Loading...
PC 03-28-94 M.INUrI'E3 ",",y," ur ~~E REGULL~ MEETING OF THE PLANNING HELD ON MARCH 28, 1994 COMMISSION MEETING ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Chr. Mahoney Vice Chr. Doyle Com. Austin Com. Roberts Com. Harris commissioners Present: staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of community Development Thomas Robillard, Planner II APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of March 14, 1994, as presented Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Chr. Mahoney WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No Discussion POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR Item 2: Application I-GPA-94 and 3-EA-94: Consideration of amendments to the Housing Element of the General Plan. Planning Director Cowan stated there may be the possibility of a field trip the week of April 25th and the Planning commission should continue this item to April II, 1994 and make a decision at that time. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue item 2 to the meeting of April 11, 1994 Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application No(s): 81,150 and l6-EA-93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 28, 1994 Page 2 Applicant: Location: 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 the staff report dated March 28, 1994. He stated, upon further discussion with the Ci ty Attorney on issues raised by Commissioners at the last hearing, staff determined that there are two approaches to eliminate non-conforming vehicles: l. Uses of land or buildings made non-conforming by amendments to Chapter 19.96 must either be grandfathered or amortized over the useful life of the use. 2. Those uses made illegal by an amendment to Chapter 11.29, which is not a zoning code, but is related to health and safety issues, can be remedied immediately. This may eliminate the need for amortizing. Planner Robillard reviewed the changes to chapters 11.29 and 19.96 recommended by staff as outlined in the staff report. He stated if the Planning commission reach a consensus on the proposed amendments, staff recommends that this item be continued for two weeks for preparation of the final language by the city Attorney. Com. Harris asked what happens with vehicles over 30 ft. and questioned circular driveways? Planner Robillard stated vehicles over 30 ft. must be parked in a side or rear yard or in a storage facility off-site. He reviewed the circular driveway situation and noted that a vehicle can park parallel to the street, but not within the 15 ft setback. He also noted that the same rules are used for corner lots, vehicles must park perpendicular to the side property line. Com. Mahoney suggested adding additional language to (f) in the staff report to address circular driveways. Planner Robillard reviewed the survey done by staff, noting they looked at approximately l500 homes in four different areas of the city and came across about eight situations in which a vehicle was parked parallel to the street. He stated most did not meet the current ordinance. Com. Roberts addressed (I) in the staff report and asked if "occupant" implies a person who resides at this home is the primary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 28, 1994 Page 3 resident? He also asked how many vehicles are over 30 ft? Planner Robillard stated that the "occupant" is the primary resident and during staff's survey approximately three vehicles were over 30 ft. He noted several cities have similar rules as to what is proposed. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Langlais, l0672 Deep Cliffe Dr., stated he is in support of the proposed changes to the ordinance. He addressed the situation on st. Andrews and stated it is not in the best interest of the neighborhood as a whole to have this vehicle parked as it is. He stated the ordinance proposed is not much different from other cities and urged the Planning Commission to approve the proposed changes. Mr. Dick Modlin, st. Andrews Ave., stated he owns the motorhome that has brought about this ordinance change. He believes the Commission is changing a policy because of a single incident and stated the policy will not be enforced equally throughout the City, but only through complaints. He stated a single incident policy is a bad policy. Mr. Modlin quoted from the Neighbor regarding play houses and noted this is a similar situation. He stated there are no health and safety issues, but just a loop hole that staff needs to address. He added this is an aesthetics issue. Mr. Modlin asked if a 30 ft. motorhome is acceptable why does anything over this become a health and safety problem? Regarding his situation, Mr. Modlin stated he contacted staff and did everything legally, but due to a misunderstanding he poured more concrete than allowed. He noted he contacted staff and was told to leave it until a decision was made by the Planning commission. Mr. Modlin addressed the letter from Mr. Erlewin R. Gilbert, dated March 17, 1994, noting The Good Sam Club is not in total support of the amendments proposed. He addressed (I) as written in the staff report and noted if he owns a vacant piece of property he should be allowed to park his vehicle on this. He urged the Planning commission to leave the law as it is as it is a one issue matter. Planning Director Cowan stated the driving force behind this change in the ordinance was a conflict, he stated it was necessary to rectify an inconsistency and this is the purpose of this hearing. Ms. JoAnn Olah, 879 Brent Dr., stated the purpose of the ordinance is to address unsightly vehicles and asked what this really means? She questioned the J ft. clearance between the vehicle and a structure and also the 72 hour limitation. Mr. George Mousakai, 20570 Sunrise Dr., stated he has owned a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 28, 1994 Page 4 motorhome for approximately seven years and parks it perpendicular on his property. He stated there should be no restrictions about living in the motorhome if parked on one's property, as long as the individual owns the property and has the means to park within the law. He added size should not be a consideration and believes the changes proposed are the result of one incident. In response to Com. Roberts' question regarding size, Mr. Mousakai stated it is common to have an RV over 30 ft. Mr. Mousakai stated that people should only live in the motorhome for emergencies and for a limited period of time. Mr. George Guittard, 22434 st. Andrews Ave., stated when he looks out his front window his view is an unsightly motorhome. He believes the parking of the motorhome on st. Andrews is a detriment to property values. Ms. Ann Hart, 22432 st. Andrews Ave., expressed concern about property values as a result of the motorhome in question. She believes the character of the neighborhood is being negatively affected. Mr. Greg Beall, 22437 st. Andrews Ave., stated the issue is to maintain residential neighborhoods and close a loop hole in the ordinance. He stated he is very concerned about the unsightly look of the motorhome parked on st. Andrews Ave. He noted both the motorhome and concrete pad are detrimental to the neighborhood and believes this is about balance and what staff proposed is acceptable. Mr. Beall stated allowing the parking of motorhomes is like putting a permanent structure within the front setback. He added he strongly supports the amendments proposed by staff. Mr. Herbert Schmidt, 22420 st. Andrews Ave., stated he would encourage the amendments in order to maintain property values. He suggested amortizing for five years. Ms. Georgia Colley, 22379 st. Andrews Ave., believes that the motorhomes and concrete pad on st. Andrews Ave. are detrimental to property values and large vehicles such as this should be stored elsewhere. Ms. Lydia Beall, representing Molly Brinkworth, st. Andrews Ave., stated Ms. Brinkworth owned an RV for many years and parked it off- site, so it would not affect neighbors. Ms. Beall stated not one individual who spoke at this hearing will be affected by the proposed amendments. She noted large vehicles are o.k. as long as they are parked perpendicular. She stated owners of motorhomes must have consideration for the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 28, 1994 Page 5 Mr. George McAuliff, 10554 Lonna Ln., amendments are the result of one complaint. driveways and noted the City is taking rights. believes the He addressed away peoples proposed circular property Mr. Lou Sascik, Bonny Dr., asked what the rationale is behind the 30 ft. limitation? He noted most vehicles are 30 ft. or more and 33 ft. would be an average size. Ms. Olah questioned the time frame in which one would be allowed to maintain their motorhome on their property? She also noted there is an increase in insurance if the RV is parked off-site. Chr. Mahoney addressed Ms. Olah's question regarding time frame, he noted if this is treated as a zoning amendment it is not an issue. Mr. Dave Langlais stated the purpose of the ordinance is to regulate unsightly vehicles and this is an aesthetics issue. He stated all cities have rules and regulations and the residents must live by these. He stated there should be no limit on size if the vehicle is parked perpendicular. Chr. Mahoney closed the public hearing. Com. Austin stated perpendicular parking is acceptable and would support no limitation on size. She noted ordinances are born because of complaints and spoke in favor of staff's recommendation and eliminate vehicle length. Com. Doyle asked if there was no size definition, would all vehicles have to park perpendicular? He also questioned the development plan exception as stated in section (h). Planner Robillard stated the proposed wording includes all vehicles. He stated an exception would be in the case of a PUD were RV parking was planned into the site before development. Planning Director Cowan stated the question is, do the Commission want to create an exception process? Com. Doyle continued his comments and noted (g) would not be necessary as long as vehicles were parked perpendicular. Com. Roberts believes the City does have grounds to regulate the parking of oversize vehicles and spoke in support of the ordinance as proposed. Regarding vehicle length, Com. Roberts stated 30 ft. may be too limiting, but they should define a length. Com. Harris stated it is the Planning commission's job to define PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 28, 1994 Page 6 aesthetics for the community and noted this policy was written to regulate oversize vehicles. She spoke in favor of staff / s recommendations and noted there should not be an exception process. Com. Harris stated all vehicles of this type should be parked perpendicular as opposed to parallel parking. She noted circular driveway parking for large vehicles should be eliminated and spoke in favor of the ordinance with some vehicle length limitation. Chr. Mahoney stated it is within the city/s power to regulate oversize vehicle parking. He spoke in support of the proposed amendments with the exception of (g) and stated this should be eliminated. There was a majority consensus to eliminate (g) regarding vehicle length. There was also a consensus to direct staff to discuss section (h) with the city Attorney regarding an exception process. Com. Harris stated it is not her intent from parking on a circular driveway. She refer to trailers, campers, motorhomes, to restrict all vehicles noted section (h) should etc. Chr. Mahoney re-opened the public hearing. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to continue 81,150 and l6-EA-93 to the meeting of April 11, 1994. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: NEW BUSINESS 3. Schedule possible Planning commission and City Council field trip related to appeal of 11-EXC-93 and 3-TM-92 (Modification). Planning Director Cowan stated a field trip has been planned for May 23, 1994 and the Commission should meet at City Hall at 6 p.m. He stated a regular Planning commission meeting will follow. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business the Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. to the next