Loading...
PC 10-09-67 CITY OF CGFERT' 0 California MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 1967 8:00 P.M. Held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino I SALUTE TO THE FIAG II ROLL CALL Comm. present: Comm. absent: Bryson, H;"'~"'on. Horgan, ButhE¡nuth Frolich staff present: City Attorney, Sam Anderson Director of Planning, Adde Laurin Director of Public Works, Frank Finney Assistant Planner, Jim Nuzum Recording Secretary, Sylvia Hinrichs Chairman Buthenuth reported that Comm. Frolich was absent due to illness. III MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, September 25, 1967 Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to approve the Minutes of September '25, 1967. Motion carried, 3-0 (Comm. Bryson abstained) IV ANNOUNCEMENT OF POSTPONEMENTS, etc.: 81,004 Postponement of the Hearing on the Light-Industrial Ordinance 220(j) was requested by the Planning Director. He said that for some time the Planning Connnission Agendas have been very long, which has made itimpossiÞle for him to spend time on the additional studies re- quested by the Planning Commission. Besides, it seems not to be a good idea to discuss ordinances around midnight. For these reasons it would be better to wait until a meeting where the agenda might Þe light. The City Attorney advised that this item could be taken off the agenda until further notice. During a meeting when there is more time, it could be brought up under Unfinished Business and then be re-advertised for a subsequent Public Hearing. Minute Order: Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, that hearings on the Light-Industrial Ordinance be postponed until further notice, and that it be re-advertised bef9re resumption of Public Hearings. "~+i.on carried, 4-0 ",r _ -1- PC-21 Minutes of the 10/9/67 Planni.ng CommiB:!: 0'1 Meeting -------------------------------------------------- --------------------- V WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 80,028 A. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: The Planning Director circulated a League of California Cities' Bulletin containing highlights of 1967 legislation affecting cities. He offered to make copies for Commissioners who might have particular interest in it. VI VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS 80,006.3 The Planning Director reported that Wednesday, October 25, has been tentatively set for the joint meeting between the County and the Cupertino Planning Commissions. Comm. Bryson and Chrm. Buthenuth advised they would not be able to attend on that date, but suggested that one Thursday in November (except for Tl.anksgiving Day) would be more suitable for all. The Planning Director would bring this suggestion to the County Planning Commission and report to the Cupertino Commissioners. 80,000.3 The date for the joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission was suggested by the Council for Monday, October 30th, the 5th Monday of the month, with no regular Council or Planning Commission meeting scheduled for that night. This joint meeting is for the purpose of discussing planning pOlicies and a possible revision of the General Plan. It was agreed by the Commission this was a suitable date, and recommended the time of 7:30 P.M. be set as the starting time. VII PUBLIC HEARINGS: 16-z-67 A. JOSEPH BROWN, et al: REZONING approx. 15 acres from Single- family Residential (RI-IO) and High-density Multiple Residential (R3-2.2) to Light Industrial (ML), and REZONING approx. 4 acres from High-density Multiple Residential (R3-2.2) to General Commercial (CG). Located west side of N. Saratoga-Sunnyva¡e Rd., approx. 2600 feet north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. First Hearing continued. Dr. Brown was not present; however, he had not asked for a post. ponement. Minute Order: The Commission unanimously decided to postpone the hearing of this application until the next regular meeting. 22-U-67 B. STONES ON DEVELOPMENT CORP. and L. BURT AVERY: USE PERMIT to construct a Multiple Unit Complex in a Planned Development (p) zone, North side of Stevens Creek Blvd., East of Mary Ave. and West of City of Cupertino park site. First hearing continued. The developer, Mr. L. Burt Avery of Mountain View, stated that he has attempted to re-define the questions asked by the City staff and to -2- answer them and reach some delineatio¡1 of pro'blems. He alYPreciated the fact that several Commissioners had taken the time to inspect other similar properties of the applicant, and to note the off- street improvements and maintenance in these complexes. Mr. Avery reviewed his report of' the last meeting, and added that there would be 1120 parking spaces provided, of which 67'<: would be covered. This is 2~ spaces Wr unit, whereas the City only requires two spaces per dwelling unit ; . the extra spaces will be more than adequate for guest parking. They wo¡¡1d like to oontinue the planning with the same 9' x 20' stalls as they have proposed in the plan. They have found that 9' stalls rather than 10' as required by the City have proven adequate. In their experience no city in the area (other than Santa Clara, which does not enforce the requirement) has required 10' stalls. The reduction adds to the landscaped area.. He displayed a scale model of a parking area with 9' stalls, showing that different types of cars, from Volkswagon to Ce.di11ac, would have no problem getting in and out of these stalls, particularly as more than half the number of apartment dwellers have compact cars. This conforms to the dimensions as agreed with the Planning Department, of 18' paved parking plus 5' utility easement, plus a 24' roadway. A continuous 8" curb would flow throughout the traffic pattern in the parking area. Including two 5' utility reserves, the main drivewlI¥lI . (the applicant still considers these as "private driveways") would constitute a 34' wide public service easement. There would be a painted center line put in the middle of the main driveways. There should be some compromise with aesthetics in regard to traffic signs, and they would request not to be required to paint curbs red. Comm. Horgan brought to the applicant's attention Item 3 of the Planning Director's memo; it seems that the appliçant is 2' apart in their proposed figures. The applicant replied that the 18' of the parking bay would include 2' of unpaved overhang.- A discussion followed, somewhat at cross-purposes. Clarification would be pro" vided by a drawing with cross-sections. The applicant then went on to explain that they would meet the City street lighting standards with 8' steel poles which will be aestheti" cally pleasing and will fit into the private residential standard that they are attempting to promote. The Director of Public Works pointed out that there is a definite luminaire density for no~ residential areas. Comm. Horgan added that the Planning Director has stipulated certain requirements; must the applicant conform to lighting standards here? The Director of Public Works replied that if we are considering this as a private street, as the applicant wishes, there can be no requirements. Comm. Hirshon stated that if ) / Footnotes: * Planning Director's note: An additional 1/4 space is provided by curb parking in public streets as an average. _ Planning Director's note: This statement actually differs by 2' from the statement in the previl!)us paragraph. -3- PC-2l Minutes of the 10/9/67 Planning Commission Meetin~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- we are adopting the conditions the Planning Department requires, City standards must be met. The Director of Public Works recom- mended that we adopt the Planning Director's criteria here, that the two loop streets and the major walkways shall be lighted to at least the same intensity as City streets; the type and location of electroliers subject to approval by the Architectural and Site Control Committee. Mr. Avery pointed out that P. G. & E. recommends a 170 watt lamp on electroliers on a 24' pole, but he would like to have something aesthetically pleasing, such as the 14-18" ball-type fixtures which are installed at Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco. Placed more frequently they would provide the proper amount of light and the degree of intensity of lighting which the Director of Public Works recommends. The applicant continued with his report, in answer to the Planning Director's memo of October 6, 1967. They will post four signs of normal type, specifYing a 15 mph speed limit; they would install bumps (or dips) on the pavement to discourage speeding; they would paint curbs red or place signs, to prohibit parking on the roadW8¥. Mr. Avery felt that the City should establish an Ordinance to pro- hibit cars parking on driveways. He quoted a section from the Motor Vehicle Code pertaining to parking, which stated that private owners are allowed to tow away cars if they are parked in private driveW8¥s; however, he would prefer the City Police to enforce this rule,' Mr. P>very said they would adopt City standards for !'oadways and in- stall 2" of AC on top of 4" or 6" base. Traffic in the complex will not include heavy trucks, with the exception of moving vans. There are two entrances/exits, providing adequate circulation. This should not be compared to a public roadway. The applicant will con- tinue to be responsible for these roadways. The curbs and gutters will be of concrete but the developer would design these sections. The major walkways will be 5' width, and make walking on the drive- ways unnecessary. The main crosswalks will be painted, and'bumps will be installed near crosswalks. Minimum width of walkways will be 4'. The applicant said he will prepare a schematic of the utilities system. With regard to fire hydrants, they will review with the Central Fire Protection District as to their criteria for size of equipment. Re- garding care of trees, they plan to supply, maintain and prune many of the existing trees and keep them in good condition; they will see that there is proper clearance from limbs over the driveways. They would be pleased to install a fence on Mary Avenue, as recommended by the Planning Department, if they could keep the open garden type of environment - perhaps a split rail or ranch type fence. Mr. Avery noted that the City is concerned that the property might be subdivided eventually. He stated that as the developer he has no intention to qubdivide, but plans to keep it under one ownership. He suggested that perhaps the City Attorney could prepare some type of documenta.tion ensuring that the property would not be split. Mr. Avery said he would be pleased to answer any questions from the Commissioners on this development. -4- PC-2l j_.f-~-:~. ,.. ." . 2sion Meeting - I ------------- ---- ------ -~,----_.. ----------------------------------- The Commission reviewed the Planning Director's memo of October 6, 1967, listing conditions to the Development Plan which the Commission might want to consider. These points were brought out one by one, and dis- cussion followed. Chairman Buthenuth asked Mr. Gunn of P. G. & E. for his o'PJ.nJ.on re- garding the intensity of lighting in the complex. Mr. Gunn said he felt it would taJre an expert in this field to determine what is required in the way of traffic lighting standards, and said their lighting engineer would be happy to cooperate with the staff and Nr. Avery to work out a lighting system for the complex, to meet the City requirements. The Planning Director then stated that writing conditions to a Planned Development zoning is about the same procedure as writing an entire ordinance, and suggested the only way to progress is to check the con- ditions in the same manner as we do with the ordinances. He proposed that the Planning Commission end this hearing by a Minute Order in- structing the applicant to submit revised plans, and instructing the staff to rewrite conditions in Resolution form. He suggested that the Commission first discuss the basic concept to determine if the Com- mission would go along with the concept of private streets, since this has been a controversial matter. Comm. Horgan said he is not against private streets if the Development Plan is accepted, and based on what the applicant now proposes. Chrm. Buthenuth pointed out that we have private driveways or streets here in the Town Center; also we have an Industrial Park (Vallco Park) that has private streets. The Planning Director pointed out that the private streets in this project will carry more traffic than an average 60' residential street, but did not consider this a reason against the proposed system. Comm. Bryson commented that this development is all contained in one lot, and does not connect with any other street; there should be no traffic other than the residents and their guests. Comm. Hirshon said he was not against private streets, but they must uphold certain standards for the safety of residents in that area. The Director of Public Works stated he is opposed to the concept of private streets of this magnitude because he feels that people will treat them as public streets. To all intents and purposes they are public streets; there is no other way of getting to and from for delivery of commodities. Can we protect ourselves against the eventu- ality that within a year or two the developer will announce that he is sorry but he cannot keep up the streets, and asks the City to accept dedication of them. Also, on the subject of Mary Avenue, the City Attorney at one time stated that if street dedication is neces- sary we would have a subdivision concept. A subdivision type of treatment would be advisable so easements can be legally defined in order to locate the utilities. Good engineering practices should be inCDrpo rate:! in order to conform to City standards, including street light standards. All requirements of City Ordinances will have to be fulfilled. Will it be required to file a Tentative Map in order to secure dedication for widening of Mary Avenue? -5- PC-21 Minutes of thE .LO, bl ,:~-"ünlnf, ~;}m'\I:::' b' .'t'?eLing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The City Attorney said that rather than take a position tonight as to what is necessary to be done, all of these problems--of parking, traffic, and fire and police protection will have to be resolved. A Tentative Map must be filed. Mary Avenue must be improved as a City street and Ordinances must be met. The Director of Public Works added that that which is private is not public and when it is private it is none of the City's business. If we were to assume this, would the the developer put in its own electrical plant and furnish its own gas and make its own deal with the telephone company and their own garbage? The City Attorney then pointed out that whenever you use the word lIprivate" you are relinquishing municipal control of the property. The developer must meet City requirements~ The Planning Director asked the City Attorney if the fact that this is a Planned Development zoning requiring a Use Permit, would this give the City more control? The City Attorney answered that by way of the Use Permit the Planning Department has more control as to standards, but wonders what a Court will do about enforcing con- ditions on private property. Comm. Hirshon and Comm. Horgan agreed that none of these problems are insurmountable and can be resolved. Comm. Bryson said he would like to see the engineering report. Chrm. Luthenuth said it appears that the consensus of the Planning Commission is that this be treated as a private street, and suggested the Commission approve the Planning Director's suggested 12 conditions by Minute Order. Comm. Hirshon said he was not opposed to the concept of private streets as long as the City standards are met. The applicant should show revised plans and the Commission should have visual studies before he would agree. Comm. Horgan felt the applicant should submit a revised development plan. The Planning Director recommended that the Commission first review his seven-point list of items for rev1s1ng and correcting the de- velopment plan. The Commission agreed. 1. The applicant agreed to revise his plan to provide about 2 1/2 car spaces per dwelling unit, including guest parking. 2. The Planning Director said that Cupertino maintains higher standards for parking--lO x 20'- than many other cities. The reason may be that Cupertino has revised its parking ordinance fairly recently- only 3 1/2 years ago. In the case of other cities, cars may have grown faster than ordinances. With less than 10' width for parking stalls, doors will bump into adjacent cars when opened. If the Planning Commission feels width could be reduced, this must be expressly stated in the conditions. City standards require 29' aisles, but 25' would be sufficient in residential areas, provided that the stalls are 10' wide; turning can then begin before the car is entirely out of the stall. PC-2l MiYlutes c.. t.he 10/9/0'7 Planning Sc:r.rflissllJ!, .,jeeting ----------------------------.--......-------. .. .---- ----------------------------- Comm. Bryson and Comm. Hirshon said they were not opposed to 9' stalls, but were opposed to 29' aisles. The Director of Public Works pointed out that cars may block bott traffic lanes backing out of the carport; 25' aisles would be adequate if we kept the 20' (18' + 2' overhang) stated in the Planning Director's conditions. Chairman Buthenuth asked if the applicant was opposed to 18' rather than 16' as shown in the Plan. Again, a discussion somewhat at cross purposes followed: the problems of parking bays along the private streets was mixed up with the problem of aisles between carports or interior parking. 3. Approved. 4. No controversy 5. No controversy 6. This diagram might be replaced by a condition that a Tentative Map showing public utilities be required, in- dicating easements and making a continuous strip 34' long dedicated for public services. A Record of Survey wouJ,.d not suffice, as Mary Avenue will be a public street and dedication will be required. 7. To be checked. The Commission then continued to discuss the 12 conditions tentativel1 suggested by the Planning Director. 1. The applicant agrees with these conditions; however, he is concerned with the wording. The Director of Public Works explained that such conditions are stlUldard policy in other developments the City has had; the adequacy of ex- ceptions must be proven by a Civil Enø;ineer. Chail'lllal1 Buthenuth pointed out that the storm drains will empty into our City system. The Director of Public Works said that Mr. Avery has agreed to install drains to City standards, and they will be designed properly. 2. No controversy. 3. To be re-worded. 4. No controversy. 5. Consensus was that it might be useful to have addresses so they could be included in official maps, and in Police and Fire Department location lists. Mr. Avery agreed to confer with the Post Office about stret names, etc. 6. The Planning Director asked the Commissioners if they had an opinion on the 15 mph speed limit. Chrm. Buthenuth feels that placing of the bumps will solve the problem. The City Attorney asked how a speed limit can be enforced, and is the sign necessary there. The Planning Director said the -7- PC-2l Minutes of the 10/9/67 F'a,'o'oing Commiscc", Meeting __________________________u.___________~.___._ --------------------- speed sign would give proper warning for the bumps. Chrm. Buthenuth said he felt the warning sign for the 15 mph speed limit and the bumps should suffice. Mr. Avery commented that the developer is paying their share of taxes and feels the city should police the area on a scheduled basis. It ~as recommended that the City make a survey as to enforcement of no parking in private driveways. 7. No controversy. 8. No controversy. 9. Should be studied further 10. The City Attorney contended that the final map should show lot lines and there should be a provision entered into the final map that there will be no further subdivision of the units unless an Ordinance to that effect be passed by the City Council - further, there should be a notice to the public that this project does not contain subdivision lots. The Director of Public Works questioned if this is consti- tutional; can the City prohibit an owner from subdividing his property? He a.dded that he would like to study this point further. The City Attorney pointed out that the Subdivision Ordinance states that lease or deed restrictions be submitted to the Planning Commission; no amendment without written consent of the City Council can be obtained. Any new owner must submit a copy to the City Council if he wishes +'0 subdivide. He also feels that this condition be made a part of #10; that there be r¡o further subdivision without consent of the City Council. Agreed by the Commission. 11. No controversy. 12. This condition should be studied further. The City Attorney said he would be glad to help the staff with this condition. The following condition was recommended and will be added to the list: 13. Widening of Mary Avenue should conform to widths required of other developments. Chrm. Buthenuth asked Mr. Avery if he had any questions. Mr. Avery asked if this condition should be incorporated in the Tentative Map. The Director of Public Works answered in the affirmative, but said this could be worked out between the staff and the applicant. Mr. Avery then commented that when the Commission indicated there should be no subdivision of this property, he wanted to explain that the project will be divided in two phases. The Commission and staff indicated this would constitute a problem to be pursued. -8- PC-2l :4')_'- "t,os c- . ..~_Î~ :_'" /{~~/{~;-' ?~. ?',~-~:_~.t.-' ~;::¡:';;:·:.~S~.0'·'.' ~eetíng ._----------------------- --------...-.. The Planning Director suggested a Minute Order be passed on the proposed conditions. Minute Order: Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Bryson, instructing the applicant to revise the Development Plan along the suggested lines, or otherwise; and to instruct the City Attorney and the Planning Department to prepar~ conditions in Resolution form, as suggested or amended, AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Bryson, Hirshon, Horgan, Buthenuth None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4.0 VIII UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 12-U-66 A. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: Application for one year extension of Use Permit 12-U-66. Minute Order: Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. ~ryson, that Application l2-U-66 be heard at this time. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT : Comm. Bryson, Hirshon, Horgan, Buthenuth None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4.0 Mr. Keith Huston, Planning representative for Pacific Gas and Electric, from San Francisco, explained that they had been granted a Use Permit by the City one year ago, for the purpose of ex- ceeding height permitted by City Ordinances for a transmission line along Junipero Serra FreewB;Y' to Blaney Avenue, &f\d now aslt for an extension of the Use Permit for another year. If the Planning Commission has no objections they would like to submit drawings for a slightly different structure type. The Director of Public Works commented that this plan is a better looking structure than was originally proposed. Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Bryson, to approve the ex- tension of Application l2-U-66 for one year, and include the revised Exhibit A. Motion carried, 4-0 VII PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued): 16.z-67 A. JOSEPH F. BROWN, et al:REZONING approx. 15 acres from Single- family Residential (Rl-IO) and High-densit;r Multiple Residential (R3-2.2) to Light Industrial (ML), and REZONING approx. 4 acres from High-denisty Multiple Residential (R3-2.2) to General Commercial (CG). Located west side of N.Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd.. approx. 2600 feet north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. First Hearing continued. -9- PC-2l Minutes'" "',,~''':i '2~g ----------------------.---- -- ,--.--------.--------- Dr. Brown had reappeared, but left the meeting perhaps under the impression that he had missed the hearing on his application. Minute Order: Moved by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Horgan for .discussion. The Commission felt they could not keep on po~tponing this application; however, the Commissioners do not wish to deny or grant approval without the appli- cant being present. The Planning Director was instructed to advise the applicant that he must appear at the next regular meeting to present his application. Motion carried, 4-0 13-TM-67 C. EDWARD CALI, et al; TENTATIVE MAP, 35.8 acres located north side of Columbus Avenue, west of Kennedy School. First Hearing continued. Mr. George Ditz of Ditz-Crane, said that at the last Planning Commission meeting the matter of a road pattern going to the Cali property was left unanswered. After study, the applicant still has come up with the same conclusion, and feels that the City of Cupertino should not put in a through street; in that it would not enhance the area and it would not solve the traffic problem. The applicant said he has checked traffic on Highway 280 since then and found there is considerable traffic there but very little compared with. the Stevens Creek Freeway. He felt that any through traffic should tie in with the expressway system; and with the railroad track cutting off east- west connections he does not see how any through traffic would con- cern his development I'orea. One reason would be that if you travel via Foothill Blvd. you cannot reach Junipera Serra Freeway unless you travel a devious route. Also, there is always local traffic which may wander through this area, so why plan a major street from Bubb to Foothill. It seems to him that it would complicate the problem. This area is a local neighborhood, and through traffic should not go through and dead-end at Bubb Rd. The applicant does not feel the traffic pattern has proven the necessity of the through street, and that this particular half mile of road is contributing in any way to a major road p&ttern. The Planning Director pointed out that the County Trafficways Plan indicates an Inter-city arterial connecting Foothill Blvd. with Prospect Avenue through the area of the subdivision. This arterial was not intended to serve long-distance traffic, but mainly traffic generated by the residential areas along Foothill Blvd. and Bubb Rd. It may be estimated that about 40% of this traffic would run north, 40% east and 20% southeast. Only the 2Cf'/, would use this arterial, but even that percentage represents a high volume of traffic. The implementation of this part of the Trafficways Plan was turned down by the Cupertino City Council 2t years ago. The traffic which would have been serve.d by this inter-city arterial will, therefore, have to be carried by local residential streets. This may be quite detri- mental to the homes facing these streets, but perhaps it would im- prove the situation somewhat if traffic volume could be shared by -10- PC-21 ------------------------------..---------..------------------------------------. Minutes of the 10/9/67 PlanriLg Ca.'f.mi,;?;S10n Meeting two parallel streets, and perhaps it might be a better idea to design these streets for a steady 25 mph instead of stop and go at 90-degree corners. It was not intended to once more bring up the original idea to keep through traffic out of residential streets, but because of direct inquiries, the staff has also made some sketches to see what the street and lot pattern would look like if we tried to salvage part of the original idea. Such a pattern is presented as exhibit 3. Of course it is difficult to go back, even partly, to the original plan after de- velopment has taken place. Comm. Horgan said he had talked with Mr. Ditz and the Pll ,lU1ing Director. Mr. Ditz explained to him that a policy has been established in this area at City Council level, and has been finalized. COIIIIII. Horgan added that Mr. Ditz' idea is sound, but he agrees with the staff about trying to provide a separate street for the through traffic and, also, is of the opinion that the County plan was a good. plan. He thinks the con,!, sensus woulCl be that the development would be generating more traffic, and streets such as Columbus, Hyannisport, etc. would then take the brunt of all the traffic. As far as Comm. Horgan is concerned, he is basing his decision on the professionals in the business who have in- dicated what the traffic flow will be. He feels we neeø. a through street there, but he also feels that since the City Council has es- tablished a policy it is a forthcoming conclusion that the local resi- dential streets will have to carry the traffic in this area and he will not oppose that decision. Comm. Hirshon said he ø.oes not feel anything indicates that any through traffic will go this way; he feels it will go over the West Valley freeway. Chrm. Buthenuth noted that many people would use the residential streets; there shoulø. be an alternate route. There followeø. a discussion of present and planned freeway and expressway pattern. The City Attorney cited Bollinger Road as an example; back-up policy would have been needed, but because the jurisdiction was divided between the County and the cities of Cupertino and San Jose, homes face this heavily-travelled road. Chrm. Buthenuth recommended the Commission continue this matter until further study by the staff and the applicant. The Commission agreed. Mr. Ditz added that he is trying to create a package, and a fine, aesthetic residential area at prices people can afford to buy. He feels people will not buy on a through street. He agreed to continue this matter for two weeks to give the staff time for further study, but he would like direction of some kind in order to go ahead with further plans. He asked whether the Planning Commission would suggest he follow the Planning Director's plans. Chrm. Buthenuth replied that they were not agreeing with the Planning Director's plan, nOr ø.isagreeing with Mr. Ditz's plans at this time. Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to continue Application 13-TM-67 to the next meeting. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Bryson, Hirshon, Horgan, Buthenuth None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 -11- PC-2l Minute,' ---------------------------- - .----------------- 14-TM-67 D. ROBERT H. ZIMMP,P & MACKAY & SOMPS: TENTATIVE MAP, approx. 4.3 acres located south end of Regnart. Road. Second Hearing. Mr. Robert Zi.'Illi1er, and Mr. Tom Floyd of MacKay & Somps, appeared before the Commission, and asked to hear the suggestions of the staff on their application. The Planning Director said that no solution in regard to access roads, water supply, fire protection or septic tanks has been offered. Even more important is that a few lot split& like this one (whether built on or not) prevent an economic street system and make development of the area impossible. The presented map does not quàlify as a Tentative Map. The Planning Director recommended that application be denied and that the apPlicant be advised to join with other land owners in the area in a Local Improvement District, or otherwise, to provide a map of a large enough area'to serve as a base for a plan, and then to proceed with municipal improvements. Mr. Zimmer said he realizes that the required plans are a long- range study, and asked for suggestions from the Commission. The Planning director said that once a map has been made, the planning does not take very much time, and offered assistance in that respect. The City Attorney asked if there is an assessment district that could help these people. The Director of Public Works said that one property owner is contacting the other land owners to sign a letter of petition asking the City to initiate a Local Improvement District in order to provide a road to the area, and possibly a sewer; and perhaps to solve some of their water problems and drain- age problems. The City Attorney added that perhaps the staff could assist 'with this to acce"1erate the hearing. The Director of Public l'iorks noted that there were tW) possibilities to éontinue this application; we can hold the Tentative Map in abeyap.ce, or continue the hearings to a future date. The City attorney suggested it be taken off the calendar at the present time, but to keep the appli- cant apprized of the progress of the staff's investigation and studv. He further suggested a continuance of the matter for a period of three months; then the only cost to the applicant for another hearing would be the, publication fee. He added that first, however, an assessment district would have to be formed. Minute Order: Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to continue the hearing on this application to the first meeting of January 1968. Motion carried, 4-0 17-Z-67 E. R. B. WOOLEY, et al: REZONING from Agricultural-Residential Single-family I-acre lots (Al-43) to Residential Single- family 15,000 sq. ft. lot" (Rl-15), 3.75 acres located south end of MC'.'nt Crest Drive. First Hearing. -12- pc-a l~imxtes, the 1.0/9/67 Plexmins; ComITiissìo, ,eeting --------------------- --------- ~__M _._~,._ ~.___________________________ Comm. Bryson excused himself and took his place in the audience. He li ves next door to the applicant, and war ted the opportunity to state his views on the application. The Planning Director referred to the Assistant Planner's memo, ex- plaining that the applicant is asking for a rezoning to 15,000 sq. ft. lots, which would permit splitting of on ;! lot into two. He pointed out that the rezoning itself would be of little consequence; however, we should not consider a rezoning without a Tentative ~p with contours of the area. Otherwise we might have trouble with the driveways. Mr. Wooley pointed out that this rezoning actual: .y affects one lot only, which he feels is large enough to make into two lots. Chairman Buthenuth commented that it is a little late to require a Tent~tive Map. The Assistant Planner pointed out that we do not want to get into another situation where we rezone property that cannot be divided, and there is a problem of one driveway that would probably have to serve three lots, and may have a 2Cf'/o grade. If the Planning Commission is in favor of this rezoning, certain conditions on the slope of the driveway should be set forth, and no conclusive action be taken until it is determined if the grade of the driveways is no more than 15~ - 1 ~. The Director of Public Works agreed with the J;'lanning Director that the applicant must submit a Tentative Map showing the contours of the land. Mr. Bryson said he is the owner of the property abutting Lot 5, and stated that he is agreeable with the rezoning if the applicant connects driveways with Mr. Crest Place; but if he brings them over the private easement he would object. Mrs. Juanita McLaren said she was representing herself and a neighbor, Mr. Haschert. She felt that, concerning the steep terrain, lots should be at least one-half acre size. She questioned whether Mr. Wooley has enough acreage to split Lot 5 unless he uses the private easement in his calculations. Chrm. Buthenuth asked the Assistant Planner why it was necessary to re- zone if the lots cannot be split now. Mr. Nuzum replied that the pro- perty is zoned for one acre and it cannot be split under the provisions of the Variance previously granted. A rezoning to 15,000 sq. ft. mini- mum lot size will allow the applicant to divide this property subject to a Tentative Map. Also, the 20' easement is not included in the final map, and the boundary shows it being on the edge of the right_ of-way. The rezoning must be approved first, and then a Tentative Map must be submitte1. Chrm. Buthenuth questioned whether the awJ.icant could prepare a Tentative Map showing the contours; and Mr. Wooley replied that it would take him about four weeks before he could submit it. Comm. Horgan cautioned the applicant to consider that the Commission may not be agreeable to the rezoning, before he goes to the expense of pre- paring a Tentative Map. The City Attorney pointed out that the ~ppl.i- cant has the right to submit a Tentative Map and be heard, and noted' that if there is an encroachment permit necessary to a City street, -l3- PC-2l M.in1J'+::et~ .,-!¥\g ------------------------ --- ---------------- the applicant must apply for one. Chrm. Buthenuth and Comm. Hirshon agreed they would like to see the driveway grade indicated on thp. Map. The Assistant Planner said that since the main issue is to- pography, perhaps a map showing the location of the driveway might solve the problem without the Tentative Map. The Director of Public Works said the easement at the east border of the property heads due due south and does not curve; it goes up a 17'/0 grade and it is a driveway of sorts, with concrete on it, that at present has been planted with shrubs; the City has no control over this easement. Moved by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Horgan, to continue this application to November 13th, to give the applicant time to prepare a Tentative Map. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT : ABSTAINED: Comm. Hirshon, Horgan, Buthenuth None Comm. Frolich Comm. Bryson Motion carried, 3-0 VIII UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 12-U-66 A. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: Application for one year extension of Use Permit 12-U-66. See Page 9 of these Minutes for action on this Application. IX NEW BUSINESS There was none. X ADJOURNMENT : Moved by Comm. Bryson, seconded by Comm. Horgan, to adjourn the meeting at 12 midnight. Motion carried, 4-0 APPROVED: /s/ John W. Buthenuth Chairman ATTEST': , Director of Planning -14-