Loading...
PC 06-28-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 28, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Harris, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle Staff pre sent: Robet~ Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the June 14, 1999 regular Planning Commission meeting Com. Kwok noted that the first sentence of the second last paragraph on Page 6 should be corrected to read: "Com. Kwok said he was saasfied that the privacy control measures had been MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve the minutes of June 28, 1999 planning Commission meeting as amended Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 WRITrEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 5-ASA~99 Ayub Khan 20655 Cleo Avenue Architectural Review for a 3-trait, approximately 4,500 square foot apartment building on a 9,300 square foot lot. Planning Commission dec~sion final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 1999 Application withdrawn by applicant Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 3-TM-99, 14-EA-99 Judy Chert 7359 Rainbow Drive Tentative Map to subdivide a 14,661 square foot parcel into seven lots for an approved townliouse development. Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 28, 1999 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 1999 Tentative City Council hearing date July 6, 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1999 Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 4-U-99, 7-EA-99 Roman Catholic Bishop/Gate of Heaven Cemetery 22255 Cristo Rey Drive Use Permit to construct anew mansolenm consisting of 942 crypts Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1999 MOTION: Com. C~rr moved to withdraw Application 5-ASA-99 from the calenda~ as requested by applicant; and postpone Items 4 and 5 to the July 26 Planning Commission meeting. SECOND: Com. I-Iarfis VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 18-EA-99 City of Cupertino 21251 Stev~as Cre~k Blvd. Demolition of 6,500 squme foot Senior Center and construction of a 15,920 square foot new Senior Center. Environmental Review only. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Hams moved that the Consent Calendar be approved Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 2-OPA-98, 28-EA-98 Fence Ordinance Amendment City of Cupertino Citywid Report to City Council: Consideration of amendment to General Plan policies 2-33 and 6-17 R~garding discouraging electronic security gates. Consideration of amendment to Chapter 16,28 regarding prohibition of security gates in non-single family residential parcels. Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 28, 1999 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of June ]4, 1999 Tentative City Council hearing date: July 19, 1999 Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the background of the application relative to electronic security gates, as outlined in the attached staff report. She illustrated various locations where security gates existed throughout the community. She noted that the previous Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to prohibit electronic security gates in all but multi-family units of 25 units or more. Staff had expressed concern about the lack of clarity on what would happen to other uses R-i, R-2 and hillside, and also concern on the part oftbe general counsel's office that findings had not been made regarding prohibition and other uses. Staff's recommendation and the City Council's direction was to allow security gates at multi-family residences through an exception process, and further discussion at the Planning Commission level relating to the other uses. Ms. Wordeil briefly reviewed the previous proposals, and stated that sufff was recommending Option 5, which is similar to the original staff proposal, except that R1, K2 and RHS with street fxontage are exempted from the fence exception requirement. She said that for 2 to 5 lots with a COimaOU driveway or multiple families, a fence exception would be needed, which is the criterion that staff is recommending be ~tttled in order to make a finding for the other uses. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. A lengthy discussion ensued wherein various options were considered including, but not limited to, prohibition of electronic gates in all residential developments, except individual single family residential (R-l) parcels, unless certain criteria are met through a fence exception; prohibiting electronic gates on all residential properties unless a fence exception is granted; allowing electronic gates in multi-family residential units of 25 units or more through an exception process. Safety issues and community character issues relmln4 to the use of security gates were also discussed. It was noted that the fire depaxtment did not feel impeded by the use of security gates, provided there was an access code available for emergencies. It was also pointed out that some people feel that security gates create a false sense of security, yet some feel more secure because of them. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, commented on private citizens'rights on the limitation or prohibition of security gates unless there is a reason and an exemption is granted. She said that originally Policy 2-33 was intended for neighborhood entrances and 6-17 was for private residences, and said it is not the goal to create an ordinance that will change the intent of the General Plan or Oeneral Plan amendment that will change the intent unless there are specific findings, which are not evident. She said mat it would have to be determined if it applied to existing gates, and if not, either atl.apt~ the ordinance or move the fence ordinance out of Chapter 16 into the zoning rifle where it would then be a legal non-conforming use for existing gates. Ms. Murray said that the four exceptions for multiple family units in the General Plan amendment are obvious and should be exclusions or exemptions, and if the sit, afion exists, the electronic gate should be permitted. She then discussed the safety issues and perception that the security gates provide security. She pointed out that if manually operated gates are allowed, a strong finding would be needed for not allowing electronic gates. Chair Doyle $111]ll,fll]iiz~ tha~ the issue was if they should restrict the ability for people to have gated homes, residences, developments, within the comm~mity; including multi unit communities, individual homes and hillsides? Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 28, 1999 Com. Hams said that she supported allowing gates in the hillside, RHS, because of the safety issue. She noted that they were bigger lots and did not pose as much risk to the adjacent properties, whereas in a single family neighborhood, the fire deparmaem might have difficulty with access. She said she felt the single family residence should have a permit, with specifics about Com. Corr said he felt they should not try to regulate R-1 as it was already present; the multi-units could have security gates; and felt the hillside situation might warrant security gates, however, he was not certain if the requirement should be that they request an exception, or it be stated that it was allowed without an exception process. Com. Kwok said that he concurred about the hillside exception because it was an isolated area far from the community and ff a security gate offered a sense of security, they should not have to apply for an exception. He said that relative to multiple family units exceeding 25 units, a gated community provides a setlse of security. He said that security gates in single fardily R-1 tend to isolate that portion of the community and may create a negative inference of ¢ommtlllity identity; and should be granted an exception only in rare cases. Com. Stevens said that he agreed that single family RHS, end R-2 should remain as is, with no exception needed, but with the tendency to discourage it. He said that some already exist, and if there is opposition from neighbors, it is handled on an individual basis. He said the definition of neighborhood entries on Page 6~19 was appropriate; he was in favor of the 25 units; and felt the four requirements listed were appropriate. Chair Doyle said that it was a difficult situation, as part of the General Plan, security gates are discouraged in the community. He said he felt the only place for the exception process was on the hillside, as a safety issue to restrict entxy onto the property if the entry of the property was not visible from the residence. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the appropriate General Plan language. Com. Hams reiterated that it was not the intention to cordon off new developments, whether individual homes or attached homes, and that security gates should be discouraged. She said that the langa~ge discouraging gates should be put back in the policy, except for the multi-units that meet the criteri~ She questioned how to handle the present non-conforming ones. Ms. Murray clarified that the fence ordinance, which is now in building and construction title, could be moved into the zoning title, which would allow the non-conforming use section to apply to all the existing gates; otherwise, a non~conforming use section for the fence ordinance would have to be written. Chair Doyle snmmarized that as it is being crafred, it would not refer specifically to any type of zoning to restrict the ability to erect a fence or common gate on the propurty, except where they are ~'ying to take individual properties and gate them off in a common botmdary. He expressed conctrm about defining special populations. He smnmafized that there was consensus that the single family would be non-resttictive, but discourage multi-family being restricted with some criteria for an exception process; specific language about not creating gated off areas in the community and re-doing Policy 6-17 so that it puts back language discouraging for other than the multi-family that the City Council dealt with. Relative to the four criterion listed, Ms. Murray reiterated that they should not have to go thxough the onerous exception process, and that gates be permitted in those situations, with no findings or exceptions. Plmming Commission Minutes 5 June 28, 1999 Com. Hams suggested that the three statements listed on Page 3 of the staff report relative to possible findings be inchded in the General Plan. She said if there is going to be an exception process, staff and general counsel should decide what are appropriate exceptions and how to do it ministerially. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to continue Application Ordinance Amendment to July 12, 1999 Com. Hams Passed 5-0-0 2-GPA-98, 28-EA-98, Fence 7. Discussion of Planning Commission smnmer schedule. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to cancel the second meeting in August. Com. Kw. ok Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Hams briefly discussed the Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group luncheon on July 15 to discuss s~ategies in addressing the hous'mg ~isis in Santa Clara County. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: There was a brief discussion about the newsrack ordinance, wherein Com. Hams expressed concern about input received fxom the newspaper publishers. Mr. Cowan clarified that the comments were received al~er the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. He pointed out that the publishers were invited to attend the Planning Commission meetings and provide input, but some did not respond until afler the meetings. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on July 12, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, Eliza[~gth Ellis Recording Secretary Approved as presented: July 12, 1999