Loading...
PC 04-11-94 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 11, 1994 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLLCALL Chr. Mahoney Com. Austin Com. Roberts Com. Harris (arrived at 6:55 p.m.) Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Vice Chr. Doyle Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Thomas Robillard, Planner 11 Roberta Wolfe, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of March 28, 1994, as presented Com. Roberts Passed 4-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Chair Mahoney announced that Commissioners had received a letter regarding the RV parking issue; the same letter was contained in the backup material. POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV ALS FROM CALENDAR Item I: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Application 2- TM-94 and 6-EA-94, Emily Chen, 19340 Phil Lane. Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.08 acre parcel into 5 lots. Com. Austin moved to continue Application 2- TM-94 and 6-EA-94 to the Planning Commission meeting of April 25, 1994. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None -,\ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 11 , 1994 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Application No(s). Applicant: Location: 81,150 and 16-EA-93 City of Cupertino Citywide An ordinance amending Chapter 19.96, Parking and Keeping Vehicles in Various Zones and Chapter 11.29, On-Site Parking, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented a staff report which summarized the previously reached consensus of the Commission and presented recommendations for amending the ordinances. Mr. Robillard stated that the City Attorney advised that the requirement for vehicles being owned by a resident of the property be left out because it would be difficult to enforce, there is no goal in the ordinance to support it, and there is no pressing concern for the City to have this regulation. Mr. Robillard clarified what the deletion of the "no 30 ft. vehicles in the setback" rule would mean. Com. Roberts said that he thinks this introduces a situation that could be prevented by the length limitation. He said he did not understand the reasoning for it. The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate the parking of vehicles which are oversized and unsightly, and the Commission should be able to come to terms with what is a reasonable sized vehicle to be parked in the front setback area. Com. Harris said the new information is acceptable as presented. Her main concern was horizontal parking and that has been taken care of. Regarding the 20 foot regulation for circular driveways, Mr. Robillard said there was some concern that with the size of vehicles on a circular driveway, that because it is circular, they could park parallel to the street. He had first suggested to the City Attorney that there could be just passenger vehicles, but the City Attorney suggested making it a size limitation. Mr. Robillard said this would basically preclude parking RVs in the front area at all for anyone with a circular driveway if they are over 20 ft. in length. He said that if vehicles parked parallel in a circular driveway, typically they would be 12-15 ft. from the street PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April II , 1994 Page 3 Mr. Robillard said one of the sections under discussion is in the zoning code and one is in the parking code. The codes are very similar but he didn't want to eliminate one because there are some differences. In answer to questions about the removal of ownership restrictions, Mr. Robillard said the City Attorney thought it was advisable. Com. Harris said she understood the regulations about the circular driveway, but if this person had a 30 ft. motor home that would otherwise be legal they couldn't park it parallel either. Mr. Robillard said that was correct. Com. Roberts said he finds it difficult to engage in a dialog with the City Attorney when he is not present. He said that he found it strange that the City Attorney had no concern before and now he does. Further, he asked if there isn't already a provision in the code limiting the parking of vehicles not owned by a resident. In answer to Com. Roberts' question as to what is in the code now about the parking of vehicles, not owned by the resident, Mr. Robillard said there is nothing. If you are a visitor you can leave your motor home for 72 hours. It must be registered. The number of vehicles parked at a residence is limited to four or six, depending on lot size. He cited the 72 hour restriction for parking vehicles on street. He said the home occupancy ordinance does not allow renting out space for parking of RVs. Com. Roberts said he would like to see the ownership provision restored. Public input Ruth Yore, 20211 Lynton Court, said she has been trying to get some answers to a similar problem about RVs. Her neighbor parks four vehicles in his driveway. The code definition of vehicles would allow an airplane to park in a driveway. She said she thought the purpose of the ordinance is to protect property values and prevent a nuisance. Ms. Yore said her neighbor has a camp trailer, a van, an oversized "box" van plus a dump truck parked in his regular size driveway. Two businesses are being run out of the home- a day care and a construction business The rest of his cars are on the street. Day care people are double parking. Her neighbor can't put anything in his garage because it is turned into a work shop. She said she has been trying for over a year to get some answers from the City. The purpose of the ordinance is not to allow a situation that would be detrimental to property values or peace or enjoyment of neighboring property owners or residents. The home occupation ordinance says cannot have all those cars in the driveway. Ms. Yore said she had contacted Mr. Robillard and he was going to talk to the City Attorney to find out what prevents her neighbor from parking on the street. The PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April!!, 1994 Page 4 She said that 27 realtors came through her home and almost all of them agreed that her home has dropped $10-20,000 in value because of the appearance of the vehicles next door, the condition of their home, and the day care situation. She said he is very frustrated. She said she cannot get answers from the City about what can be done. She does not think it is fair that the City of Cupertino allows things like this to go on. When asked if she had something specific she would like to see in the ordinance, Ms. Yore said she would like the ordinance changed to state that you can only park normal sized vehicles in the driveway, and you are not be allowed to have two large business vehicles and store them in the driveway. She said no one could get into her neighbor's back yard if they needed to in an emergency. She said she regrets moving back and putting money into her house when she's losing money. She asked if the City allows this thing to happen, is the City responsible for her home value dropping? Mr. Robillard answered questions about what codes are in effect that would prevent what is going on there. He said the code limits the number of vehicles and size that can be used in a home occupation. He said he would need to consult the City Attorney regarding enforceability. He said that no other complaints had been received as far as he knew. Ms. Yore said she didn't think all the complaints had been directed to Mr. Robillard, but she knew her neighbor had also called. She asked how can you have an ordinance like that and not enforce it? Mr. Robillard stated the code section about an open truck containing debris would apply only to the debris in the truck. He had contacted he neighbor and it had been cleaned up once, but it is full again. Audrey Kinney, 20225 Lynton Court, said she understands that there is a limit of four cars per household. She asked if that also included what is stored in the back yard that cannot be moved. She described vehicles in her neighbor's back yard and garage and said the yards are weedy. Ms. Kinney said she thinks we need an ordinance in Cupertino to protect at least the front yard. The portion that applies to unsightly and oversized vehicles needs to be enforced. Her property value has gone down also. She described the junk in the dump truck and said it is not covered. There is also trash in the driveway. George Moustakas, 205 Sunrise Drive, said he owns a motor home. He said he thinks we can all make complaints about people's property. As you drive around you see lawns, trees, people's cars in back yards. This came about specifically because of a motor home. Suddenly a lot of other things have come up. He asked why hasn't anyone been taking care of the problems? If the ordinances were enforced these complaints would not be being made. Mr. Moustakas said that what he thinks is unsightly other people might think is fine. He said an ordinance could be passed where people cannot park their car in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April II , 1994 Page 5 their garage. He said there are places nearby where if people parked big older cars they would overhang the sidewalk. Mr. Moustakas stated that now we are talking about motor homes; he has a 33 ft. motorhome and has parked it on the side of his house. He said it is not ugly and his neighbors don't complain. He said everybody can complain about something; they complain about the color of a house, about a tree. In his opinion, parking his motor home there does not change the value of the house. The fact that somebody does not take care of their property is what lowers the value. He asked that people not be punished for owning a motor home. He said there was no proof that it lowers the property value until a home is sold. He said he had looked around and does not believe values have decreased since he has had his motor home. The values are still going up. Mr. Moustakas said some unsightly things can have an effect. He said that some people have lots of an acre and asked if those people were going to be told they can't park there, even though they do it in a proper manner. This is the first complaint besides the one that brought the whole issue up. He stated the opinion that if a person has the room on his property he should be able to park a motor home- in a proper manner. He said there needs to be cooperation with neighbors, and things should be done to prevent a lot of trash that is being allowed in our City. Mr. Moustakas concluded that it is almost impossible to regulate people because some people just don't care. Jo-Ann Olah said she had been misquoted in the newspaper. She said she can understand the women with problems with their neighbor but said the main topic is motor homes. She said a person has a right to have a motor home, but people also have a right to express themselves. She had done some research which showed that Italian Cypress grows 3.5 to 5 ft. per year, so it would take 18-24 months to cover the motor home in question. She said that is what she meant about being patient. People have rights, within reason. She said that something can be done about back yards and weeds; the Fire Marshal inspects. She said that there is no such thing as sanctity of home and she is not happy with what is going on in Cupertino. She said there is a group of individuals that some refer to as "Cupertino wannabes" that enforce the code. Ms. Olah said either you have a code or you don't have a code; either you have a code and you enforce it or you don't waste everyone's time if the City isn't going to do anything about it. She asked for the Commission to please give them a little peace of mind. Everyone has rights. Greg Bell said he has been pursuing this matter since October, and it seemed to him that there is a misunderstanding in a lot of the public comment about what is trying to be accomplished. He said the code states that the purpose is to regulate parking of vehicles which are unsightly, oversized and detrimental to property values. There is no way to enforce the purpose of a code. There are no regulations which define what is oversized, unsightly and detrimental to property values. He said items I and 3 are subject to extreme debate, and what he doesn't think is well understood is what has been discussed over the last few months. Mr. Bell stated the restrictions only apply to the first 15-20 feet PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April II , 1994 Page 6 of properties, not the rest. What is being discussed does not affect whether you can own an RV or what size or if you can park it elsewhere. The only thing being talking about is the first 15-20 feet. Mr. Bell said there is nothing about living in motor homes or parking them on the street. He said the residents on St. Andrews contend that the setback should be maintained for the residential character is the neighbors and should allow for reasonable access to property and some level of vehicle parking. He said the job of the Commission is to define what type of parking and what size of vehicles are appropriate, and this seems to be a difficult subject to get around. He said he didn't feel it was his place to offer suggestions for codes. He said that zoning codes say you cannot build in that setback; the City should be able to enact codes that correspondingly maintain the integrity of that setback area for the residential character of the neighborhood. He referred to a slide that Mr. Robillard had shown, and said that without a limit of length an RV can be parked as shown in the overhead. He said residents can park anything in the area behind the setback without a length limitation. He said it seemed that the Commission could come up with a size definition that would apply to the setback, whether they do it by limiting the amount of concrete or the actual physical size of vehicles. Mr. Bell said it has been a long process. This is his sixth Planning Commission meeting. He said he believes the Planning Commission has a responsibility to define what is oversize. There is a consensus that an oversize vehicle is both unsightly and detrimental to property values. He said he would lobby that Commission agree upon some definition. Mr. Robillard clarified that residents can park parallel in a circular driveway if vehicles are 20 ft. or less in length. Chr. Mahoney closed the public hearing. He said there are two issues here: Do we want less restriction, and the 20 foot restriction on circular driveways. Com. Roberts said he believed the ownership clause was also an issue that should be addressed. Com. Harris said she is in favor of the ownership clause to prevent people who have larger driveways from renting them out. She said she also favors a size limit but thinks 30 ft. is too small. She expressed concerns regarding circular driveways. She said she thinks the regulation impacts those people more than anyone else. Mr. Robillard showed a drawing and suggested that Section 19.96.030.A.l be amended to include wording that on circular driveways that conform to the provisions of this code, all vehicles substantially parked parallel to the street in the front or street side yard setback area are limited to 20 ft. in length. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 1 I, 1994 Page 7 Com. Harris expressed the opinion that they need to write an ordinance that would prevent parallel parking in a circular driveway. She suggested adding to what Mr. Robillard has suggested that they could not park parallel unless they were less than 20 ft. in length but could park perpendicular like anyone else, within whatever regulations Commissions comes up with. In regard to length, Com. Harris said she didn't know what is "typical". She thinks we need a length limitation but not one that would cause problems for the majority ofthose who now own motor homes. Com. Roberts said he favors the length restriction, and in order to avoid future problems we should define what oversize means. He said he was in favor restoring the ownership clause to avoid displacing the problem from one neighborhood to another. The third issue is parking in semi circular driveways, and he agreed with Com. Harris that there should be provisions for people with driveways ofthat form. Com. Austin said she favors restoring the 30 ft. restriction but I could go up to a 32 ft. maximum She also wanted the ownership clause put back in and agreed with Commissioners Harris and Roberts regarding semi circular driveways, if all other rules are met. Chr. Mahoney said he doesn't agree with the ownership restriction because he didn't think it has been a problem. He also said he didn't want to restrict the size and would feel uncomfortable drawing a line at 30 ft. Mr. Mahoney said he agreed with the other Commissioner's proposals regarding semi circular driveways. He asked for staffs recommendation on restoring the ownership regulation and cited the City Attorney's three reasons for omitting it. Mr. Cowan said the Commission can state their preference and the City Attorney will describe his concerns to Council. He said there is a similar law referring to secondary dwelling units, and maybe City Attorney can look at that rationale. Mr. Robillard said he had driven past about 1,600 homes and had seen only three where there was a vehicle in excess of 30 ft. Chr. Mahoney stated the opinion that the Commission should not be asking how many people it would impact if the purpose is to regulate size. Com. Harris said the purpose would be to determine what is typical. She said we will always impact someone but she doesn't think an ordinance should be written that is contrary to the norm. She said it is hard to make a judgment because the Commission doesn't know about motor homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April I I, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Robillard said he doesn't think there is an easy way to find what a typical size is, and if the Commission is concerned about vehicles in the front setback area, most passenger cars are under 20 feet. Ms. Wordell, referring to questions regarding typical size, said that upon reviewing brochures about motor homes it appeared that most of them exceeded 30 ft. Staffs conclusion was that a lot of motor homes would be affected by a 30 ft. restriction, and that was probably all right. Regarding questions as to whether width and height increase with an increase in length, Mr. Robillard said vehicles can only be so wide to be allowed on highways Com. Harris suggested a 35ft. length. Com. Roberts said he is not an owner but has driven a 27 ft. one. In his opinion there ought to be some limit as to what we allow in a front setback area. Any length restriction is an arbitrary judgment. MOTION: Com. Austin moved as follows: · Approve staffs recommended wording for Section 11.29.040 Alg. (Vehicles in the front or street side yard setback area), with the following sentence added: "Vehicles in excess of33 feet in length are not allowed." · Approve staffs recommended wording for Section 19.96.030 Alf. (Vehicles in the front or street side yard setback area), with the words "unless parking perpendicular to the street" added. · Regarding ownership, add, "Trailers, campers, recreational vehicles or utility vehicles stored for longer than a fourteen day period must be owned by an occupant of the dwelling. " SECOND: VOTE: NOES: Com. Harris Passed Chr. Mahoney 3-1 Mr. Cowan announced that this would be heard at the May 2 City Council meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April II , 1994 Page 9 Property Owner: Location: 4-U-94 Pommard Corp. dba Mission City Coffee Roasting Company TJW Realty Fund 19636 Stevens Creek Boulevard 3. Application No. Applicant: Use Permit for a retail coffee store in an existing shopping center. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented the staff report and told the Commission that the operating hours allowed are standard. Regarding the restrictions on seating, he said they had to do with parking, and if the Commission feels this isn't an issue, staff could support adding some seating. John Heller, President of Pommard Corporation, 1525 Dana, Palo Alto, representing the applicants, said they sell coffee to go. There is minimal seating and food is limited to dessert and some breakfast items prepared by outside vendors. Mr. Heller said the company also owns and operates Mission City Coffee Roasting Co. a few blocks from Santa Clara University on The Alameda. When asked if he was comfortable with the seating limitations, Mr. Heller said they would prefer more seating but can live with the proposed limitation. He said the outdoor area could accommodate round tables, and they might move some tables outside if the lease would allow them to. The lease has not been signed as of now. There was no other public input. Com. Harris said that one of the goals of the Goals Committee and others is to help Cupertino live and be viable and have energy. She said she would like to see more seating. At night it would be a gathering place. She said she would like to see 20 seats to encourage people to be there and hope parking would work out. Com. Roberts said he agreed it would be a good idea to take measures to encourage people to visit. He said he would not be opposed to allowing 6 or 8 more seats. Com. Austin said the coffee house at The Oaks is jammed. The proposed use goes well with Crown Books. She said if she bought books, she would stop and read outside at the coffee house if it is nice. She said she thought up to 24 seats would fit. She stated the opinion that this is one spot that could help all of the surrounding stores and would be a real asset. She stated that she was in favor of approving the permit and increasing seating. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April II, 1994 Page 10 Chr. Mahoney agreed conceptually. He said he is in favor of increasing the seating. He asked if they could we leave a clause in that if parking became a problem something could be done. Mr. Cowan stated that it is fairly common to allow the Commission to revisit an application if there is a parking problem later on. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the application per the model resolution with condition 2 amended to allow 24 seats and condition 3 amended to state that if parking becomes a problem for the center, the Planning Commission would review the use permit. Com. Austin Passed 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: Mr. Cowan announced that the Commission's approval is final unless appealed. 4. Application No.(s); Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 3-U-94 Syd Jacobsen S1. Jude the Apostle Episcopal Church 20920 McClellan at Stelling Road Use Permit for a 5,846 sq. ft .multi-use room addition to an existing church. Staff Presentation' City Planner Wordell presented the staff report and showed slides of the site of the proposed addition. Ms. Wordell showed the location of the oak tree that will be removed on a slide and said it is labeled as a 16" shrub oak. Steve Benzing, AlA, Warren Heid & Associates, Saratoga, representing the applicant, said that he had worked with Ms. Wordell and at her suggestion sent out flier to neighbors to the south who would be directly affected asking them to come to a meeting. No one came, and he said they thought that meant the neighbors have no objections. Mr. Benzing talked about the planting of the orchard along Stelling. He said they have no objection to replanting the area on McClellan and the parking area, but the church has ideas of potentially using the land in ITont of he parish hall along Stelling for a park or some additional landscaping other than orchard. Also, he said he understands that xeriscape and orchard do not go together. If the orchard is required they would like to leave it open to submit another landscaping plan. He clarified that the oak tree is a scrub oak and that the kitchen is a warming kitchen and will not be used for cooking. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April I! , !994 Page II Com Austin commended the church on the beautiful work that has been done and the orchard that has been replanted. Orchards take a lot of care and water. She stated the opinion that that comer is very precious and said she knows the church has taken care. Regarding concerns about the light trom the south facing windows, Mr. Benzing said it is 35 ft. from property line to the lower wall on the first floor. The "second story" windows are to let light in. The proposed lighting is soft and low level. Mr. Benzing said the major groups will use the building to capacity only two or three times a month. He said they have no issue with shades and will plant fast-growing screening trees. He said he didn't think light will be a problem as they are 60-70 ft. away trom residences. In answer to questions regarding future plans to construct a mezzanine level, Syd Jacobsen, a member of the Parish Hall Committee for St. Jude the Apostle Church, said there was no plan to create a second story because they have plenty of space. He said they don't have a specific tree picked out to replace the old ones. Com. Harris said she was concerned that a landscape plan was not submitted. She said she would like to see trees there that would provide a screen. Mr. Benzing said one of the conditions does require that a plan be submitted and approved. That's why there is nothing specific on this plan. If the Commission wants screening trees, they can designate the type. In answer to questions about the future plans for landscaping, Mr. Jacobsen said it his understanding that if a plan were submitted it would have to be implemented right away. It is costly to put in an orchard. The church is trying to stay within a water usage limit. They have considered native trees and oaks; it's an ongoing discussion. He said they had been told that if they submitted a plan, they have to implement it, and they are not ready to do it yet. He said that had been informed that orchard trees don't come under a size limitation. Mr. Jacobsen said nothing would change along Stelling right now if they built the addition tomorrow. He said it was their plan to replace the trees on the tront of the classroom where theca additional parking is. The trees there now are 75 years old. He said the church does not have parking a problem and are only putting in the additional spaces because they City said they have to. Chr. Mahoney closed the public hearing. Com. Austin said she was in favor of the application. The church has done a lot as far as landscaping and has been sensitive in the area of protecting our heritage. She said she PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April!l, 1994 Page 12 was sure they will continue. She said she agreed with staff recommendation and is totally in favor of the whole project. Chr. Mahoney asked if they can leave the issue about complete restoration of the orchard up to staff. Ms. Wordell said it would be helpful to have direction. The condition requires the restoration. The Commission should indicate a preference. Com. Austin said that what they have in the comer is quite a commitment and involves lots of work and water. She would not require them to do more but would like them to keep up what they have. She said she would take out the requirement for future restoration. Com. Roberts said the project looks like a reasonable use and is well-designed. He said he supports the project overall, but would like to hear more from staff about the need for . nine additional parking spaces. He too would like to see an orchard there if parking is not needed. Ms. Wordell said that 80 would be required for the new addition, and the church will be providing 85. Chr. Mahoney was informed the requirement was based on guidelines on a per sq. ft. basis. His understanding is that the proposed addition is not going to add a lot of traffic and should not generate a lot more parking. Com. Austin said she would be in favor of removing the requirement for nine additional parking spaces. Com. Roberts commended the church for the rejuvenation. If it's not a commercial venture, it's more than one could expect for a church to do. He said a clause similar to the one used for the coffee house, parking could be inserted. He would be satisfied with some other combination of trees. Ms. Wordell asked about the time span. Is it with this approval or at some future time? Com. Roberts asked ifthey could impose a time frame of one or two years. Ms. Wordell said it is preferable to have a site plan approved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April!l, 1994 Page 13 Chr. Mahoney said he understood if they put it in they would need to have it completed before the building is occupied. Ms. Wordell said that the Commission can extend that if they feel its worthwhile. Com. Harris said she is in favor generally. She stated concerns regarding the fact that the Commission was not presented with a landscape plan. She would like to see that in conjunction with approval. She said she had a totally different attitude about parking at this project. It was her opinion that when you add that much square footage there will be activities that will generate additional parking. She said she thinks the requirement is minor, but she didn't think neighbors would appreciate parking spilling out onto the streets. Concerning the second story light, she would like a condition requiring opaque coverings to be used during evening activities. She had no objection to the tree removal and no strong feelings about requiring an orchard if a reasonable landscaping plan is put forward with a reasonable date for completion. Chr. Mahoney said he had no problem with using shades at night. He would not require an orchard but would like a landscape plan that staff could see. Ms. Wordell said she thought staff could sufficiently review the currently proposed landscaping. With the other area under consideration, if it takes on a different character perhaps the Commission would want to review that. Ms. Wordell said the Commission could state that within a certain time period a landscape plan for the orchard area on Stelling be reviewed by the Planning Commission and implemented within that time period and staff could approve addition-related landscaping. Chr. Mahoney asked ifthe church could get a building pennit. Ms. Wordell said in that scenario everything could go at stafflevel except within a certain time period they could come back with a plan to be implemented within three years or whatever the Commission decides. Within the three year time period they would need to come back with a landscape plan to be implemented for the orchard area. Ms. Wordell said that if the Commission is not interested in having the orchard area improved now, the use pennit is their leverage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April I I, 1994 Page 14 MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 3-U-94 per the model resolution with the following additions/changes: There be opaque shades on the second story windows on the south side of the addition that would be utilized after sundown; that a landscaping plan for the orchard area along Stelling and McClellan be reviewed by the Planning Commission within six months and implemented with three years from the date of approval; and that the nine additional parking spaces be eliminated but could be reviewed by the Planing Commission if a parking problem arises SECOND: Com. Roberts Ms. Wordell clarified for the applicant that the start time for the landscaping would be six months from issuance of a building permit. VOTE: 4-0 Mr. Cowan announced that this approval is final unless appealed. 5. Application 81,155 and 8-EA-94: An Ordinance of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.08.030, definition of recreational structure, and 19.80.030, accessory buildings/structures, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Staff Presentation: Ms. Wordell presented the staff report. In answer to Com. Roberts' questions about requiring removal of a temporary structure after some reasonable period of time, Ms. Wordell said staff had not incorporated that provision. She said it seems that it would be hard to track, and they are trying to go in the direction of simplicity. Public: Dave Lietzl, 7485 Kingsbury Place, said he owns the tree house that brought this issue before the Commission. He said he supported the proposed changes. He said he had a petition with 90 signatures from neighbors all supporting the tree house he has built. The signatures include those from neighbors on both sides, people across the street and people next door to them and other neighborhood people. Mr. Lietzl felt it was inappropriate for the City the be as involved as the code is written. He submitted the petition for the record. At Com. Harris' request, Mr. Lietzl described the location of the tree house in relationship to other properties and showed pictures. Regarding the issue of requiring removal of a tree house or similar structure if an owner moves, Mr. Lietzl said he would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April II , 1994 Page 15 suggest that is probably over-regulation. He stated the opinion that the market would dictate that. Com. Austin said she had visited Mr. Lietzl's neighborhood and property and had looked at the structure from various viewpoints. Chr. Mahoney said he thought the point was is the Commission comfortable eliminating tree houses from the ordinance. Com. Austin said she agreed with the staffs recommended language and the goal of simplifYing the process. Com. Roberts said he was in favor of minimizing regulation and would support staff's recommendation. Com. Harris said she liked the proposed language of Chapter 19.80. She said the subject here is not this tree house, but they are trying to write an ordinance for all possible tree houses and she would not like it if a neighbor put in a tree house close to her property line and looking down into her back yard. Ms. Harris said she thought this problem could be solved by leaving tree houses in Chapter 19.08 and taking out the phrase, "but does not include non-habitable tree houses" and say, "does not include portable play structures such as swings or climbing apparatus." She said she thinks it's important that we not give one neighbor rights over another Chr. Mahoney said he agreed with Com. Harris. In answer to Com. Roberts' question, Ms. Wordell said that this would put us back where we were before the matter came up in regard to tree houses except for the provision that if they're on a comer or if they have the neighbors' prior agreement. Ms. Wordell said one of the guidelines they used was that this is a rare occurrence. She had called other cities, and tree houses would come under their regulations, but none of them had ever had to deal with it. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration for the project. Com. Harris Passed 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 11 , 1994 Page 16 MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the proposed wording for Section 19.08.030 except to leave in tree houses the model resolution with the changes in Section 19.08.030, tree houses left in and the last sentence to read, ". . .but does not include portable plays structures such as swings or climbing apparatus," and that 19.80.030 stand as written to include tree houses. SECOND: VOTE: NOES: Chr. Mahoney 3-1 Com. Austin 6. Application No.(s); I-GPA-94 and 3-EA-94: consideration of amendments to the Housing Element ofthe General Plan. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented staff's recommendations. Commission members discussed alternate dates and the possibility of blending parts of the different tours into one. Com. Austin expressed concern regarding the traffic situation at that time of day. Ms. Wordell said that staff will provide additional information on each of the sites visited. She said the regular meeting agenda for that meeting is not a light one. By consensus, the public hearing was continued to the meeting of April 25 with Commission members meeting at 5:00 p.m. to begin the tour and returning to City Hall for wrap up discussion regarding the tour prior to the regular meeting. Staff was requested to design a tour that included a combination of market rate and affordable properties. NEW BUSINESS 7. Application No.: 81,157: Specific Plan Zone: Initiation of Public Hearing to consider the enactment of a Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cowan presented staff's report and recommendations. He said that the specific plan is a much better tool to use than the planned unit development zoning district and explained the advantages. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April I I, 1994 Page 17 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to authorize staff to schedule a public hearing to consider a specific plan zoning ordinance. Com. Austin MOTION: 4-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Cowan answered questions about the use of the computer network to be installed in City facilities. Com. Roberts expressed concern regarding how the Commission does business and their dialog with the City Attorney. He said he realized that there may be economic reasons for restricting the Attorney's participation. However, he said in a couple of instances the Commission had either drawn out and increased the amount of controversy, or had blundered into situations that they were not fully aware of. He asked if there were some way Council could be made aware that there may be some hidden cost to that decision. Mr. Cowan said there was money in the budget to cover City Attorney costs for Commission meetings where there is a specific key legal issue under discussion. He also said that there will be some changes in the second half of next year in terms of the attorney's contract. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -No additions DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING -None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:45 p1j\.. to 5:00 p.m., Monday, April 25, 1994, for a field trip prior to the regular m~(1ßg at 6:~m. J~ t(/~ L.< ~ _ Roberta Wolfe, Deputy Ci y Clerk Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of April 25, 1994 of(! ~Ø[1.. ATTEST: ~m~ Kim M. Smith, City Clerk