Loading...
PC 11-08-65 10321 South Saraqe.-Sunnyvale Roe.d Cupertino, Califórtlla,95014 phone: 252-4505 _______~______~~J~~~____~~~___________~___~____~______---~-~---------------.. PC-R19 80, 'JOO.l, CITY or CUPERTINO California MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMM!SS ¡ON NOvember 8, 1965 8:00 P.M. " The meeting was held in the Board ~, Cupertino Elementary School District Office, 10300 Vista Drive, Cupertino I SALUTE TO THE PUG II ROLL CALL: Minutes of the previous meeting, 10/25/65 COIIID. present: Comm. absent: Frolich (until 10:45), Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer None Staff present: City Attorney, Sam Anderson Dir. of Public Worka, Frank Finney City Ensineer, Bob Shook Dir. of Planning. Adde Laurin Assistant Planner, James Nuzum RecordiQS Secretary, Sylvia Hinrichs Vice-Chairman Johnson announced that, due to the pressure of buainess, Chairman Jack Cates finds it necessary to resign as a member of the Plannins Commission, effective this date. Vice-Chairman Johnson expressed the praise of the Commission for Mr. Gates' devotion of his time and effort in the best intere~ta of the City and the ColIIDission, and they regret his leaving. He recommended the staff compose an appropriate letter to Mr. Gates, indicating the appreciation of the Commission for his service to the City, and submit it to the Commissioners for their s1anatures at the next regular meeUQS. Moved by C_. FroliCh, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to nominate Robert Johnson as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the unexpired term vaceted by Mr. Cates. AYES: Co.. 'roUch, Bkahon, Traeumer HAYS: None ABSTAINED: C_. Johnson Motion carried, 3-0 -1- PC-Rig Minutes of the Planning Cou~iusion Meeting, 11/8/65 -----------------------------------------------------------~------------_.._-- Moved by CoUlD. haUch, seconded by ~O\lD1l. Traeumer, that CO\JJIß. Hirshon be nominated to serve as Vic","r::hairman of the Planning Commission, to serve for the balance of the term, replacing Vice-Chairman Johnson. AYES: NAYS: , ABSTAINED: . Comm. None ·Comm. haUch, Johnson, Traeumer Hirshon Motion carried. 3-0 Corrections to Minutes of October 25th 'meeting. were made by Oomm. FroUch, on page 8. second paraaraph: The last sentence l.s the opposite of what he intended, and should tead: ' J'A horboni:'à'r' beam on top of the antenroa, 1£ low enough, would be far less desirable than a hiah rod or tube." Moved by Comm. FroUch, seconded by C01IIID. Hirshon, to approve the Minutes of the October 25th meeting,as corrected. Motion carried, 4-0 III ANNOUNCBMENTS OF POSTPONEMENTS, ETC. There were none. IV watT'rEN COMMUNICAtIONS There wera none. V VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS The Director of Public WorKs brought up a matter relating·'to a request from Mr. Hutson, 10460 Farrallone Drive', Cupertiiio, ·.for permission to build a "patio" on hisprOÌ1erty. The Direi:tbr· ex- plainad thet "we have here asituadon where the present ordinance does not adequately defineperm~~šible encroachments into ih,é required rear yard. ''Mr. Hutson has requested a permit to construct a 'patio' i.n the rear yard of his home at 10460 Farallone Drive, Cupertino. This 'patio' consisted of a poured found'ation covered by afloat, rail- ings, and a roof consisting of an axtension of the existing shingled, peaked roof of his house. The remaining wall area is to be almost entirely screened in or paneled with plywood. "This tract was constructed after the incorporation of Cupertino, but prior to the passage of our zoning ordinances. At that time, the zoning ordinance of Santa Clara County controlled the situation. -2- PC-R19 ___________~_____~------------------------------------~~---7~--------- Mf.nutes of the Planning Commbsion Ueet:l.ng, n/S/65 This ordinance states that: Each lot shall have a.rear yard of a depth equål to not less than twenty. .(20) pelõ.ccent of the depth of the lot to a maximum required depth of twenty-five (25) feet for such rear yard. "Lot 15 measures approximately 75 x 100 feet. 'J;wenty per cent of 75 feet would be 15 feet. The present rear yard is 27 feet in depth leaving an allowable building. extension of 12' feet. The plan submitted requires 15 feet or, in other words, involves an encroac~ment of 3 feet. "Subsequent to the construction on this lot Cupertino initiated its owo. zoning ordinances. Th!' present ordinances state as follows: Twenty feet (20) or twenty (20) per cent of lot depth, whichever is greater, or a rear yard area of not less than twenty timès the width of the lot plus, ten (10) per cent. "Under these conditions seven feet would be available for building purpos~sor an encroachme~t of 8 f.eet would be called for. The above all assumes the proposed structure is attached to the main building. "There is some confusion in the ordinance as to which is the "front" of the lot under a corner lot condition. In this case, it was felt t1:¡at the. house "frontsi, on Farallone Drive since this would be the only condition under which the present house and lot would.be legal. under the side and rear yard requirements of either ordinance. This. is further borne out by the face that the house· carries a Farallone Drive address. "There is no definition in either ordinance as to what is a "patio." By general acceptance, a poured slab has been permitted. "Under certain conditions a raised wooden deck not built on permanent foundations has been construed to be a patio. Sub- sequent to raising. a railing has been permitted for safety around the patio (porch) perimeter. In recent years, light roofs iDade of corrugat4ld fiberglass or aluminum sheeting have been permitted over patio (porch) areas. The question now arises as to whether or not we can now allow an exten- sion of the pres,;t roof over the patio area with subsequent enclosing of the wall areas with a com bination of sheet· plywood and screenioS materials? Is this a "patiQ','o.r the extension of the present bui14ing into the required rear yard? "The applicant states that he has no intend,on .of walling-in this area at a later ·date· to make th~ a parI; of his permanent construction. This could. bowevër,. be .40n~·very:.eaaily with- öut inspection or permit resulting in an addition of sub- standard construction. -3- PC-R19 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, 11/8/65 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It would be my recommendation that this matter be resolved in one of the following ways: 1. A light weight roofing of "shed" construction bi! substituted and a permit issued. 2. The applicant be required to obtain a zone variance for permanent construction, allowing him to use poured founda- tions if he desires. 3. A permit be issued to construct a detached accessory building providing a space is left between the main building and the ·proposed construction. This could be five feet, leaving a breezeway between the two structures; "According to the Santa Clara County Ordinance NS-1200, which serves as a basis for those items not further covered by our ordinances. the Planning Commission has the power to decide "any question involving the interpretation or application of any provision of this Ordinance". " Mr. John S. Gearhardt, 501 Washington Street. Santa Clara. attorney for Mr. Hutson, stated Mr. Hutson did make an application to the Building Department for an addition to his home, and called it a patio; however. Mr. Hutson does intend to put a solid foundation for this addition, to extend the shake roof, and to wall in a portion of the structure. It·would extend 15' toward the rear of the house and 28' along the house. For the present, he does not know whether it will be a patio or a room, but he is confused whether it is his rear yard or side yard. He would comply with any requirements for structural requirements, but in relation to the term "patio," he would like to know the definition of a s ide yard or a rear yard, because although named as a patio in his applica- tion for a permit, it may not result in a patio construction. Chairman Johnson. asked if it. would be a different type of appli- cation if the request were for a patio rather than a building extension - if the applicant wants to add another room on, why is the issue of a patio brought up? The Director of Public Works said if it is a building extension it would require a Variance and a Public Hearing to determine whether the neighbors would protest. Comm. Frolich asked if a patio with a light weight roofing has been permitted previously. The Director of Public Works replied that none has been issued, and this is the first time it has been re- quested. If it were a patio to be constructed or an open struc- ture, a light weight roof attached to the house by a temporary structure can be allowed. Mr. Gearhardt implied that the matter of the definition "patio" can be solved, but the problem is the conflict as to the frontage of the house; .present ordinances. of Cupertino defin. the front lot line as the shorter dimension which is exposed to the street. -4- PC-Ri9 Minllteo ,,£. tho Planu1n¡: ';OJiW1:~aGj,oi' Hcet1.nc;, ) d8/1;5 -_..-------------------------_.._-~_.._---_.._.. ...-----..-.--......--..---------------- ¡ü-. Hutson's lot fac1,ng Faralloue Drive Ü 100' «r.d ~he ),o·¡'. f"d.ng Pacifica i~ 75 '; therefore, although the fl'OI1l eI1t>:aace is 0n Farallone Drive, the frontage according to dimensions is on Pacifica. Consequently, he is proposing to build an addJ,t:;.cn, and feel~ he is not obligated to comply with the rulas for a setback of 20', so if a patio could be ~onstrued to be a permanent structure, it would not be bound by the setback rules. There followed considerable discussion about the definition of a back yard and the dimensions required by the R-l Ordinance. Chairman Johnson commented that perhaps this s~ction can be wis- interpreted, and recommended the staff review the Ordinance and cla.ify it where necessary. In his opinion, this structure would be an addition to the house. Comm. Rirsbon abstained from any comments, since his office is representing the applicant. The Director of Public Works felt that a structure similar to this should be designated either as a permanent part of the dwell- ing or a patio. Comm. Frolich pOinted out that it appears that no decision is expected from the Planning Commission on this matter. VI HEARINGS SCHEDULED: 81,004 A. CITY PLANNER: ORDINANCE 220(g) regulating heights of buildings and constructions. Second Rearing. The Planning Director recommended to the Chairman that this Ordinance be treated in two separate sections - one for buildings and silDilar constructions and the other for taciio antennae, masts and towers. Relations between this Ordinance and Ordinance 002(x) for Planned Industrial Park zones and Planned Office zones have been clarified, in cooperation with Mr. Waiter Ward. The proposed Ordinance has two duplex zones, R2-i allowing only one story, in order to blend with Rl zone, R2 allowing apartment-like two-story duple]:es in separate areas. A decision has to be made for height of accessory buildings; minutes of previous study sessions sometimes show IS', sometimes 16 I . COIDIII. Traeumer asked about the definition of a "story." In a tri- level home, two stories are above the main floor, and this Ordi- nance would preclude such a building. The Ordinance should be clarified in Section 69.3 to allow tri-level homes. -5- PC-R19 .-----------------------------------------------------..---------------- Minutes of the Plsnning Commission MeP-ting, 11/8/65 The City Attorney remarked that the existing Ordinance allows up to 25', wbich would be two stories. Comm. Hirshon sug- gested this be accepted as the definition of a "story." Comm. Traeumer suggested that the following words in Section 69.3 be deleted ~ "provided the lowest story is not used for residential purposes," and define "stories" by 25' maximum from lower or average ground level. The Planning Director said tbe staff will work out the difficulties together with Comm. Traeumer. Chairman Johnson asked for comments from tbe audience. There were none. Radio Towers: The Planning Director explained that an attempt has been made to compromise between the desires of amateur radio operators and those who are not interested in this hobby and do not want tbeir view blocked by towers, etc. TV antennae and similar devices which are commonly used should not need a Use Permit or a building license. Slimmer radio masts might be allowed through the simple pro- cedure of a building license. Large constructions which could mar the neighbors' view should be subject to Use Permit. The Planning Director informed the Commission that the staff had met with a group of amateur radio operators prior to this evening's meeting. Different opinions were expressed, and the staff agreed to compromise by substituting different wording, which will be explained, paragraph by paragrapb. 68.1 The bone of contention here is not the height, but the width. It was proposed that a 12- cross-section should be allowed. It should also be added that bori- zontal appurtenances of customary design should be allowed. To tbe question as to whetber there would be any hori- zontal limitation, the Director of· Public Works answered that the staff would check this further. 68.3 Because TV antennae come in sections of 10', limitations to 20' or 30' would cause difficulties. A change to 24' and 34', respectively, would .allow the usual appurten- ances. 68.4 "... in tbe rear half area of the lot. ..8' to any property boundary" should be changed to: ". .at least 15' to the rear of the front building set-back line, and should not be closer than 6'· to any property line." The idea would be not to have masts on the front slope of tbe roof. The Director of Public Works asked if a mast could be mounted in the front yard. There are a lot of antennae ·mounted on garage roofs at present. and what about guy wires 1 -6- PC-R19 .----.-..---------_..----------------------------~---------------------- Minutes ot the Planning Commission Meeting, 11/8/65 Chairman Johnson asked if it wo~ld be advisable to restrict towers to side yards. The Director of Public Works replied that this would need a building permit. Chairman Johnson added that back yards of adjoining property owners should be protected from unsightly looking and high towers, and sug- gested it would be better to list TV antennae and radio towers under two separate sections. Comm. Frolich and Dir. of Public Works agreed that it would be difficult to estab- lish the difference between them. 68.5 Comm. Frolich questioned "provided that the written consent of the owner of such property is attached to the application for a build.ing permit," and pointed out that, if the property changed hands, a property owner cannot bind the future pro- perty owners, and a release should be ar·ranged. The City Attorney answered that it could be made binding, and it could create an easement in the property of the buyer; however, the document is only a business license and not a covenant. A sentence could be inserted in this Section, stating that "providing no deed restrictions prohibit the installation of an antenna." If the deed restriction specifically states that there should not be an antenna, it·would not constitute a breach of contract. Chairman Johnson recapped the proceedings of the first Hearing and asked for comments from the audience. A property owner, of 11124 La Paloma Drive, stated that his home does have underground utilities, and wondered if there would be provision for this included in the Ordinance. Chairman Johnson replied that no section has been included, but felt it would be appropriate to include restrictions for those properties which have underground utilities. Mr. Jacobs, of 11076 Linda Vista, asked if any section in the Ordinance specified distance from high-power lines. Also, re- ferring to Section 68.3, if a mast is 29' high a building permit would not be required to install this; but what would prevent him or someone else from obtaining a permit for 29' but having a rod up to 70' in height. In addition, if all guy wires are required to be in the rear yard, it must be clarified where they should be installed. Mr. Don Comant, 22433 Ba1ustro1 Court, said he had one objec- tion to the Ordinance: Section 68.1 proposing to limit the cross section of the lattice work tower over 30' high. He felt this section should be amended to allow a 12- cross- section. Mr. Grattan Hogin, 11067 Linda Vista Drive, expressed concern regarding Section 68.1 about maintaining aesthetic values to be equitable with radio towers and hoped that amateur radio operators would cooperate. -7- PC-R19 ------------------.-----------------------------------------------.------ Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, 11/8/65 . Mr. Jacobs stated it has been mentioned that towers cost $1200 to $1500, but he has been.told.thec,;st was. $300 to $400. Mr. R. Fitzgerald, 10420 East Estates Drive,· explained that the self-supporting antennae cost from $120Q to $1500, but the other types would be $300 to $40~. . Chairman. johnson asked about the availability of a normal 12" cJ;'oss-section antenna. Mr. Conant replied that a heavy-duty self-.supporting antenna would be from 15" to 26" at the 30' level. Comm. Frolich recommended this Ordinance be continuéd for one more Public Hearing. The problem will not be J;'e~olved for areas with underground utilities; some word~rig.~ór protection of this type of area should be included. in· the OrdiÎlance. Also, some consideration should be given to hill are,as - ·50 to 70' height could damage the view, and high mastsare!,ot as important in the hill areas as in the valley. . Chairman Johnsón agreed that the hill areas should be considered, aqd.the views protected. Comm. Hirshon felt that more thought should be given to the pro- motion of the retractable towers, and suggested the staff investi- gate this point. . The Planning Director pointed out that a very high tower would require a Use Permit, and the Planning Commission could be more lenient in cases of retractable towers. . . Chairman Johnson and Comm. Frolich , as well as Mr. Baldy, asked if retraction of masts could be enforced. Chairman Johnson said that enforcement would be difficult. .The Director of Public Works replied that the radio operator would undoubtedly keep the tower cranked down when not in use because it would be expensive to keep it up continuously. A question was brought up whether the Planning Commission has given any thought to placing an antenna in the attic.· Corom. Hirshon added that another consideration should be in relation to high-power lines. The City Attorney replied that .the City can seek conjunctive ·relief in the courts if the Use Permit is granted but violated _ there is a revocation procedure and the violator will be held responsible. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the FCC normally regulated the hours when it· would be necessary to crank the towers up or down. Chairman Johnson summarized the Hearings to this point, recom- mending they be continued at the next regular meeting, and instructed the staff to bring more information about: 1) competitive costs of towers 50 to 70', 2) requirements in underground utilities areas, 3) restrictions in power-line areas, and 4) retractable antennae. . Moved by Corom. Hirshon, seconded by Corom, Traeumer, to continue the Hearing at the next regulàr meeting. Motion carried, 4-0 -8- PC-R19 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, 11/8/65· ____________~-------------------------~-.------~__~--------_··_----______0.. '. ,... . . The Planning· Director said there have been many différent points of view discussed, and these will be nQ!:ed in the Minutes. In additiç>n, the staff will prepare a memn for the Commission.· CODIII. Frolich would like to have included a section about antennae located .in the front of the building to be re-located. Mr. E. M. Quinn, of Imperial Avenue, Monta Vista, said he would suggest that antennae not be allowed over 20' above the highest point of the ro~f. 81,004 19-Z-6S l6-U-6S B. DR. LEE T. LACEY: Rezoning from R-3-H to C-l-H, at Highway 85, 170' north of Bollinger; also Use Permit for a Vetérinary Clinic F i1:8 t Hear ins . The Planning Director stated tbat.he and the City Attorney had pre- pared an ~rgency Ordinance No. 002(b-l), Regulating Location of . Veterinary Offices, Clinics; and Hospitals, which he submitted to the Commission. He recommended this Ordinance be discussed first, since it concerned the application scheduled next on the Hearings. The City Attorney explained that NS-1200 (County Ordinance) and Ordinance No. 002(b) are Urgency Ordinances, and this Amendment to the. ordinances is in a f01"lll that has the same dignity as the NS-1200 Ordinance and should be considered. The Thompson trial and court decision maintained· that a Veterinarian Office can be located in a C-l -Hzone. and this Emergency Ordinance was composed to clarify definitions. If the proposed Ordinance were accepted, Veterinarian Offices would be allowed in a C-l-H zone, Clinics only with a Use Permit, and Hospitals not allowed. In Light Industrial zones, all three categories would be allowed. . Comm. Traeumer asked whether the fact Dr. Thompson was allowed his Veterinarian Office in the C-l zone was because the Ordinance was not clear in defining uses allowed. The City Attorney explained that when the original application was requested it was for an Animal Clinic in a C-l-H zone, which was denied. He then applied for a business license on the grounds that he was a Veterinarian and wished to open an office for the practice of Veterinary Medicine. The courts granted Dr. Thompson the case, subject to restrictions by the Council. The City Attorney feels the Planning Commission ehould definitely have Use Permit control for Veterinarian Offices and Clinics, be- cause. it i.s d.1fficult to distinguish between an Office and a Clinic. If there is a different use for medicinal use as opposed to an office" ·and a hospital where patients are kept over night, it must be cleàrly distinguished, and specified as to.use. Thi~ should be conditioned under a Use Permit. Comm. Traeumer felt the PO-H zone should allow only the Veterinarian Offices and the Clinics or Hospitals be located in Light Industrial zones only. They should be clearly defined in the Ordinance. Comm. Frolich asked if this Ordinance could be enacted in some different form. -9- PC-R19 -----------------------------------------------------------------------. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, 11/8/65 The City Attorney pointed out that the issue before us tonight is Dr. Lacey's application. The Ordinance was brought to the Commission tonight because Dr. Lacey's application requests a Use Permit for an animal clinic in a C-l-H zone. Chairman Johnson said he did not see any objection to allowing the Clinic in a C-l-H zone with a Use Permit. Moved by Comm. Traeumer that Ordinance 002(b-l) be recommended for approval by the City Council, with certain provisions changed to read as follows: 8.1 CG (General Commercial) Zone IC-l-H/: Veterinarian Offices are allowed. Veterinarian Clinics or Hospitals are not a Howed . 8.4 OA (Administrative and Professional Office) Zone IpO-H/: Veterinarian Offices are allowed. Veterinarian Clinics or Hospitals are ~ allowed. 8.5 OP (Planned Office) Zone IPA-PH/: Veterinarian Offices may be allowed through a Use Permit procedure. Veterin- arian Clinics or Hospitals are not allowed. 8.6 P (Planned Development) Zone IpC-H/: Veterinarian Offices Clinics or Hospitals may be allowed through a Use Permit procedure; Veterinarian Offices in areas designated for CG, ML, MP, OA or OP uses, Veterinarian Clinics or Hospitals in areas designated for ML or MP uses. 9.1 A Use Permit for a Veterinarian Office in an MP, OP or P zone, or for a Veterinarian Clinic or Hospital in an MP or P zone, may be granted by the Planning Commission, according to the procedures set forth in Ordinance No. 002(a). Motion seconded by Comm. Frolich AYES: NAYS: Comm. Frolich, Traeumer Corom. Hirshon, Johnson Motion failed of passage, 2-2 Chairman Johnson and Camm. Hirshon wanted it noted that they voted "NO" because they felt Veterinarian Clinics and Hospitals should be allowed in a C-l zone. Corom. Frolich said he also wanted to comment on C-l zoning for this use. He felt that no apparent effort is made to keep C-l use from some undeveloped R-l areas, and Veterinarian Clinics and Hospitals make a world of difference to the neighborhood. -10- FC-R19 Minutes of the Planning CournilJaiou ~¡(\r,;tb.g, HIBIG'" .. _0. __.0 __ _rO.'.' _.~ ____ ...._ __... _ __ __._...~._ __ _.,... _ ___... _.. ~..... ___ _, ......... .....0.......' . _.... . ". __.... ,,' __ Chairman Johnson ansWYn"I'Id Comm. FroUcn thet if C··l it; allo,,·ed next to an R-I, and Use Permit for a Vete.inerian Clinic appli- cation was submitted in a C-l ?one, thp Plannir~ Commissio~ could reject it automatir.ally, since the Planning Gommission does have control over Use Permits in a C-l zone. . Comm. Traeumer said he would Hke to add a "Poodle Clipping Parlor" section to the Otdinaace, and expand his motiOI\·to incluc:le"this. Chairman Johnson said, as far as the Planning CommiDsiQn is con- cerned, we should recommend to the City Counèil what shOuld 1>e allowedqin a C-l zone. we must come up with good standards if C-l is to allow Veterinarian Clinics and Hospitals by Use Permit procedures. Comm. Frolich feels that allowed uses should be made a point of law rathe~ than leaving the deciaion to a group of people to con- trolby a Use Permit. The City Attorney said the County Ordinance defines 'lSeS .in C-l, of which Veterinarian Clinics is not one. . . The Planning Director pointed out that an Ordinance for this is needed now, and suggested that both ·versions should be submitted to tha City Council. Movad by Comm. Frolich, saconded by Coam. Hirshon, that the Planninß Coamission recommend this Ordinance to the City Council for adoption with the information that certain amendments were voted on and the vote was split 2-2, and so failed of passage. Contents of these amendments shall be presented to the City Council with the nota- tion of the 22 vote. Motion carried, 4-0 Mr. J8m8sJackson, representing the applicant, Dr. Lacey, asked if the rezoning application could be disèussed now. This parcel will complete the entire block as C-l-H use. It is presently zoned R-3-H, and the application is being presenteå on the basis that C-l-H is a logical type of zoning for this parcel. Chairman Johnson asked if this was a part of the Town Center. It is \1Ót, he was informed. "..,... .' The Pl~nning: Director said the R-3-H zoning was a poor use for this area, since it:is on main Highway 85, and feels C-l-H would be more appropriate. .. Coam. Traeumer relJll!.rked that a development plan should be submitted before new z!>n1ng.·1s granted. The City Attorney seid that t:J limit zoning where only>adevelopment plan is presented is not advisable. . ~ . '. ;, '. -11- PC-R19 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, 11/8/65 17-U-65 The Director of Planning said he appreciated Comm. Traeumer'a suggestion, but it would necessitate rewriting the Ordinance. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Corom. Frolich, to close the Public Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 Chairman Johnson recommended that application 16-U-65 for a Use Permit for the Veterinarian Clinic be discussed after questions brought up in the proposed Ordinance have been resolved. Chairman Johnson called for a 5-minute break at 10:00 P.M. C. PACIFICA PARTNERSHIP: USE PERMIT for a Medical-Dental Building at Pacifica Avenue. First Hearing. The Assistant Planner explained that this application was a renewal of a Use Permit which previously had been granted, but ".:, had been delayed for numerous reasons and had expired. It was being presented tonight, with revised plot plans. The Planning Director added, that a Use Permit in a PC-H zone should normally not be granted for a single lot or a small area, but in this case it would be advisable, as it is a renewal. Dr. Araldi, one of the applicants, presented a set of sketches showing plot plan, elevations, and vicinity map, and de- scribed the type of buildings to be constructed. The Assistant Planner pointed out this was one of three par- cels of a PO-H complex, the other two belongin8 to John Rodriguez and the Valley Title Company. These owners had been contacted, and advised of this application. Valley Title Company has not commented, but Mr. Rodriguez stated he objected to the type of building proposed, and indicated there were deed restrictions involved which required archi- tectural approval. Mr. Rodriguez said he would make a written statement to this effect, and present it to the Commission; however, no letter had been received prior to this meeting. The Assistant Planner continued and said the set-back lines are approximately the same as in the original application, and the staff could see no objections to the proposed application. Comm. Traeumer asked about ground coverage, the size of the building to be construct~d, and whether it complied with the Ordinances. Dr. Maleko, one of the applicants, replied that there would be 25% ground coverage and the building would be approximately 5500 sq. ft., for the first phase. -12- PC-R19 -..... ...- .-, ---- --........ -------.., ...-........ ..-- ...-...... --... ...-..--- ---... "" --- -... -... -- - .... ~ ." ,-, ....... -.'... .... '-'. Mtnutes '01 ,he Planr.h1g COlDillißsior: lIeet:i.ng, ,,1/8/62 21-V-65 COOlD. TLac-;;umer po:t1.1ted ont that i:h~ 1.2nJsc&pL!g r..rl)Sa:t:'l:;\~ t,~ h~ minimal. The applicar:;: indicated 01: ::he pInt plan ct.""· th·",· courtyards .muld i,e lanc1.scaped, ",n1 they h!!d included suff!.·· cient landscaping in accord,mce with th<.: Orcltnanceso Comm. Traeumer inquired about exits and parking spac&s, and whether they conformed to the Or¿inances. Dr. Araldi explained there would be a 24' turn-around space, an1more than the required amol.mt of spaces for parking 0 It was pointed out that the circulation pattern seemed psrticulariy weak, and ~hat the 24' space is not enough to make a turn. It vIas suggested that 4 of the parking spaces be eliminated for " greater turn-around area. MOved by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Traeumer, to close the Public Hearings. Motion carried, 3-0 (Comm. Frolich had been excused and left the meeting at 10:45) Moved by Comm. Hirshon, that application I7-U-65 be approved. Comm. Traeumer seconded the motion, but pro¡>osed' an amendment that particular reference be made to landscaping design bèfore the plan is presented to the Architectural and Sit& Committee, and recommendation be made to the City Council that aèequate space be provided for a turn-around and a comp)ete circulation pattern when the application is considered. The City Attorney added that Mr. Rodriguez should be advised to file .the Deed Restrictions with the. Planning Commission; however, the Deed Restrictions are a private covenant between the parties concerned. AYES: NAYS: ABSENI': Comm. Rirshon, Traeumer. Johnson None Comm. Frolich (excus3d at 10:45 P.M.) Motion carried. 3-0 D. DIVERSIFIED PROPERTIES: VARIANCE to increase h&ight of Shopping Center ,Me sign to 25', at 10115;'10165 North Blaney Avenue. First !leering. Mr. Spier, of 3275 Stevens Creek Blvd., San Jose, represented the applicant. He explained that the new ~hopping cent.er is on Blaney Avenue, but s\!'t back from Stevens Creek Blvd. The 25' sign is necessary in order for the e ign to be seen by traffic from Stevens Creek Blvd. The owners had been inforIDed that the old sheck adjacent to the Nite Kap Restaurant on Stevens Creek Blvd. would be condemned, but it has not, and they understand it will remain for some t1.1119. It is present I}· uoed for storing and distribution of a daily newspaper. -13- PC-R19 Minutes of the .:lanning Comm:l,ssion Mecti,ng, 11/...,65 ---------------------------.------------------------------------------ This building obstructs the view of their. 8hopping cent.er from Stevens Creek Blvd. traffic, and a taller sign is necessary. The Assistant Planner said the applicant has a vis:l.biHty prob- lem, and agrees that the shack does block off the store fronts and a view of the shopping center. Moved by Camm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to close the Public Hearings. Motion carried, 3-0 MÞved by Comm. Traeumer that application 21-V-65 be denied for the reason he does not feel hardship is involved here. The motion died for lack of a second. Comm. Hirshon moved that application 21-V-65 be approved, in light of the fact that only a 5' variance is being requésted, and hard- ship is involved, since the old shack obstructs the view of the Shopping Center. Seconded by Chairman Johnson. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson Comm. Traeumer Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 2-1 Chairman Johnson wanted to add a comment to his "Aye" vote, to the effect if the shack is presenting a problem, and it is in a run-down condition; he would recommend the City Council take action to remove it., so a sign variance would not be necessary. 81,004 E. CITY COUNCIL: Ordinance No. 321, Providing Reguhtion for Home Occupations. First Public Hearing. This Ordinance was referred back from the City Council, which felt this item should be treated as a regular Ordinance, with Public Hearings. The Planning Director explained that he would suggest omitting Real Estate Offices from the list of Excluded Occupations. He pointed out that there were two different types of Real Estate Offices. In one type, most of the transactions are conducted over the telephone, deal with larger developments, and would not create a traffic problem. The second type is one which deals with only a single lot, usually with a building on it, which would create a traffic problem at the office. The latter type depends on a sign, however, and the paragraph prohibiting signs in residential areas would automatically exclude this type. Chairman ~Qhnson asked for comments from the audience. -14- !'C-R19 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minutes of the Planniñg Commission Meeting, 11/8/65 Mr. E.M. Quinn, Imperial.Ayenue, Monta Vista, ssid he is a licenaed plumber" whoperrorms service work on home calls and wo·rks from his !jome. When necessary, he does hire one man to assist him, and an advertising sign would be important to his business. He would lIke to locáte in Cupert ino, since there is no plumber in busin.ess in t.he City, and asked how his home occupation would fit into the Ordinance. Mr. Warner Wilson, 10237 Creston Drive, said he appreciates this Ordinance was contrived in haste, and he feels there are several home occupations which are not liated in Section 4, and which should be prohibited,. and there are some which are included and should be omitted, such as beauty shops and real estate offices. Mr. R. E. Howard, 20396 Clifton Way, agreed with Mr. Wilson, and added that this Ordinance was taking away individual rights. He said there were many semi-retired people who conducted occupations in their homes, and these home occupa- tions are not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. A real estate office would not create much traffic, and where will the City stop in excluding certain home occupations. He asked if insurance agents, accountants and others who transact business in their homes would also be excluded. Chairman Johnson assured Mr. Howard and the audience that this CODDDission does not want to take away any rights given by the Founding Fathers, but are attempting to protect the rights of neighbors, with no intention of depriving anyone of his basic rights. Chairman Johnson suggested a need for better definition of floor space in Section 5 (a). Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to close the First Public Hearing. Motion carried, 3-0 Chairman Johnson instructed the staff to study this Ordinance and make the necessary revisions. It will be continued at the next regular meeting. VII UNFINISHED BUSINESS VIII 81,005 There was none. NEW BUSINESS COUNTY PLANNING D&PT.: Rezoning to C-2 at southwest corner of McClellan Road and Stelling Road. -15- PC-R19 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, 11/8/65 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comm. Traeumer brought up the subject of the rezoning to C-2 at McClellan Road and Stelling Road, in the County, and pointed out that the Santa Clara County Planning Commission had voted on it at their November 3rd meeting' - tied, 3-3. He suggested a Minute Order be sent to the City Council suggesting that the Council join in the Planning Commission's protest. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Traeumer, Johnson None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Traeumer added that a copy of the Minute Order be mailed to Foothill College also. IX ADJOURNMENT Unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 P.M. APPROVED: /s/ Robert Johnson Chairman ATTEST: OdeLe.. ~,W\A'/V\. Director of Planning -16-