Loading...
PC 10-11-82 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertno, CA 95014 Telephone: (40S) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGUlAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 11, 1982 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Chairperson Claudy called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG OATH OF OFFICE The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Commissioners Adams and Claudy. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed with Com. Adams abstaining to nominate Com. Adams as Chairperson. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine with Com. Adams abstaining to close nominations. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed with Com. Adams abstaining to appoint Com. Adams as Planning Commission Chairperson. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koeniter and passed with Com. Binneweg abstaining to nominate Co~ Binneweg Vice Chairperson. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed with Com. Binneweg abstaining to close nominations. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed with Com. Binneweg abstaining to appoint Com. Binneweg as Vice Chair- person. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Binneweg, Blaine, Claudy, Koenitzer, Chair- person Adams Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan City Clerk Cornelius Assistant City Engineer Whitten (left at 9:30 p.m.) Associate Planner Piasecki Assistant to the City Manager Brown (8:00 p.m.; left at 10;35 p.m.) City Attorney Kilian (7:37 p.m.) PC-400 Page 1 Adams ap- pointed chairperson Binneweg appointed vice chair- person MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 11, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The applicant was not present. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed unan- imously to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration for Appli- cation 9-U-82. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unan- imously to deny Application 9-U-82 as the proposed use permit is not compatible with the surrounding architectural forms. The Commission requested staff to inform the applicant that there is a five calendar day period during which they could appeal this decision to the City Council. The City Attorney stated that if the applicant appeals and is present at the City Council hearing, the matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission. 2. Applications 12-Z-82 and ll-U-82 of Community Housing Developers: Rezoning approximately 1.2 acres from CG (General Commercial) and RI-IO (Residential Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to P (Planned Development with residential, 10-20 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and Use Permit to construct 27 residential dwelling units. This proposal requests a density bonus for providing subsidized housing units for handicapped individuals. Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located approximately 150 ft. south of Stevens Creek Boulevard and 280 ft. east of Stelling Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - November 15, 1982. There was discussion regarding hearing these particular applications prior to the November 2 election since there was a measure on the ballot pertaining to this project. A majority of the Commissioners (Commissioners Claudy and Binneweg dissenting) agreed to continue with this hearing as it was advertised. As~istant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the applications with the Commissioners and stated that Condition No. 16 of the resolution per- taining to the use permit would need some rewording. He presented the Commission with a letter in opposition to the application from Mrs. Saroglia and Mr. Grevola. Linda Smith, Director of Community Housing Developers, stated that they had reduced building coverage of the area and increased recreation spac since the original application had been submitted. In addition, there has been a reduction in the number of residents anticipated in the development. Mr. Mike Moyer, architect, 430 Sherman Avenue, Palo Alto, stated that the planned location of the development was an ideal location for passive design. In relationship to Condition 18.b. of the use permit, he informed the Commission that the developer could not use 202 Funds f r off-site improvements. PC-400 Page 3 Public hearing closed Negative Dec. for 9-U-82 9-U-82 recom- mended for denial PÇ--l,QO P 4 MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 11, 1982 PLANNING COl1MISSION MEETING Robert Zier, 398 Boynton, San Jose, di~ector of a program development agency in Campbell, stated that he had worked with staff on the project. He felt the proposed project would fill a dire need in the community. In the state of California there is less than 1% housing available for the disabled; therefore, they have to live in convalescent homes. He stated his opinion that the project was worthy and needed. Mimi Stewart, 294 Scripps Ct., Palo Alto, stated that she had worked for the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department in a part time position since the summer of 1977. Miss Stewart works with handicapped people. Helen Jones, 1030 Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto, with the physically limited program at De Anza College, stated that housing is a major stumbling block at this time for the physically limited. Carlo Grevola felt that the planned location was inappropriate for the handicapped housing and expressed concern regarding the ability of fire trucks to maneuver in the court. Dr. Stewart Sellitti, De Anza College administrator, program for the physically disabled, informed the Commission that the college program serves over 1,800 people. They are currently addressing vocational training and placement within the community, and therefore the housing would fill a need. Carol McDowell, Noel Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposed development. She stated that the Housing Element of the General Plan specifically lists housing for disabled persons as a goal. She urged approval of the zoning and the use permit. Roberta Hollimon, 11155 La Paloma Drive, representing the League of Women Voters, spoke in support of the zoning and use permit. Nina Dillard, Merritt Drive, stated that she had little to do with the handicapped. However, she hoped the Planning Commission listens to those who have the courage to come forward. She felt the housing was necessary and urged approval. Cherly Guimont of the American Association of University Women spoke in suport of Ballot Measure G. A resident of Bianchi Way expressed concern regarding access in case of fire. 10la Hendrickson, on behalf of the Cupertino Senior Coordinating Council, endorsed the project. Com. Claudy inquired regarding Condition No. 17 of the use permit in regard to funding. Ms. Smith stated that Block Grant Funds could be used for the street improvements. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 11, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The City Attorney also mentioned that private funds could be used. Concern was expressed by the Commissioners regarding the sprinklering of the units. Philosophically, the Commissioners agreed that this was an appropriate use of the site. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unan imously to close the public hearing. Discsusion followed regarding the Uniform Building Code requirements of sprinklering for special housing. The Commission was informed that this is usually controlled by the Fire Department, the Fire Marshal and the staff. Mr. Moyer stated the HUD would not fund sprinklers in this particular project, and he would like to work with the City to address the issue. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to recommend granting of a Negative Declaration for Appli- cations 12-2-82 and ll-U-82. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to recommend approval of Application 12-2-82 with findings and subconclusions per the staff report. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unan- imously to approve Application ll-U-82, findings and subconclusions per staff report. with Condition No. 16 amended to read, "The approval is for a 27 unit rental development for physically limited persons of low or moderate income. Any modification of this specific use requires an additional use permit. II Condition No. IS. b., delete last sentence. PC-400 Page 5 Public hearing closed Negative Dec. for 12-2-82 and ll-U-82 12-2-82 recommended for approval ll-U-82 recommended for approval as amended Staff was directed to send a Minute Order to the City Council expressin Sprinklering the Commission's concern regarding the sprinklering of the units. The Commission expressed the desire that the developer, Fire Marshal, Central Fire Protection District representative and staff address this issue. Those present were informed that this matter would be heard by the City Council at their meeting of November 15, 1982. RECESS: 9:30-9:45 p.m. PC-400 P 6 MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 11, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (City Clerk's Note: Assistant City Engineer Whitten left the meeting at 9:30 p.m.) 3. Application 4-V-82 of William and Mary Egan: Variance from Section 8.3.2(a) of Zoning Ordinance No. 991 to permit a side yard setback of 8 ft. for a second story addition to an existing single-family home in lieu of 10 ft. as required by Ordinance and Environmental Review: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located at the northeasterly terminus of Myer Place (10188 Myer Place) approximately 350 ft. north of the intersection with Wheaton Drive in a Rl-7.5 (Residential Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - November 1, 1982. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the request with the Commission and stated that technically it did not meet the state requirements for the issuance of a variance, and therefore staff recommended denial. Mr. William Egan, 10188 Myer Place, stated that he was available should the Commission have any questions. Mr. Eugene Kuczynski, 10178 Myer Place, neighbor of Mr. Egan's on the south, stated that he had no objection to the granting of the variance. PI,1.."'; ic hearing It was moved by Com Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed c_ ed unanimously to close the public hearing. 4-V-82 recom- mended for denial It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine, and passed with Com. Binneweg dissenting to recommend denial of the variance. 4. Application 13-Z-82 of City of Cupertino: Rezoning approximately 850± acres from various City of San Jose zoning districts to comparable City of Cupertino zoning districts as follows Land Use Category From San Zone Zone To Cupertino Zone Dwelling Units Acres Residential Single-family Public/Quasi-Public Transportation Public/Quasi-Public Rl and Rl:B6 Rl and Rl:B6 Rl Rl, Rl:B6 Rl:B3, R3 R2 Rl, R3, R3B R3A, Cl Cl Rl:B6(PD) R3A R3B-PD R3C-PD A 2,786 Rl-6 BA T BQ P(R2) R(R3) CG P(RIC) 632.5 80.0 26.0 17.0 10.0 23.0 2.8 11.4 92 292 Residential Duplex Residential Multi-family (Apartments) Commercial Residential Single-family Cluster Residential Multi-family (Apartments) Parks and Recreation 109 167 P(R3) PR 9.0 3.3 --- 815 3,446 (See rezoning map for specific designation) MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 11, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-400 Page 7 Explanation of Zoning Symbols San Jose Rl Residence District (one family) Rl:B-6 (Residence District (one- family, 6,000 sq. ft. lot area) Rl:B3 Residence District (one family, one (1) acre lot area) R2 Residence District (two family) R3 Residence District (Multiple family, three stories) R3A Residence District (Multiple family, two stories) R3B Residence District (Multiple family, two stories) C-l Commercial District (Neighbor- hood Rl:B-6 PD (Planned Development) R3B PD (Planned Development) R3C PD (Planned Development) Cupertino Rl-6 Residential Single-family (6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) P (RIC) Residential Single-family cluster BA Public Building BQ Quasi-Public Building T Transportation P(R2) P(Planned Development with residential duplex intent) P(R3) P(Planned Development with multiple family residential intent) CG (General Commercial) PR (Park and Recreation) Parcels within the land use categories may be rezoned to the corres- ponding City of Cupertino zoning designation or some other zone as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The area proposed to be re- zoned includes that area detached from the City of San Jose and annexed into the City of Cupertino in July 1979. The area encompasses approxi- mately 3,500 homes and is generally located as follows: First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - November 1, 1982. Sub-Area A North of Bollinger Road East of Blaney Avenue South of Phil Lane and Clifford Drive West of Carver Drive and Tantau Avenue r 400 i ûe 8 Public hearing closed Negative Dec. for 13-Z-82 13-Z-82 recom- mended for approval as amended ~ 5 Cond it ion Public hearing closed Dv....estic water heating policy MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 11, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Sub-Area B North of Rainbow Drive and Prospect Road East of Wilkinson Avenue and Bubb Road South of McClellan Road West of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the proposed zoning changes with the Commission. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unan- imously to close the public hearing It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unan- imously to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration for Applica- tion 13-Z-82. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unan- imously to recommend approval of Application 13-Z-82 with the conditions as amended by staff and with Condition No.5 as follows added to the sections of the resolution pertaining to P (Planned Development with residential multiple family intent) and P (Planned Development with residential single-family cluster intent): 5. All of the approved exhibits and conditions imposed upon develop- ments within the subject zoning category or agreements entered into shall remain in full force and effect except to the extent that they may conflict with codes and ordinances of the City of Cupertino. Any major changes from these previous approvals, as determined by the Director of Community Development shall require approval from the City of Cupertino Planning Commission and/or Ci ty Council. 5. City of Cupertino: Public Hearing to consider retention, modification and deletion of existing solar domestic hot water heating policy relative to residential planned developments within the City. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the staff memo with the Commission. Betty Mann, Chairperson of the Cupertino Energy Commission, introduced Mr. Droege, Energy Commissioner, who reviewed the Commission's position regarding the feasibility of solar hot water heating. Ms. Mann offered the Commission's time to expand on any technical guidelines in the future on any problem before the Planning Commission. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the Energy Commission's position regarding a domestic water heating policy. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 11, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. Application 7-U-81 of Lincoln Properties Company N. C., Inc. - Review of design changes. Mr. Burch Boone, Lincoln Properties, stated that there was some con- fusion regarding the exhibits that had been presented to the Commission and Council in conjunction with the application. He said that the firm had proceeded in good faith. The issues under discussion included the height of the building, the vertical columns of the design and the relationship at the first floor of the structure to Rodrigues Avenue. By consensus (Com. Koenitzer dissenting) the Commission agreed that the variations were minor and acceptable. NEW BUSINESS The Commission requested that the staff draft a statement regarding measuring heights of buildings which would be discussed at the next Commission meeting. At 11:20 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: ATTEST: ~ PC-400 Page 9 Variations in 7-U-Sl