Loading...
PC 06-09-75CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 103OO Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telephoned 252-4505 MINUTES OF -THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 9, 19752 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER; CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG 4 Chairman Gatto called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. with the. Salute to the flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Adams, Cooper- (8a44), O'Keef e, Woodward, Chairman Gatto Comma absent: None Staff present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Engineer Whitten APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Comm. O'Keefe, seconded by Comm. Woodward to approve the Minutes of May 19, 1975, as recorded. Motion carried, 3-0-1 Comm. Adams abstained Moved by Comm. O'Keefe, seconded by Comm. Adams to approve.the Minutes of May 29, 1975, as recorded. Motion. carried, 3-0-1 Comm. Woodward abstained PC-193 Page 1 May 19th MinuteE approved May 29th Minutes approved POSTPONEMENTS Upon recommendation of the staff, it was moved by Comm'. Woodward, 10-V--74 seconded by Comm, O'Keefe to continue application 10-V-74 to continued to June 23, 1975> June 23rd Motion carried, 4-0 r PC-193 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider an ordinance regulating building design, building location and landscaping in all zones as a means to ensure visual and acoustical privacy. First Hearing continued. The Assistant Planning Director stated that the staff had contacted occupants of apartments and single family residences in an effort to more clearly define the scope of this problem. He referred to a map of the city indicating the developed and developable residential properties. There was the consensus that in the case of single-family zones, the home owner can protect himself from potential privacy intrusion through the means of landscaping, fencing, etc. The Planning Commission and City Council can address this privacy matter in the hillsides at a later date. The City will have, on a case -to -case basis, control over the planned development zones. There are very few areas in the City of Cupertino that would utilize a privacy ordinance; therefore, the staff recommended instead a set of performance standards to accomplish this end. This would alert the developer of the basic aims of the City. The June 6, 1975, staff report was introduced. Chairman Gatto asked how this would affect existing apartment complexes. The Assistant City Attorney said existing ones can come under non -con- forming uses. The standards can apply in the cases of adding onto an existing structure. The Assistant Planning Director said the intent of the performance standards would be to make the developer aware that the City is concerned about privacy. The Planning Director answered Comm. O'Keefe that the way the Fence Ordinance -is written, the H-Control has the ability to vary fence heights and setbacks in PD zones. Comm. O'Keefe observed that we have a dilemma here because we do not want to wall in our city with very high fences, yet we do want to allow persons to have their privacy. Chairman Gatto asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Comm. Adams concurred with the staff's suggestion of adding the design performance standards to the multi -family ordinance, and further that the privacy -type limitations should not affect single family dwellings. r.. r U MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm. OiKeefe agreed with the staffs summation: "It is recommend- ed that a privacy ordinance not be created per se but rather.that. the duplex and apartment zoning districts be amended to include privacy.related performance standards. The standards will fore warn potential apartment.developers of the City's position in regard to privacy and allow the project architect to develop specific privacy problem solutions on a case by case basis," - Comm. Cooper.was answered by the Assistant. Planning Director that, at the present time, the City does not have the ability to insure livability for the individual apartment occupants. We have in our City some apartment complexes where the peopledrive to garages in the rear and the entire rear yard is asphalt. Comm. Woodward introduced the.dis'cussion of some leverage at the building permit stage for controlling 2-story homes in single family neighborhoods. Chairman Gatto said he has not seen enough evidence that the staffs recommendation is required tiered He is not sure there is a problem to be solved. Every home has the potential ,of the owner adding a second story. Comm. O'Keefe agreed thatthere probably isn't`that.much need for this control, but he believes it is.a good idea to have it on the books,to alert the developers to this concern of privacy. Com-_n. Cooper felt that, from the developers' ,point of view,,.this subject needs to be.addressed whether or not there is. a.problem. She foresees more of a privacy protection -problem in ,the case of development of vacant lots in established neighborhoods. PC-193 Page 3 Mr, Robert Merrick, Vista Knoll Drive, Cupertino, said 'he,has a single.family home with multiple,lots..on,Alpine Drive above him.' He said they now have balconies overlooking private swimming pools as a result. A request has been made that the balconies be enclosed to at least provide some privacy. lie said he would like to put in a tennis court on one of the multiple lots, thereby eliminating a privacy problem.affectin.g about 5 lots, He purchas d the lot behind him some 3-4. years ago to protect his privacy. He believes the proposed ordinance should include enclosure of balconies of multiples overlooking single-family dwellings. Mr. Rasmussen, Vista Knoll,Drive, Cupertino, said he lives adjacent to the Merrick property. If the tennis court were put in it would be directly behind his lot. He reviewed details of the'Appleberry applicationof a year ago. He would like to.see the problem balanced'out now. Until all the apartment houses are built there will be a hassle with each one As the older homes are resold the problem will resolve itself. He would rather have. . a tennis court at the rear of his property than a.30' high apart: ment house. If the apartments do go in, he would be in favor of having the privacy restriction. IPC-193 Page 4 Privacy Ord. explored in R3 & R2 zones Rl privacy MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moved by Comm. O'Keefe, seconded by Conn. Woodward to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 MINUTE ORDER: Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. O'Keefe to direct the staff to provide the City Council with a summation of the Planning Commission's findings that there should be a review of existing ordinances and vacant land suitable for development of multi -family dwelling units where it is felt the greatest potential for privacy intrusion exists. Further, the Planning Commission recommends that the R3 and R2 Zoning Ordinances be amended to include performance standards that ensure privacy for living units within and e<:ternal to each multi -family development. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, O'Keefe, Woodward, Chairman Gatto NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 Comm. O'Keefe noted that downstream, the Planning Commission will address the issue of existing dwellings. Comm. Woodward said he is concerned with multi -story homes as well as multi -family dwellings. fie did not believe it would be a widespread problem, but the potential is there for a homeowner to add a second story and balcony on his home that will affect perhaps 5 other homes. MINUTE ORDER: Moved by Comm. O'Keefe, seconded by Comm. Cooper, that the Planning Commission finds that there is a potential privacy intrusion problem in situations where two-story single-family residential dwellings adjoin single -story single-family dwellings. It is therefore recommended that hearings be initiated to consier an amendment to the Rl Zoning Ordinance to include measures to insure privacy. AYES: Comm. Cooper, O'Keefe, Woodward NOES: Comm. Adams, Chairman Gatto Motion carried, 3-2 2. Application 10-V-74 of HOWARD E. MALLETT This was continued to June 23, 1975. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 95 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC--193 Page 5 3. Application 7-Z-75 of MIKE MIKULe_ PREZONING 0.46 acres from Santa Clara County R1-8 (Residential, single-family, 8,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) to City of Cupertino R3-2.7 (Resi- dential:, multiple, 2,700 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) or whatev r zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said property is located northerly and adjacent. to Granada Avenue approximately 205` westerly of the intersection -of Orange Avenue and Granada Avenue in Morita Vista. First Ilea ri g. The Planning Director reviewed the June 6, 1975 staff report on this matter. He referred to four maps on the bulletin board: General Plan, Land Use, Zoning, and Stevens Creek Blvd. plan line He noted that density and character of the neighborhood 'should be addressed. Another consideration is the Stevens Creek Blvd. plan line and the character the Planning Commission would like to have accomplished here. He noted that the 'Planning Commission has stated that, any future commercial development shall take place in the present Monta Vista downtown area. The staff requested additional time for them and for the applicant to explore the ramifications of this application on the character of the im- mediate neighborhood as well as planning options in conjunction with the Stevens Creek Blvd. Plan Line. The. staff has scheduled hearings'on the Stevens Creek Blvd. Plan Line for September. Mr. James Luger, 4657 Persimmon Pace, San Jose, said he is the building designer for the applicant.. He placed an elevation drawing of the proposed Granada Greens on the bulletin board He said all these problems have come as a rather late surprise to the applicant. He agreed that this area should maintain a rural atmosphere, and that the character of the area should remain as it is at this time. He said it is questionable whether or.not there is need for more commercial in. the Monta Vista area because of all the shopping opportunities in the area nearby. He believeq that due to economics-, the days of the large PUD°s are over. He believes that developments of 'a smaller magnitude and of good quality are the best way to go today. Mrs. Ann Anger, Monta Vista, said she was disappointed in. the statements made by the previous speaker. She reviewed all the .planning work that has been done on this area in.the past few years. She is in favor .of maintaining a low profile in Monta Vista. She said she is very upset with the absentee landlords. She urged the City to make a decision on Stevens Creek. Blvd. -;be- cause she.said that is what is holding up improvement of that are Mr. Luger apologized and clarified his position. He said this is a charming place in which to live. He believes the rural atmos- phere should be maintained. PC-193 Page 6 7-Z-75 cont'd to Oct. 13th MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1975 PLANNIJVG COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Mike Mikul, Stevens Creek Blvd., concurred with the staff's recommendation. He noted that the adjacent property is zoned multi -family. Ile believes 40' streets are adequate for side streets but that Orange Avenue should be 60'. He believes the commercial as outlined has been scaled down for compatibility with the area. Mrs. Anger said she is very much in favor of commercial in downtown Monta Vista and has been fighting plans for industrial up there. Mr. Bill Argabright, 21738 Olive Avenue, Cupertino, said he endorses Mr. Mikul's plan. Ile said the Planning Commission and City Council should proceed with the public hearings on the Stevens Creek Blvd. plan line. The Planning Director said the staff is hoping to be ready for public hearings on this in September. Moved by Comm_. O'Keefe, seconded by Comm. Cooper to continue application 7-Z-75 to October 13, 1975, per the staff's recommendation. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, O'Keefe, Woodward, Chairman Gatto NOES: None Motion c�cried, 5-0 4. Application 6-TM-75 of MAY INVESTMENT COMPANY: TENTATIVE MAP to divide 9.94 acres into a sin,;le-family residential cluster development consisting of forty (40) individual lots and one lot to be held in common and one lot to be retained in a church - oriented use. Said property is located approximately 375 feet westerly of the intersection of Forest Street and Vista Drive and adjacent to and southerly of the future extension of Lazaneo Drive between Saratoga --Sunnyvale Road and Vista Drive. First Hearing. The Assistant Planning Director sta:.ed that the residential cluster portion of the map application is s,ibstantially consistent with the approved use permit and H-Control approval of the site plan. The few changes are relatively minor and hale been reviewed by H-Control. Chairman Gatto asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the public hearings. Motion carried, 5-0 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moved by Comma Woodward, seconded by Comm. Adams, to approve application 6-TM-75, subject. to Standard Conditions 1 - 14 and Conditions 15 and 16 in the June 4, 1975 staff report. AYES: Comma Adams, Cooper,; Woodward, Chairman Gatto NOES: None. ABSTAINED: Comma."OBKeefe Motion carried, 4-0-1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS The Planning Director stated that Measurex Corporation has an approved Tentative Map application (15-TM-73) to divide their property into three parcels. One condition of. that approval was that Parcel. 3 is to be landscaped by Measurex Corporation and dedicated to the City. During proceedings before the H-Control, the Water District decided to expand their water percolation area. This.,could be compatible with the landscaping. For this i re�cu.x;4, ,�s, as;ki:ng__,for.,s.i_x, ,r^o.za.ths.' time to .work out the C.i final details with the Water District. i i Moved by Comoro Cooper, seconded by Comm, Adams to adopt a resolution extending the time for recordation of the Final Map for application 15-TM-73 to December 16, 1975. I Motion carried, 5-0 i i Mr. Wes Burgin, Measurex Corporation Plant Engineer, said the: landscape plan that'was approved by the H-Control came to about $15,000. The Water District disapproved these plans and ,came back with the proposal.that this would make a beautiful percolation ponds The District proceeds very slowly. In the meantime; he would like to put in interim landscaping. There were no objec- tions, The PlanningDirector stated that the City will be making hotel reservations for the Conference in San Diego in. July, but it was hoped the Planning Commissioners would make their own travel arrangements. PC--193 Page 7 6-TM-7 5 approved 15-TM-73 extended to Dec, 16, 1975. ti IPC-193 .';_Igo 8 MINUTES OF TIH.-: JUNE, 9, 1975 PI.ANyI',G COIDIISSION MEETING Due to an unusually heavy work schedule this week, Comm. O'Keefe suggested the .Tune 12, 1975, Hillside Study Session be postponed. Since a consensus could not be reached on an alternate date, it was decided the meeting would be held on June 12th. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COIMISSION : None REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: None ADJOURNMENT Chairman Gatto adjourned tlii:, meet Lng at 9:15 p.m. to 7:3:: p.m. Gin Thursday, June ]_2, 1975, for the purpose of a Hillside Study Session. ATTEST: /s/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk APPROVED: hV John M. Gatto Chairman