Loading...
PC 02-24-75CITY OF CUPERTINO , STATE OF, CALIFORNIA P.C-181 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, Page 1 Telephones 252-4505 MINUTES .OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEERUARY 24, 1975 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA IPC-181 Page 2 13-Z-74 postponed to March 24th MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8, just prior to item 4, the Planning Commission proposed a Minute Order to the City Council to contact the County regarding provision of a stop signal at this intersection. Page 10, paragraph 8, delete the first sentence and replace with: "Comm. Cooper said she do?s not know what the residents would be able to do with this long, narrow property." Moved by Comm. O'Keefe, seconded by Comm. Cooper to approve the (Minutes of February 10, 1975, as amended. Motion carried, 5-0 1 POSTPONEMENTS (Application 13-Z-74 - San Carlos Homes & Development Company Moved by Comm. O'Keefe, seconded by Comm. Woodward to continue application 13-Z-74 to March 24, 1975, upon request of the applicant. Motion carried, 5=0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None. CORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. J. Neff, 489 Boynton Avenue, San Jose, asked if it would be possible to keep the public hearings open on all applications until just before the vote. Chairman Gatto stated that the Planning Commissioners decide to close the public hearings when they feel they have enough input to make a decision after their discussion. It is the policy of the Commission to never cut off input from anybody. UBLIC HEARINGS L. Applications 1-Z-75 and 1-U-75 of MAY INVESTMENT COMPANY: REZONING 5.6 acres from R1-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) to P (Planned Development with residential, single-family, cluster intent) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to allow construction of 43-unit cluster development. 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 continued. ,omm. O'Keefe abstained from this public hearing. 41 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tne Assistant rlanning llzrector introaucea the applicaLlozz, uvLing that this is thesecondpublic hearing on it. At the first public hearing the Planning Commission indicated concern about the lack of space between the buildings, feeling there should be a wider` space or none at all. They were also concerned about the pr,oximit of the units to the -open green space. The new site plan is more free -flowing. After studying this new proposal, the staff felt the Planning Commission might want to discuss with the, applicant the amount of cement throughout the development, Mr. Roger Griffin, with Dick Finnegan's.Office, went over the new proposal for 40 instead of 43 units, They have maintained a central entrance to the project, which they feel is important. They feel that texturing of portions of the street,(resembling cobblestones) adds to the aesthetics. The area between the buildings has been increased from a.minimum of 4' to a minimum.of 7'.a The second story element is set hack 12' from the front to give the structure a lower . profile Each unit has a garden court entry plus another patio. Mr; Griffin critiqued the staff's.proposal-of a site plan .for this project He then introduced his Exhibit E which was prepared after they had received the staff's recommendation.' Comm. Cooper was answered that the units run from 1260 sq. ft. to 1560 sq. ft.. each. There will be enclosed fencing around the patio and enclosed fencing around .the property of each unit There are 145 parking spaces, including the garages with -automatic door openers There will be a V wood fence around three sides of the project with emergency break -away portion adjacent to the school. Comm. Adams was concerned about the units adjacent to the duplex area Chairman Gatto asked what the rationale was for the front and back entrances in proximity to the streets'. Mr. Griffin said the front entry is designed more for the visitor and residents living in the project would drive directly into the garage and enter their unit through the kitchen door. There was further discussion of the long, narrow space between the units'„ It seems the banks are not lending money for common --wall construction these days. They have set a minimum of 3' between units, which is not considered common wall construction. Chairman Gatto asked if the staff had any comments on the two drives, versus the previous one drive 'off Lazaneoe The Assistant Planning Director stated that the Traffic Engineer had studied the, ►. proposal and would prefer one drive, although he would not oppose two PC-181 Page 3 IPC-181 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1975 PLANN_I:NG COMMISSION MEETING Comm. Adams noted that in the southeast corner of the project the distance varies from 15' to 30' from the property .line. He felt this proposal was better than the original. Comm. Cooper was still concerned that there is a lot of concrete, and the fact that it is going to be seen at the expense of the open green area. She believes this design will give a crowded effect. There will still be long, narrow strips of land that won't be used. She prefers a common wall design to this proposalL because she feels the narrow strips between buildings is wasted space. However, she believed this proposal was an improvement over the original one. Comm. Woodward believed Exhibit E was the best proposal. He suggested a loop road through the project. Mr. Griffin said that if it is not a through street it can then be posted as not being a through street, which eliminates some speeders from driving through there. After further discussion, Chairman Gatto stated that this procedure of trying to design a project at a public hearing was inappropriate. A proposal should be worked out with the staff beforehand and then the Planning Commission should review it. Addressing Exhibit A, Comm. Gatto said the front door concept has some merit. The scattering of the parking is good. The visual relief from one unit's windows to another is good. He agrees with Comm. Cooper about the 4' strips between buildings, but noted that this is expanded in some areas. Comm. Cooper said she would be much more comfortable with Exhibit E than Exhibit A. omm. Woodward also liked Exhibit E better than A. He would not be pposed to bringing in a complete circulation even though he realized here are difficulties involved. r. Griffin said he is more comfortable with Plan A because E is more riented to the back door. Rather than go back and redesign, he requested decision from the Planning Commission at this meeting. r. Marty Hall, Cupertino, said they have spent many hours on this project ince the last meeting. They have eliminated 3 units. He does not believe ide entrances make a good entry into a project. Ile requested a decision rom the Planning Commission on the submitted proposal. ved by Comm. Cooper, seconded by Comm. Woodward to close the public ar.ing. Motion carried, 4-0 N MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-181 Page 5 Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Woodward to approve 1-Z-75 application 1-Z-75, subject to conditions through 15 in the approved stuff report. AYES: Comm. Adams, Woodward,,: Chairman Gatto NOES: Comm. Cooper ABSTAINED: Comm. O'Keefe Motion carried, 3-1-1 Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Woodward to approve. 1-U-75 application 1 U-75 subject to conditions through 19 in the approved staff report and Condition 20 - That the planting area bordering the east -'and west -..portions of the ;project to be 5' in width along: the driveway; and Condition`21 -The colored area shown on Exhibit A shall be colored, textured concrete AYES: Comm. Adams, Woodward, -Chairman Gatto NOES, Comm.. Cooper. ABSTAINED, Comm. O %Keef e Motion: carried, 3-1-1 The Planning Director stated this would go to the City Council on March 17thd 2; CITY OF CUPERTINOo Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Chapter 16.28 of the Municipal Code pertaining to the height and location of fences and vegetation within the yard setback areas. First Hearing continued. The Assistant Planning Director stated that the purpose of this public, hearing was to establish direction for updating this ordinance; It was decided that the current fence ordinance was somewhat lacking in some areas and should be updated prior to a decision on a pending application. The basic reasons for setback are safety and aesthetics. The staff has decided a performance standard would be a good .gauge" They feel that a 100' sight distance angle would be equitable. He reviewed an exhibit illustrating this. Further, the staff feels that the 6' maximum fence height could.be increased, The Assistant Planning Director stated that the question has been raised whether there should be a separate ordi nance. for fences and for shrubbery. He felt they should be in the same ordinance. PC-181 14INUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 Comm. Woodward was answered by the Assistant City Attorney that it would be possible to include a "Grandfather Clause" in this ordinance. He also stressed the importance of treating equal properties equally. Comm. Adams proposed that if the performance standards approach is adopted, that we allow the rear of an average car to be at the sidewalk edge for the site distance instead of measuring from the windshield. Chairman Gatto asked for comments from the audience. Mrs. M. Flick, 20391 McClellan Road, spoke to the aesthetics in San Francisco, Los Altos, and other jurisdictions that encourage plantings right up to the street. She suggested double fences, filled with dirt and planting of pyracantha or. top to eliminate some of the problems. She said the fumes'from the cars are somewhat blocked out of the yards by these shrubs. The trees and shrubs in our yards are our closest source of oxygen. She said she will not chop down her trees! Mr. Fenton Hill, 20951 McClellan Road, said he has lived in this area all his life. His home sits back some 80' from the road and he has a circular drive with several trees in the front yard, for aesthetic reasons and to serve as a noise barrier. They create privacy for him. He felt that fences should not be treated the same as trees and shrubs. He said he would like to be informed when this is being discussed again. Mrs. Hazel Hilquist, 20685 Rodrigues, Cupertino, said we need trees and shrubs but we do not need them where they obstruct the view of drivers. Mr. George Dawson, 10388 Bonny Drive, Cupertino, asked who is going to pay for removal of all these trees and shrubs. Chairman Gatto explained that this is not the intent of the City. He then read into the record Sheriff Geary's February 19, 1975 letter addressed to the City Manager in regard to public safety. omm. O'Keefe said Sheriff Geary's comments were well taken. However, e felt that how a person wishes to landscape is his own concern. He elt we should exclude shrubbery of all types from the fence ordinance. n terms of fences, masonry or wood, he c,rould follow the line of site istance and 6' high restriction. MrE. Hilquist said Webster terms a ence as a continual row of shrubs. She then quoted portions of the tate Code regarding encroachment or intrusion on sidewalks. She said he has been interested in this since she made her first request in 1969. here has been a slight accident. omm. Woodward said he had asked about the Grandfather Clause because any people in the City of Cupertino purchased their homes with the nderstanding that the character of their neighborhoods would be maintained. ie is opposed to allowing 6' fences within the front setback even if within the 100' sight distance sinless there are extenuating circumstances and then they could come in and ask for a variance. N MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-181 Page 7 Comm- Cooper said the problem of aesthetics comes in.the definitio of a fences She would not be concerned about spaced plantings. She feels the definition of a fence would be any solid obstruction through which one cannot see from any angle. An iron grill would not be a fence, but a solid hedge would be. As far as side or rea yard.is concerned, she said you donst have the safety factor.. We should talk about the visual , impact from a car or as you walk by. We also have to get into the problems of children walking or on tricycles, Mrs. Hilquist would like to have the ordinance address the matter of maintaining the .fence or hedge from all sides. Comm, Adams felt the maximum fence height should be 6� The iron grill could be higher, but not any fence through which you cannot see. He does not viewthe shrub appl=ication as`a fence, per se. They may cause.,a.hazard,.but they should be judiciously left to the oVmer `s discretion,., , as long as the drivers backing out of them driveways can see up and down the street then proceedsafelyn Mr. Ja Neff, 489 Boynton -Avenue, San Jose, said he is not concerned with definitions. He agrees with the sheriff's comments as to safety, He quoted portions of the Vehicle Code; He said it should be the responsibility .of anyone backing out .of a driveway: to proceed safely. As to aesthetics, he said you. cant please everybody, This should not be an issues He -was in favor of throwing out the entire ordinance.. People should follow the rules _of the road. He quoted portions of the Constitution of the United States; including Amendments 5, 14 and 2 Mr. John Haubl, 1549 Twister;, Sunnyvale, .said he'was speaking for a friend who lives in Cupertino. He requested a consensus from the Planning Commission that trees and hedges and shrubs are'not' considered fences. This would take the pressure off the "tree and bush .people" and leave it with the "fence people". Chairman Gatto said the bulk of the residences in Cupertino are less than 15 years old We should maintain the basic character of the neighborhoods. He felt that man made structures above 3' high in the front 20' setback should be considered fences. At the side yard setback, the fences should be no higher than 8e and no higher than the distance from the next house. For the "bush people", he believes the solid barrier is not to be encouraged. One :.advantage to the shrubbery is that it -can be trimmed to Some extent„ There should be some percentage of a hedge left open within the.front _20' setback. Comm,., Cooper commented that she has a problem with her fence falling down. She would like to consider the matter of wind _resistance in the ordinance. PC-181 Page 8 Fence Ord. cont'd to March 24th MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1975 PL,A:INING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. H. E. Mallett, 20699 Rodrigues Avenue, Cupertino, said this whole matter came up because of the hedge in front of his property. a definition of "fence" is needed. He thinks a fence is any man made object of masonry, wood or brick. A hedge can be construed to be a fence. He feels bushes, trees, etc., should be separate from fences. He does not see why he has to landscape his property to satisfy the safe ingress and egress of his neighbor. Anybody backing out of private property has to use caution. He does not advocate running over kids. He wants to maintain the privacy of his home. He does not believe the City has the right to legislate what he does with his property to protect him. Mr. W. D. Holmes, 3300 San Sabo Drive, San Jose, President of United Taxpayers, said he has heard aesthetics and safety addressed here. He wanted to bring up the matter of property rights. Our Constitution assures individual rights and freedom and responsibility. He cited many examples to illustrate his point. He feels that the City should not have to design fences. He demanded equal treatment under the law and said that reimbursement must be made. The Assistant City Attorney said that for many years the courts have upheld the police power of enforcing setbacks. We now have a fence ordinance that is unenforceable, a fact that we are trying to ameliorate. Many cities are studying the performance standard approach to this problem. The primary purpose of any setback law is safety and aesthetics are considered secondary, It was his opinion that an ordinance dealing with setbacks can be constitutionally enforced. Comm. Woodward endorsed Chairman Gatto's definition of a fence and felt that vegetation should be dealt with separately. He agreed with a 3' high maximum in the 20' front yard setback. Comm. Cooper wanted the ordinance to include height, width and thickness. Comm. O'Keefe agreed with Comm. Cooper that there is a vast difference between solid fences and one through which you can see, such as a grill. Comm. Woodward would like the ordinance to address the matter of an archway. oved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Adams to continue the review f the fence ordinance to March 24, 1975. Motion carried, 5-0 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-181 Page 9 3s Application 10-V--74 of HOWARD E. MALLETT t VARIANCE from 1 section 16 28,010 of the fence ordinance .to allow a 6' hedge across the front property line. Said property is: -located at 20699 Rodrigues Avenue in a residential, single-family zones Second hearing continued. Moved by Comma Adams, seconded.by Comm, Cooper to continue 10=V-741 10-V-74 since the fence ordinance is as yet unresolved, and the applicant continued did not object,. Motion carried, 5-0 Chairman Ga.tto called a recess at 10:53 p.m. The meeting recon- vened at 11:05 p.m, 4.-Application 2-Z-75 of COLDWELL BANKER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (BROWN PROPERTY): REZONING 15.5 acres from P (Planned Development with commercial/industrial use intent) to P s (Planned Development with industrial use intent) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.,. 3. Said property is located northerly of the intersection of Lazaneo Drive and Bandley Drive on the easterly and westerly sides,of Bandley Drive extending northerly for -a distance of approximately 1100 feet. First Hearings The Planning Director reviewed the land uses and street pattern of that area,. During the general plan deliberations, it was determined that industrial and residential uses with trip end constraint of 16 trips per peak hour should go along the east side and on the west side of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road it was decided it should be considered for industrial, residential and commercial uses with the same 16 trip end constraint. From Lazan.eo Drive to Stevens Creek Blvd, on the west side, it was designated com- mercial with no trip end limitation The request at this time is for conceptual approval of a development plan, Mr, Nick Loukiano, 1 Embarcadero, San Francisco, representing the applicant, reviewed the conceptual plan„ They are proposing one access road to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road with right turn in and' right turn out. The development plan consisted of 180,000 sq.' ft. of quality --type building similar to those found in Vallco Park. A masonry wall will be constructed along the property line adjacent to the residential to reduce the noise„ He said this type of user generally does not operate at night, nor do theycreate noise. They also propose a 5` strip of landscaping along the masonry wall as well as some landscaping along the buildings. IPC-181 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1975 PLiNNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 1 lChairman Gatto asked for comments from the audience. IMrs. Elizabeth Minton, 20731 Fargo Drive, Cupertino, said she is interested in the non-polluting tyF�2 development. She asked that many large trees be used in the .landscaping and that there be a minimum amount of concrete. She asl.ed for some wood to be used on the structures, and that shrubs be FLanted on both sides of the solid wall. She would like the trash bins to be located in such a place so as not to bother the residential area. She also would like to be notified of further public hearings on this development. Mr. Ed Murphy, 10290 South Foothill Blvd., said he was neither for nor against this proposal. Since 1951 he has owned the auto parts store along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, and he *.canted everybody concerned to know that he is watching what is happening here. jThe Director of Public Works answered Comm. Adams that this proposal (exactly meets the 16 trip ends designation. jComm. Woodward said he could find no problem with the west side of this property. 1Comm. O'Keefe said he believes this is a proper use of the land. This is high quality, non -pollutant industrial use and meets the trip lend designation. ;Comm. Cooper wanted to discuss the total area. She said many hours 'were spent on the type of development the City would like to have on this land. The intent was for a mixture of uses here. Do we want to forego our first intentions and go strictly by trip ends? She felt that residential would be more apprcpriate along the west side of Bandley Drive. She would like to see an overall plan here for the mix of uses. The Planning Director reviewed that first, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the entire area go residential. Due to the costs, etc., of the Crossroads Assessment District and the determination of 8 lanes, it was decided a mix of uses would be better. Comm. Adams said that at this point he was satisfied with the proposal. Chairman Gatto said that at the general plan review a 50' setback along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road was decided upon for aesthetic impact. The land use category of commercial/industiral/residential said to him that any of these would work as long as they meet the trip enci constraint. it we put residential on the west side of Bandley Drive, that allows much higher trip ends on the east side. This proposal will work to help quiet down Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Residential could be compatible with this type industrial. The developer should give serious thought to placement of the buildings on the site, and a 1.2 to 15' landscaped strip along the back wall. The loading docks must be placed in such a manner MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING that they do not affect the residential.. The staff will put together some broad statements on land, use, trip ends, etc. Mr. Loukiano wanted to speak to condition 16. They would like not have to provide the mini cul-de-sacs since this development has no need for them.. Comm„ O'Keefe felt that running a street ..right into _a solid wall would not be in the best interest of the: City and, therefore, would like to keep Condition 16. Mr. Loukiano said 5 in regard to Condition 17, that they would like to take•5' off the front and add it onto the back, making it 10' to be put into landscaping. Comm. O'Keefe preferred Condition 17 as written. As to Condition 19, Mr. Loukiano felt that the auxilliary road at this point would be a severe hardship. After discussion, it wa . the consensus of the Planning Commission to drop Condition 19e Mr. Loukiano objected to Condition 20, stating that it is like signing a blank check. The Director of Public Works said that they don't at this time have an actual cost figure for participation in the signal. The applicant was instructed to go in and speak with the staff on this. Since there were no further comments from the audience, it was moved by Comm.. Adams, seconded by Comma O'Keefe to close the Public_Hearings. Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. O'Keefe to approve 2--Z-75 application 2-Z-75 with conditions l through 18, 20 and 219 approved with the -word "minimum" added to Condition 17, AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, O'Keefe, Woodward, Chairman Gatto NOES. None Motion carried, 5-0 The Planning Director said this item will go to the City Council on March 17th. 5 a CITY OF CUPERTINO < Amendment to Ordinance 220(e) , Cluster Ordinance,establishing new regulations affecting residential cluster, developments; First hearing continued. I -Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. O'Keefe to continue Ord. 220(e) Ordinance 220(e) review to March 10 9 1975 „ continued Motion carried, 5-0 I(.-181 ;e 12 -yr. Capital _--.rove. Prog. .:tif ied :, ­:ments by ::.::flocks _- Located MINUTES OF THE FEBRI1ARY 24, 1.975 PLANNING COMMISSION NI.ITING �6. Application 13-Z-74 of SAN CARLOS liOZI S AND DEVP.LOP.IENT COMPANY CONTINUED TO MARCH 24, 19751 earlier in the meeting. I UNFINISHED BUSINESS The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the Five Year Capital Improvements Program and the recommend:iti_ons of the Citizens Committee .and staff members. The Community Development Act did not alter the .plan in any way. We are not going into the school sites until we hear from the public. The PlanningCommission included in the :Program the purchase of historical sites. i Moved by Comm. O'Keefe, seconded by Comm. Woodward to ratify the findings of December 10, 1975 and the Bandley Drive improvements. i Motion carried, 5-0 t NEW BUSINESS 7. Abandonment of existing public utility easement northerly of Stavens Creek Blvd., westerly of Oolfe Road., through Vallco f Regional Shopping Center. The Director. of Public Works stated this was consistent with the General Plan to relocate these public utilities easerients (Bullocks) . ISo moved by Comm. O'Keefe, seconded )y Comm. Adams. Motion carried, 5-0 ENVIRONTMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: February 19th meeting cancelled. REPORT OF PLANNING C0MMISSION - None. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR - Noze. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Comm. O'Keefe, seconded by Comm. t'ioodward to adjourn this meeting at 12:40 a.m, to 7:30 p.m. 11 rch 6, 1975, to discussions of the hillsides. Motion carried, 5-0 APPROVED: /s/ John M. Gatto Chairman �^ ATTEST: _/s/ Wm. E_Py er City Cleric