Loading...
PC 04-09-90 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 9, 1990 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: commissioners Present: Chairman Claudy vice Chairman Mackenzie commissioner Adams Commissioner Mann Commissioner Fazekas staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of community Development Mark caughey, City Planner ciddy Wordell, Associate Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner 1 Travice whitten, Assistant city Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy city Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 26, 1990 Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 MOTION: POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 3: Acclication 2-U-90 (Futuretainment) withdrawn at applicant's request ITEM 4: Apclication 7-TM-90 (CUSD) - Staff request continuance to April 23, 1990 ITEM 6: Apclication l-Z-90 and 3-TM-90 (TripianojFlick) - Request continuance to April 23, 1990 to complete Environmental Assessment ITEM 10: Application 3-Z-90 and 5-TM-90 (FBCMV) Request continuance to April 23, 1990 to complete Environmental Assessment ITEM 11: Application 4-TM-90 (Giuliani) Staff request continuance to April 23, 1990 SECOND: ' VOTE: Com. Adams moved to continue items 4, 6, 10 and 11 to April 23, 1990 Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 MOTION: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from Jane Hopkins, Berger & Hopkins Attorneys PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990 Page2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued items) 1. FILE REFERENCE 81. 004.211: An ordinance of the city of cupertino amending Ordinance 1449 (Single Family Residential) Zone, Ordinance 1451 (Agricultural Residential) Zone Ordinance 1450 (Residential Hillside) Zone Ordinance 11452 (Agricultural) Zone Ordinance 575 (Duplex) Zone and Ordinance 779 (Multiple Family Residential) Zone to provide for replacement of existing dwelling uni ts destroyed by involuntary act or by consequence of natural disaster. Staff Presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan presented the staff report. He explained the Repealing Clause as stated in the Ordinance noting that section 7.1(g) of Ordinance 575 and section 7.1(g) of Ordinance 779 are two sections of the R2 and R3 Ordinance relating to the ability to label a single family home as a permitted use and that there might be a conflict with the 1979 Ordinance. He further stated that the records of 1979 show it was a deliberate intent to allow an owner of an Rl home to keep that home as a permitted use in R2 and R3 Zone. He stated that it may be appropriate to repeal the above two sections at this time. Mr. Cowan suggested that the Commission make it clear that the exceptions to this Ordinance are illegal structures and legal non-conforming activities. He stated that if a building burns down it must comply with the new codes when rebuilt. Com. Fazekas asked about the property annexed from San Jose and if records could not be found, would this be an illegal structure. In response to Com. Fazekas question, Mr. Cowan stated that the County has records and in the past, in a similar situation, staff relied on testimony from neighbors. He suggested photographs be taken of the properties to verify the shape, configuration and material of a structure if it was destroyed completely. The public hearing was then opened. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing Com. Adams Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration Com. Adams Passed 5-0 MOTION: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990 Page3 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve File Reference 81,004.211 subject to the findings and subconc1usions of the with the last sentence in section 2 deleted. Corn. Mann Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: 2. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 5-EXC-89 Lance Geselbracht Lance Geselbracht 22336 Regnart Road EXCEPTION to section 16.28.040 (1) to allow a fence exceeding 3 ft. in height to be located in a front setback area. Staff Presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan presented the staff report. He presented the commissioners with photographs of the driveway and fence in question. Mr. Cowan explained the applicant's request as stated in the staff report. He noted that the information was more accurate at this time. He noted that staff recommends approval and stated for the safety aspect the gate location is appropriate. In response to Corn. Fazekas question regarding exception criteria Mr. Cowan stated the model resolution presented four exceptions. The public hearing was then opened. AJ:>plicant Presentation: Mr. Lance Geselbracht stated that the reason for the position of the fence is for safety concern. He noted the gate is consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Geselbracht explained the neighborhood and similar fencing which had been approved. He noted the gate is also for security concern. Ms. Carol McNeill, Regnart Ridge Homeowners Association, noted she was speaking on behalf of the Association. She noted an exception should be granted for exceptional reasons, which she believed did not exist under the Geselbracht's circumstances. She requested rejection of the application. Corn. Mann suggested the Regnart Ridge Architectural Review Committee work with the city of Cupertino when approving applications. In response Chr. Claudy stated that the City does not get involved in CC&R's. Ms. Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney, noted that the Homeowners Association can request notice of applications, but the city cannot get involved in CC&R's. Corn. Adams questioned the legality of the other fences in the neighborhood. Mr. Lance Geselbracht noted that staff could not find exceptions for the other fences in the neighborhood. He requested that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990 Page4 Commission review the application only. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing. Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 Com. Adams expressed concern regarding the Geselbracht driveway being used as a turnaround point, but noted the cuI de sac would be used for turning. He noted there was similar fencing in the area. Com. Mackenzie stated there is a safety issue if the gate was moved down the driveway. He noted he supports the application. Com. Fazekas stated although the driveway was steep he did not feel it was steep enough to warrant an exception and noted he would vote against the application. Chr. Adams noted the location of the fence and gate was similar to other driveway gates on the cuI de sac and was appropriate. He stated would support the application. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie subject to the hearing. Com. Mann Passed Com. Fazekas moved to findings adopt application 5-EXC-89 and subconclusions of the SECOND: VOTE: NOES: 4-1 5. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 1-TM-90 Ronald Tripiano Mr. and Mrs. Vince DiSalvo 20867 McClellan Road TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide an existing one acre lot into two lots measuring .365 and .607 acres respectively. Staff Presentation: Mr. Mark caughey presented the staff report. He stated that the proposal is to create two lots through the parcel map process. He noted that it had been pointed out to the applicant that the flag stick extending along a number of existing homes fronting on Bonny Drive would create a disturbance and staff suggested that at a minimum, if this property were to develop independent of the adjoining sites, the flag stick be re-routed to the westerly boundary, this would be inconsistent with the long term objecti ves. Mr. Caughey explained the access is from McClellan Road, but noted this may add to the existing traffic problem on McClellan Road. He noted an alternative to this would be to route future development of the parcels to a completed cuI de sac system which would be an extension of Tula Lane. Mr. caughey noted that it had been requested that the applicant work with staff to reduce or eliminate the need for access onto McClellan Road, to reduce or eliminate the need for flag lots and allow the property PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990 Page5 to develop in a cohesive and logical pattern. He stated that the applicant indicated they could not work with staff on these issues in order to preserve their properties, therefore staff recommends denial. In response to Chr. claudy's question Mr. Caughey pointed out the property surrounding the property in question. Mr. caughey also stated in response to Chr. claudy's question that legally the DiSal vo property could be divided into three lots, but he was concerned about new tenants subdividing the lot further. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Ronald Tripiano, 1264 Brookings Lane, Sunnyvale, stated that all the property owners involved are long term property owners. He stated the 15 ft. driveway in the first application is necessary because the DiSalvo house is 20 ft. back from the property line. He explained why staff's proposal to extend Tula Lane and turn the cuI de sac to the east could not be done noting that property would have to be demolished. He noted the property owners concern regarding giving away property and the impact of the neighborhood. Mr. Ronald Tripiano explained long range plan alternatives: having a common drive; extending Tula Lane further into the property; make the flag lot off McClellan, using the existing access and develop two lots, one flag lot that conforms with the General Plan Zoning of 7500; run flag lots from Tula Lane with cooperation from property owners; extend Tula Lane built through to McClellan Rd; divide property up the middle. In response to Com. Adams question Mr. Tripiano stated the distance from the east edge of the DiSalvo house to the property line is 20 ft. on east 10 ft. on west. Com. Mann suggested taking an easement at the north edge of the property. In response to this Mr. Tripiano stated that the lot to the north will be subdivided in the future. Com. Mann noted concern regarding traffic. Mrs Margaret Flick, 20891 McClellan Road, stated concern about residents inability to use McClellan Road. Mr. Clarence Flick, 20891 McClellan Road, expressed concern regarding the false curbing and too much traffic on McClellan Road. Ms. Rose Ferlayson, 10459 Bonny Drive, asked for clarification of the development and stated she did not want a road along her back fence. Chr. Claudy explained that the application was for sUbdividing the DiSalvo property into two lots with a house being build on the back portion of the lot with a driveway. Com. Mackenzie stated he was not in support of the application. He expressed concern about the width and length of the flag corridor, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990 Page6 he stated it should be wider. He stated the flag should be on the Flick property. He noted he had no objections to access onto McClellan, but the properties should have a common driveway. Com. Mackenzie stated it was not possible to achieve all that the applicant proposed. Com. Fazekas concurred with Com. Mackenzie and would like to see the driveway widened. Com. Adams stated he would not like to see the application approved without an integrated approach with all the properties. He does not support the flag lot for an individual site with the potential of future development. He stated he was not in support of the application. Com. Mann concurred with Commissioners Fazekas and Mackenzie, stating the flag corridor was too long and not wide enough. Chr. Claudy agreed with commissioners Mann, Fazekas and Mackenzie. Mr. Flick stated that the development on the DiSalvo property and Flick property is a coincidence. He stated they are not connected in terms of development. He noted there will never be a joint development of those properties. Com. Mackenzie stated that a tract map provide for development of adjoining properties. Mr. Cowan stated that a legal obligation of the commission is to look at the overall development of the community. He noted that the overall plan is to develop joint efforts of the property owners to balance interest of all the property owners. He stated that staff would be willing to work with the application to come to a solution. Mr. Tripiano addressed some of the concerns of the Commissioners. Chr. Claudy stated that the application could be continued or the Commission would deny the application. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to continue item 6 to April 23, 1990 Com. Mann Passed 5-0 7. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-U-90 and 5-EA-90 Charles Reynolds Charles Reynolds Northeast corner of orange/Olive Ave. USE PERMIT to construct a 1,400 s.f. two-story single-family residence in a Planned Development zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990 Page7 staff Presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman presented the staff report. She noted that it is consistent with the General Plan. She stated the applicant has filed for annexation and this approval must be obtained prior to release of the building permits. Ms. Bjurman explained staffs concerns regarding parking spaces noting that three parking spaces would be adequate. She stated the proposed sun deck had been removed therefore there would be no privacy intrusion. She noted in a Planned Development Zone the Rl Ordinance would be used as guidelines for the development. Due to the site constraints on this parcel the applicant has proposed 7 ft. side setbacks. Staff recommends approval. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Jeff Guinta, designer of the project, stated that Mr. Reynolds had no problem dedicating space to the city for street improvements but is questioning the improvements at this time. He noted there are no curb and gutter improvements on the property adjacent to him on orange or Olive. Mr. Guinta presented photos to the Commissioners. He state the applicant in comfortable with staff findings. Com. Mackenzie questioned the front of the house and expressed concern regarding fencing. Mr. Guinta stated that the west side of the house is the front and stated they anticipate fencing along the north and east property lines. Com. Fazekas questioned the dimensions of the covered patio and the bay window. Com. Mann stated it was a good design. Mr. Chuck Reynolds stated he owned this lot for 10 years and was glad that a house can be built on it. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing Com. Adams Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Condition 12 to reflect Exhibits 1 and 2 dated February 22, 1990; Condition 16 sentence added "Any fencing shall be set back a minimum of 7 ft. from the orange Ave. property line. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990 Page8 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams Passed 5-0 8. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-U-90 and 7-EA-90 Terry Brown Terry Brown East side of Orange Avenue, 150 ft. south of stevens Creek Boulevard USE PERMIT to building with improvements. construct a 3,900 s.f. office/commercial two residential units and related site Staff Presentation: Mr. Mark Caughey presented the staff report. He stated the proposal was a mixed use development consisting of offices and apartments. He described the applicant's site plan. He noted it is based on a shared parking basis and stated the floor area ratio is consistent with the General Plan of the Monta vista area. Mr. Caughey described the architectural concept. He explained the pedestrian access. He noted that the objectives of the Monta vista Guidelines are to provide an east west connection for pedestrians between Orange Ave. and Pasadena Ave. in the Monta vista block. Mr. Caughey stated that one of the key issues was the rear treatment of the building that it should be improved to invite pedestrian access, he noted he had discussed this with the applicant. He stated than an idea was to pull the lower portion of the building closer to Orange Ave and creating a covered walkway and shifting garages to one side or the other. Mr. caughey explained the changes in Condition 19. In response to Com. Adams question Mr. Caughey stated there are residential units to the north and south. AtJtJlicant Presentation: Mr. Terry Brown explained that the requirement to reduce front set back to five feet was required by ASAC. Also, a request from staff to create an entrance in the rear of the building led to the office portion being moved 10 feet to the west, creating a cover breezeway. Mr. Brown went on to explain the project. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Brown stated the garages are 10 ft. by 8 ft. Com. Mackenzie expressed concern about creating a dark alleyway that was more dangerous than inviting. Mr. Brown stated that the entire building could be moved 10 foot forward. Com. Fazekas stated the breezeway could be a security problem. Mr. Cowan stated that if windows were in the breezeway it would brighten it up. Chr. Adams suggested adequate lightening. In response to Chr. Claudy's question regarding the walkways, Mr. Brown stated the apartments will accessed through the porch on the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990 Page9 second floor. Chr. claudy expressed concern regarding privacy intrusion with regards to the decks. The public hearing was then opened. Ms. Nancy Hertert, 22830 San Juan Road, expressed concern regarding the almond tree. She stated the tree had historical value and asked if the sidewalk could go around it and not to put pipes through the tree's roots. Mr. Terry Brown pointed out where the tree is on the aerial map and stated it is in the City's right of way. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question regarding the tree, Mr. Travis Whitten, Public Works stated he will make every effort to save the tree. Mr. Brown stated he would work with the staff to save the tree if possible. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of application 7-U-90 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Condition 19 replaced with staffs revised condition with a further change to delete the word 'shift'; Condition 18 to read that the final plan shall provide for retention of the almond tree on the site and the plan to retain this is subject to ASAC approval if arborist finds the tree retainable. Com. Adams Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie requested that staff bring the attention of the tree to the City Council. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9. 2-TM-90 and 6-EA-90 James sisk Albert Alves North side of Rainbow Drive west of and adjacent to the SPRR Corridor TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide 1.28 acres into six lots ranging in area from 7,500 s.f. to 11,000 s.f. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990 PagelO staff Presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report. She stated that lots 1, 2, and 3 front on Rainbow Drive and lots 4, 5, and 6 are proposed to have access from the lane created from the adjacent subdivision. She noted lots 3, 4, and 5 meet side yard to rear yard and there may be a privacy impact. She stated that if the Planning commission was concerned about this it could be addressed through zoning changes. In response to Com. Claudy's question Ms. Wordell stated there were other situations like this. Mr. Cowan stated that this is common and when this situation occurs the City Council and Planning Commission at times put special conditions regarding setbacks on the tentative map which is not an appropriate place for it and suggests if Planning commission feels strongly about this an Ordinance should be written. Ms. Wordell explained the removal of trees on the different lots. In some cases staff is suggesting trees be planted to replace trees that have to be removed. She stated there would be a soil study to check for possible contamination from past farming uses. In response to Com. Fazekas question regarding the redwood tree on lot 2, Ms. Wordell noted that the staff would be looking for a design that could avoid the tree. Mr. Cowan stated the tree was protected by an Ordinance on an undeveloped lot. He stated that a condition could protect the trees. ADDlicant Presentation: Mr. James Sisk, 10060 Pasadena Avenue, stated he would save as many trees as possible. He did state that the redwood tree on lot 2 may be a problem. He stated a box tree would be planted in the place of the trees that were not possible to save. Mr. Sisk questioned the bond issue and suggested that a if a tree was not saved that had previously been told it could be, the developer would have to pay a fine as well as replace it with box trees. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Sisk stated that a 36 inch box tree will be replaced. In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. sisk noted that the lots will be from 7500 sq. ft. to 9000 sq. ft with houses ranging from 2800 sq. ft. to 3000 sq. ft. Com. Fazekas stated he would like to see the redwood and pine tress saved. In response to Chr. Claudy' s question Mr. Cowan stated there is no requirement to keep orchard trees. In response to Com. Adams question regarding granting a variance to build around the tree, Mr. Cowan stated it must go through a variance hearing to accomplish this. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Gordan Fulich, 1202 Belkamp ct., expressed concern regarding traffic and safety problems. He explained the peaks hours on PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990 Pagel 1 Rainbow drive. He suggested that lots 1, 2 and 3 have access to and from a street other than Rainbow Drive, cutting out some traffic problems. The commissioners discussed Rainbow Drive stating there was no turnouts. Mr. Travis Whitten verified this. In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. Whitten explained that the street was developed as part of the Seven Springs Development. Mr. Fulich stated there is no curbs and gutters in front of the property in question. Com. Adams stated he would like to see as many trees saved as possible. Chr. Claudy stated that if the applicant cannot meet the conditions to save the trees he must come back before the Planning commission. Com. Mann stated the 10 ft. setback on the west side would help save the trees. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing. Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 Com. Adams moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of 2-TM-90 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Condition 15 to require a bond, or other suitable means as approved by the Public Works Department, on the specimen trees as indicated on the tentative map exhibit and additional tree protection provided for the remaining three trees, if they are removed three 36 inch box replacement trees se be planted: Condition 19 requiring for lots 3, 4 and 6 the 10 ft. side yard setback as required in the Rl Ordinance shall be on the west property line. Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: Report/recommendation of Community Development Director regarding revised application content and submittal procedures PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990 Page12 Discussion of proposed Commission for April 30, policy amendments special meeting of the Planning 1990 to consider General Plan text Mr. Robert Cowan discussed the revised application content and submittal procedures. He noted that an 11 x 17 inch exhibit is easier to handle than the full size drawings. Com. Fazekas and Com. Mackenzie both stated they would like the exhibits to scale. Mr. Cowan stated they were ready to start phase II of the General Plan and asked the Commissioners to schedule a special meeting on April 30, 1990 to discuss the General Plan. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Adams reported on the Mayor's Luncheon, items that were discussed were Drug Awareness and the Goals Committee. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan stated that a consultant has been hired to facilitate the Goals Committee. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning commission adjourned at 10:35 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of April 23, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, c~~~ ~~c.-fd Catherlne M. Roblllard, Recording Secretary APP~O ed by the plan9irg commission a e R,aular~e ,jUg of , 1990 'I '/ /' / ' / .. c- o , John Claudy, halrman / r Clerk