding San Jose Water Works as opposed to Cupertino Water Works in the area to be developed. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously to continue Appplication 9-U-83 to the meeting of April 25. pc-413 ?'ò.8e 8 MINUTES OF THE APRIL 11, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION It was moved by Corn. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed with Com. Binneweg dissenting to forward to the City Council a recommendation regarding fees to the effect that the fee structure as outline in the staff report seem appropriate, $1.00 per square foot for the first tier and the second tier in the form of a construction tax probably and that the second tier development agreements be executed for an additional $2.00 over and above and that the 272,000 square feet removed from the first tier for properties currently developed below their theorectical maximum be restored so that those properties can develop up to that limit and to also exempt BMR units. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer to continue discussion of Application I-GPA-80 Cupertino General Plan Amendment to April 25. Com. Koenitzer commented that the City Council minutes were in error on page 9 regarding Application l2-U-83 the Kelley building and that commission had denied said application and that he questioned what information had gone to the City Council. Director of Planning and Development Sisk stated that the minutes were incorrect. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Chairperson Adams reported on the Mayor's luncheon stating that Mayor Gatto talked at length regarding the Queen of Englands visit to Cupertino. " REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: None ADJOURNMENT: 11:50 p.m. ATTESTED: APPROVED: