Loading...
PC 07-26-82 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 26, 1982 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Chairperson Claudy called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL ¡ Adams, Binneweg, Blaine, Koenitzer, Chairperson i Claudy Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk City Clerk Cornelius Associate Planner Piasecki Assistant Planning Director Cowan City Attorney Kilian APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A letter was received from the firm of Davis, Young and Mendelson re- questing more flexibility in the condominium conversion ordinance of Cupertino. Letter from Cupertino Sanitary District pertaining to dispute regarding capacity. Also received was a computer printout pertaining to housing affordabil- ity analysis. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application 3-V-82 of Donald F. & Connie S. Dooley: Variance from Sections 20.24.060 and 20.08.220(D.6) of the San Jose Zoning Ordinance to permit a rear setback of 18 ft. for the main building and 10 ft. for a deck in lieu of the 27 ft. main building and 15 ft. deck setback required 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 Bubb Road approximately 150 ft. north of Columbus Avenue (1056 Bubb Road). First hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 16, 1982. r I' PC-391 t Page 1 ¡; " j Ii ¡ t I PC-391 F 2 3-v-82 continued MINUTES OF THE JULY 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed unanimously to continue this application to be heard after agenda Item No. 2 as the applicants were not present. 2. Application I-GPA-80 of City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment to consider a compehensive amendment of the City of Cupertino General Plan and a Specific Plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Area. The General Plan Amendment 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. First Hearing continued. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the General Plan process as well as revisions and additions to earlier drafts of the General Plan Amendment. Chairperson Claudy requested any public input. Alf Modine, 10385 Prune Tree Lane, stated that if the Commission wanted citizens' input, the information should be available to the public. He asked if any changes to the General Plan reflected the recommendations of the Citizens Goals Committee. The Assistant Planning Director stated that each section of the GPA does mention recommendations of the Citizens Goals Committee. Mr. Modine stated that when the General Plan Amendment is published the Goals Committee will find out how many of their recommendations are actually adopted. fi Sam Young, representative of Davis, Young and Mendelson, addressed J the Commission regarding condominium conversion. He stated that since Cupertino's ordinance had been enacted it has been discovered that some positive things can result from condominium conversion. He felt that condo conversion can provide ownership 20-25% below the median cost of other condominiums in a community. He stated that I many tenants do buy and others who buy are renters in the immediate area, therefore, vacating neighboring apartments for those not wishing ! to buy. He showed slides of one condominium conversion which showed ~ improvements that had been done when the condos had been converted. He felt that such conversion benefited owners living there. Seniors i who do not buy are offered lifetime leases with guaranteed ceilings ñ on rent increase amounts. Hefelt that the vacancy factor of the ij City's ordinance ignores turnover. He felt that valid concerns were ÿ choice in living quarters and range of prices. He requested a change ~ in the General Plan to allow the acceptance of applications for condo- mlnlum conversion and review of those applications, placing the burden of proof on the developer. He felt that each conversion should be I I examined as an individual case. He requested that the Commission make a decision this evening if possible. ¡PC-391 ¡page 3 I MINUTES OF THE JULY 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. William Wright, renter, spoke in favor of the condominium conversio as presented. He stated he would not buy, but as a senior woulq get a guaranteed lease. Ruby Dandy stated that she was employed in Menlo Park and rented in Cupertino. She could not afford a home but would like to own a resi- dence again. Therefore, she was in favor of the conversion as she would be able to buy and was in need of only a small place. Ray Freud, Village Green complex, stated that he was originally skep- tical. He had visited other conversions that the company had done and found them to be good jobs. He wants to stay in Cupertino and felt this was a good opportunity to own a home. He requested that the Commission listen to the request of Mr. Young and set high standards for any conversion. Rich Sharrod stated that the Commission did have legitimate concerns regarding condo conversion. He requested that they keep an open mind and consider applications individually. He also requested strict standards but did want applications to be filed. Ron Price, Manager, Village Green, said that many of the renters were skeptical at first. Now, about 90% favor conversion. He requested that the Commission give the young people to opportunity to buy and experience the pride of ownership. Mrs. Mezel stated she had lived at Village Green for approximately 12 years. She was in favor of the lifetime lease she was offered and requested the Commission help out the seniors. Alice Underhill, Village Green, said that she could not afford to buy but is a senior citizen and requested the Commission help the seniors by allowing them the opportunity to have the lifetime lease. Mr. Young said that he would invite all residents of the complex to any public hearing the Commission might set regarding condo conversion. By consensus, the Commission will leave the General Plan policy re- garding condominium conversions as it is presently stated. Those present were informed they could go to City Council with their request. Condominium conversion policy Mr. John Vidovich addressed the Commission regarding the City's BMR Program. He reviewed the requirements of the program with those in the audience. He gave an example of the cost of a BMR house and how the price reduction of that one unit was spread out over the other nine units. He felt that at this point it was not in the City's benefit to continue the program. Mr. Vidovich was asked how developers could come up with affordable housing. Mr. Vidovich stated that this was not only a countywide but a nationwide problem. With the change in interest rates it takes a developer a certain length of time to respond. Prices are lowered by such things as cutting amenities. PC-391 P 4 MINUTES OF THE JULY 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Vidovich stated that he views the BMR Program as a tax. In response to a question by the Commission, Mr. Vidovich stated that the developer must set prices for a 15% profit when going into a project. His complaint regarding the BMR Program was that it increases his sales prices. RECESS: 9:15-9:30 p.m. Com. Blaine stated that she would be unable to attend an August IS Planning Commission meeting if one were held. It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to discuss the General Plan Amendment until 10:30 p.m., and then continue that particular public hearing to 7:30 p.m., August 2, 1982. II.", Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the staff report dated July 23, 1982. , ~ ¡ I · ! ! · r , i The Commission agreed that the community character of Cupertino is an important consideration, and high rise is really not for this City. They felt that five stories was a reasonable height cutoff, particularly in light of requirements for fire fighting. However, up to eight stories could be possible if the developer provided the firefighting equipment and firefighters. Corporate headquarters could be acceptable but with reservations. Concern was expressed regarding such corporate headquarters and community identification. Any corporate headquarters should open out to the community and encourage foot traffic, possibly by such things as shops, condominiums, and ~ apartments. " , ; ¡ I , I The Commission preferred to keep the job/housing balance presently in Cupertino. Commission expressed support for the building of a hotel in Cupertino. They did not favor the maximum intensity option. The Commission also stated that along Stevens Creek Boulevard, if ¡ the commercial is replaced, small office buildings would be desirable. · It was stated that tàe form of a building is as important to community ! character as height. Concern was expressed regarding the number of night spots in Cupertino. The Commission stated that a restaurant in Town Center could be acceptable. Other comments by Commissioners included: ~ Keep residential profile as it is; Cupertino could serve as a transi- ! tion zone between the suburban bedroom communities and San Jose; î, a large office complex in certain areas could be appropriate; commercial , l and industrial development should share in the cost of amenities as F Vallco is doing; continue use of trip ends; acceptable level of intensity ~would be between the present and the intermediate alternative; future ì development should integrate with existing neighborhoods; suburban ¡ characcer is important, especially on South De Anza Boulevard; no conversion to I residential in Town Center and Vallco. I MINUTES OF THE JULY 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Maurice O'Shea carne to the podium and the Commission that he come back August 2 to provide any input he might requested have. At 10:30 p.m., it was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed unanimously that as 10:30 p.m. had been agreed upon as the closing time for this particular hearing at this meeting, hearing on Application l-GPA-80 would be continued to the meeting of August 2. 1. (Continued from earlier in meeting.) Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the application with the Commissio and explained that Mr. Dooley is still presently under the San Jose zoning regulations. Mr. Don Dooley, citizen, stated that he felt it was a unique situation because although he was a citizen of Cupertino, the property was still under San Jose zoning. Mr. Alf Modine, 10385 Prune Tree Lane, asked if the expected addition to Mr. Dooley's family would allow for the variance to be granted. Discussion followed regarding the fact that Mr. Dooley's application, if he had been zoned under the City of Cupertino ordinances, would not require a variance. It was asked if it were feasible for the City Council to make a ruling that in the reorganization area variances could be granted if they conformed with the Cupertino zoning ordinance. City Attorney Kilian stated that notifications must be sent regarding each variance. He stated that the area should be rezoned and the Commission could direct the Planning Department to initiate the re- zoning of that neighborhood. Therefore, there would be no fee to the homeowners as it would be City initiated. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Corn. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Adams and passed with Com. Binneweg dissenting to recommend denial of the variance as the necessary legal findings could not be made. The applicant was informed that it would go to City Council for their meeting of August 16, 1982. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None At 10:55 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to August 2, 1982. '~ &~.~~ City Clerk APPROVED, i ¡ PC-391 Page 5 I-GPA-80 continued Public hearing closed 3-V-82 recommended for denial