Loading...
PC 04-05-83 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone, (408) 252-4505 PC-4l2 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 5, 1983 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Chairperson Adams called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Blaine, Claudy, Koenitzer, Binneweg Chairperson Adams Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Director of Public Works Viskovich Associate Planner Piasecki Deputy City Clerk Villarante City Attorney Kilian PUBLIC HEARING 1. MONTA VISTA DESIGN GUIDELINES, CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN GUIDE- LINES FOR THE MONTA VISTA COMMERCIAL AREA, The Design Guideline are being prepared to complement and refine the policies adopted for this area in the "Stevens Creek Boulevard Plan Line Study", also referred to as the "Monta Vista Specific Plan". These guidelines will concentrate on the following matters". - Architectural Standards - Sign Standards - Height and bulk of buildings - Setbacks - Building materials - Sign size - Locations - Materials, etc. - Landscape Standards - Streetscape Details - Street lights - Paving materials - Benches, etc. The standards and details will be used to "guide" new developmen , redevelopment, sign changes and public improvements in the Monta Vista Commercial area. The area affected by these guide- lines is generally located as follows, PC-412 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 1983 North and south side of Stevens creek Boulevard from Highway 85 to Byrne Avenue and from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Granada Avenue between Orange Avenue and the railroad tracks adjacent to Imperial Avenue. Associate Planner Piasecki made an oral presentation with slides on the Monta Vista Design Guidelines. He stated that the guidelines are trying to create a visually distinctive area in Monta Vista and also explained the use of community block grant monies to the Commission. Commission followed with a page by page discussion of each item in the Monta Vista Design Guidelines booklet. Com. Blaine questioned staff as to whether or not the Commission's preference for two story buildings could be incorporated in the guidelines. Associate Planner Piasecki stated that it could be changed to read that two story construction would be allowed on frontage properties and some three story elements may be incorporated. Com. Blaine stated she would like the word "dark" dropped from page 10 and also would like wording added referring to evergreen trees. Com. Claudy stated that on item 13 IIroofll should be IIrootll and that he would like a larger drip line allowed for trees. Chairperson Adams stated that he would like to see a provision added on page 17 incorporating a box root devise that would make tree roots grow downward. Associate Planner Piasecki stated that page 21 needed an additional statement referring to the joining or agreeing to join an assessment district, or lighting district, maintenance district, as a condition of approval on all use permits or changes on new construction activity. Com. Blaine stated that she would like to see the use of low pressure sodium lights in the area. Associate Planner Piasecki gave a brief overview of the City Council recommendations regarding the Monta Vista Design Guidelines to the Commission. Dave MacLeroy, 21920 Hermosa Avenue, stated that he did not want to see the signs changed and that he would like the same economic cønsideration as his competitors in town. He suggested to Commission that a gentleman from the Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, Barry Coat, be used for consultation on landscaping for the area. He went on to question the section in the guidelines referring to public improvement activitiy and to ask for clarification on objectives under number 4 section 2. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 1983 PC-412 Page 3 Ken Mitchell, Mitchell Bros. Auto Parts, stated that he had been trying to get approval for his sign since November. He went on to state that he concurred with Mr. MacLeroy in the fact that he felt that not allowing internally illuminated signs would cause a hardship for the small businessman in the Manta Vista area. Mr. Mitchell expressed his concern to the Commission that he felt he was being squeezed out and passed over due to long range goals for the area. Helen Loo commented to the Commission regarding sign criteria. She stated that since the Monta Vista businesses existed physically on Stevens Creek boulevard as do others that the sign ordinance should be the same. She went on to state that she had made a survey of var-ious bay area cities and that none of the cities in the area had a restriction on signage materials, specifically internally illuminated signs and/or plastic signs. Chairperson Adams stated that the public should consider taking their concerns regarding signage to the Architechtural and Site Approval Committee. Associate Planner Piasecki stated to Commission that the reason there was concern with the signage at their level is that the public would have to conform to the signage as described in the Monta Vista Design Guidelines. Ann Anger addressed the Commission regarding the background of the Monta Vista area and where it stands today. She stated that she had spent many hours down at the county offices trying to keep what she considered undesirable developments out of Monta Vista and that she would like to see more activity and foot traffic there. She went on to state that it was not the fact that Mr. Mitchell wanted a sign that was disagreeable, but the size of the sign. It was moved by Com. Binneweg, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to close public hearing on the Monta Vista Design Guidelines. Discussion ensued between Commission and staff with regard to the sign ordinance as it now stands. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously to forward a resolution to the City Council regarding recommendations and general acceptance of the Monta Vista Design Guidelines. Associate Planner Piasecki stated that the Monta Vista Design Guidelines would go before the City Council on April 18, 1983. 2. Application l-GPA-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN AMEND- MENT: Continued Public hearing to consider a comprehensive amendment of 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. PC-412 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 1983 MAJOR DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Development fees B. Second units of residential zones Director of Public Works Viskovich made a brief explanation of the amendment and stated that the only variable part of the fee structure was the second tier fees. Com. Binneweg expressed concern with the second tier and the second tier fees. Com. Blaine questioned staff regarding redevelopment and whether certain individuals would be included in the fee structure. Director of Public Works Viskovich stated that depending on the vehicle used to collect the fee, it may require those individuals to pay. City Attorney Kilian explained to Commission the three different vehicles being considered to exact fees from developers for off site improvements, the first being a fee, second a tax and third a development agreement. Discussion ensued between staff and Commission regarding first tier fees. Mr. Charles Newman, stated to the Commission that he felt they were boxing in the public and that they never hear from the business people who are effected by the fees. He questioned Commission on the receipt of a letter from the Chamber to the City Council which stated the Chambers position on the development fees and the two tier structure. Mr. Newman questioned staff as to the use of the net revenue from the development fees. He went on to state that he felt the fee system was detrimental to development, the business community, would increase costs of commercial rental space and discourage the economic system in the community. He also stated that he felt the whole concept of the fee structure was negative and that the Chamber was having an economist, Dr. Roger Mack examine the General Plan material from staff and would share any information as the result. Discussion ensued between staff and Commission regarding previous policy on developments for off site improvements. Com. Blaine questioned staff as to whether the tier one fee replaces the off site improvements conditions in developments. Mr. Newman stated that he had not seen any reference to replacement of current fees with the new fee system in any of the staff reports. Director of Public Works Viskovich stated that in the reports to Commission certain assumptions were made, one being that the fee should generate an equal amount to the road improvement costs and that it is to pay for those costs that normally would have been installed by the developer. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 1983 PC-412 Page 5 Assistant Planning Director Cowan addressed Mr. Newman's remarks concerning the staff reports on revenue in regards to the General Plan stating that in the fiscal impact session of the report staff clearly discussed two types of physical elements, one being the need to balance the capital needs with fees, the one time capital installation costs and then the ongoing maintenance on which they even pointed to a possible evening out. Mr. Newman reiterated earlier input by the Chamber by stating that the Chamber felt it unfair to charge the few properties that are yet to be developed for community wide concerns. Director of Public Works Viskovich explained that the major concept of the fees has not been changed, just the methodolOgy. He went on to state that the City would install improvements through the general fund and in order to reimburse the general fund these taxes would be imposed on new development. Walter Ward, Vallco Park, questioned whether every business owner at Vallco Park who is currently conditioned to make off site road improvements would have the conditions removed if they pay the dollar tax? He went on to state that it was not made evident to him from anything he had read thus far. Director of Public Works Viskovich proceeded to give a detailed explanation of the new development fees. City Attorney Kilian expressed his concern that everyone present understand that fact that the new fees are for city wide improvement rather than for a tenuous benefit between the developer and a particular improvement and that the city will undertake to make these improvements and that the costs will be borne by the tax or fee and does not have to show the specific benefit. Com. Koenitzer suggested to staff that the section on tier one fees be rewritten for clarification. John Volkman, Stevens Creek Office Center, stated that he was very concerned about having some rules established that evening so that developers know what the guidelines are under which they are developing. Mr. Volkman went on to explain his situation in building in Cupertino and the fees being asked of him which he felt were unreasonable. He went on to state that he did not feel anyone understood the numbers involved and that Commission should reconsider any fee on the first tier development. Com. Blaine questioned staff as to why Mr. Volkmans project was considered second tier before adoption of the General Plan. Director of Planning and Development Sisk stated to Commission the question of first tier, second tier and fee paying criteria would be addressed on the City Council level, probably on April 18. PC-4l2 Page 6 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 1983 Allan Bidwell, Manager, J.e. Penney Co., expressed his concern to the Commission regarding the proposed three dollar a square foot construction fees. He stated that he had t~lked with Mr. Frank Zimmerman from the J.C. Penny Co. real estate department and Mr. Zimmerman was not aware of any such new site construction fees for either road improvrnent or off site improvement from any of the 359 stores in 11 western states. Mr. Bidwell went on to state that if J.C. Penney were to build the same building today that they currently have, it would costs them an additional $650,000 to build it and that that amount would wipe out the profits of two successive years of the companys early beginnings in Cupertino. John Vidovich, 1307 S. Mary Avenue, Sunnyvale, stated his concern with the new first and second tier approach with regards to tripends and how they would be treated. He went on to question whether or not he would have to develop the property on second tier fees or first tier, since he had already purchased the original trips from the previous owner. Director of Public Works Viskovich stated that the question of tripends would be dealt with on the City Council meeting of April 18 and recommended that Commission suggest to the City Council to put the 272,000 square feet shown in the General Plan back into the first tier. Director of Planning and Development Sisk stated to Commission that the City Council would have to neal specifically with cases like Mr. Vidovich on a case by case basis. Wally Klingman, Hewlett Packard requested a clarification of his use permit standing,q~estioning 'whether it was tier 1 or tier 2. He went on to state that Hewlett Packard fully supports the city's General Plan and fee schedule. Discussion ensued between staff and Commisison regarding the development fees. Charles Newman expressed his concern that the members of the business community directly effected by the development fees be informed by city staff of the General Plan. Debbie Nobel questioned staff regarding development fees and whether or not they had any effect with the on site/ off site improvements and her residential property. Director of Public Works Viskovich explained that they would not change her fees. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to continue Application l-GPA-80 to the meeting of April 11, 1983. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR: None