Loading...
PC 11-12-85r CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC-480 10300 Torre Avenue Page 1 Cupertino, CA. 95014 • Tel: (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOV EMBER 12, 1985 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 7: 3 0 P .M. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present : Com. Mackenzie Com. Adams Com. Szabo Chr. Claudy Staff Present : Dir. of Ping. and Commty .Devel . Cowan Assistant Planning Director Piasecki Assistant City Engineer Whitten City Attorney Kilian APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Com. Adams, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Adjourned Meeting of September 17, 1985. SECOND : Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent ) MOTION: Com. Adams, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Adjourned Meeting of September 25, 1985 . • SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 3-0 (Com. Sorensen absent, Chr. Claudy abstaining) :-LOTION: Com. Adams, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 14, 1985 as submitted. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent) MOTION: Com. Szabo, to accept the Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 14, 1985 as submitted. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent ) POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS MOTION: Com. Szabo to continue Item #3 to the Meeting of November 20, 1985 at the request of Staff and the Applicant to be discussed in conjunction with the General Plan discussion at that time. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent) liRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS • A letter from Vallco Park, dated November 7, 1985 relating to Item #6; a letter from Rodrigues Avenue residents relating to Item #2 . Both to be entered into the record at the appropriate time. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PC-480 PLANNING COMMISSION :MINUTES, NOVEMBER 12, 1985 a Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. LAWRENCE GUY: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (22-TM-85) to • subdivide an 11, 500 sq. ft . office building into office condominium units. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence, no environmental action is necessary. The subject property is located on the south side of Silverado Avenue approximately 150 ft . east of De Anza Boulevard in a P (Planned Development) with commercial and office intent zoning district . First hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date November 18, 1985. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report, confirming Staff had no concerns. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 4-0 MOTION: Com. Szabo, to recommend approval of Appli- cation 22-TM-85 in accordance with the Findings and Conditions of the Staff Report . SECOND: Corn. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent ) 2 . PAUL K. TAI : TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (23-TM-85) to subdivide approximately . 21 acres into 2 parcels ranging in size from 4, 250 sq. ft . to 4,880 sq . ft . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt from CEQA, hence no • environmental review is necessary. The subject property is located on the south side of Rodrigues Avenue, approximately 450 ft . east of Torre Avenue in a P (Planned Development ) with residential single-family, 5-10 dwelling units per gross acre intent zone. First hearing. The Planning Commission action is the final decision, unless appealed. Mr. Cowan stated the only issue was whether the condition of the use permit which required one of the property lines to be re-aligned to further straighten it had been adhered to strictly enough in the opinion of the Commission. Larry Guy, Applicant, explaine ' their intent to create more yard space for one unit this way; this was their interpretation of Staff's wishes, he said. Chr. Claudyexplained the Comm; ss 'p ion s concern regarding 8 g privacy. .Y It was the consensus of the Co.nmission that the line in question had been substantially° straightened, and the privacy issue addressed as well as possible. The residents ' letter was disc .issed. It was stated the size of the houses was not at issue here, and there was no comment on the way the was divided. property MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 12, 1985 PO-48C Page 3 411 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to approve Application 23-TM-85, subject to the Findings and Conditions of the Staff Report and the Subconclusions of the Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent ) 4 . WHALEY & ASSOCIATES: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (24-TM-85) to subdivide approximately . 5 acres into 3 parcels ranging in size from 6,020 sq. ft . to 8, 585 sq. ft . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposal is categorically exempt, hence, no environmental action is necessary. The subject property is located on the south side of Rainbow Drive approximately 140 ft . west of Stelling Road in a Pre-R1-6 (residential single-family, 6,000 sq. ft . minimum lot size) zoning district . First hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date is November 18, 1985. Mr. Cowan confirmed the request was consistent with the General Plan and the neighborhood and advised there would be an access agreement with the property to the east . Warren Whaley, 22063 Baxley Court, Applicant and Engineer, advised the house on parcel 3 had been redesigned to accom- modate a hammerhead required by the Central Fire District . Horace Levy, 7725 Oak Meadow Court, explored grading and • tree removal on their common border. :sir. Whaley confirmed an arborist would advise on the pine trees and unsafe specimens would be removed, he said. He confirmed the property would drain north, to the street . Corn. Mackenzie noted the trees to be removed were listed in the Conditions. Mr. Piasecki suggested that if flexibility to remove other diseased trees was to be granted, the Conditions should so state. Mr. Levy felt grading around the trees might hasten their demise, and suggested they all be taken out, as all were diseased and caused problems. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to approve Application 24-TM-85 subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15; Condition 16; Condition 17 with the addition that Staff may approve the removal of trees found by the arborist to be diseased; Conditions 18-20 as per Staff Report . • SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent) PC-480 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 12, 1985 , Page 4 JOHN AND PATRICIA SEAMAN: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (27-TM-79) (Revised) to modify a previously approved tenta- tive map to permit removal of a 35" diameter oak tree located on lot 15 of tract no . 6943 (Oakdell Ranch) . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposal is categorically exempt, hence, no environmental action is necessary. The subdivision is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 110 ft . east of Phar Lap Drive and 140 ft . south of Cakdell Place. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date is November 18, 1985. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report and relayed Staff ' s feeling that the tree should be removed, though the economic argument to remove the tree was invalid. Com. Adams enquired about the original arborist ' s report . Mr. Piasecki said the original arborist, Mr. Barrie Coates, now felt the tree was no longer viable. The trenching around the tree was discussed; the possibility that it was foundation trenching, and the proximity to the tree. Mr. Don Blair, consulting arborist, had examined the tree in the summer and again that day and submitted a twig from the tree and also one from a similar tree on Phar Lap Drive for comparison purposes. He could not recommend preservation, he said, and conjectured that 60% of the root system had been affected by the misunderstood attempt to improve the condition III the tree by trenching to facilitate fertilizing and watering. He confirmed there was no treatment for the diseases from which the tree suffered and that it had not shrugged them off itself. Questioned by Corn. Mackenzie on whether preservation measures had been followed, Mr. Blair felt many measures had been overlooked on the construction site. Cora. Szabo enquired whether a permit was required for the trenching. Mr. Whitten confirmed that a grading or building permit would have been required and did not know if one had been secured. Mr. Piaeecki confirmed that post and beam foundattorfs were to have been used to avoid disrup':ing the root system of the tree, and so felt the trenching had not been for a foundation. R.D. Koenitzer, 10060 PharLap Drive, acknowledged the tree was sick, but felt the trench had been back-hoed inspite of the requirements for a post and beam foundation. He stated the conditions suggested in his letter for the removal of the tree, that the size of the house be limited and the privacy intrusion issue be addressed. Peter Bagnall, 10069 Oakleaf Place, adjacent, noted the tree had been diseased for the entire eighteen months ' period he had lived there, and did not believe the trenching was a deliberate attempt to destroy the tree. He felt the lot should • be developed and the tree removed, as it was restricting surrounding property values, he felt . He did not want to make privacy a major issue, but requested that the second story windows not overlook his back yard and pool area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 12, 1985 PC-480 Questioned by Coms:Adams and Mackenzie, Mr. Bagnall felt the Page 5 • trench was dug for a foundation, and confirmed there was trenching around the other oak tree on the property, though not so close, and the tree appeared healthier. Mr. Ray Cobb, 51 University Avenue, Los Gatos, ARchitect, did not see a problem with eliminating windows on the side and back and confirmed their intention to gl , trees in the back. He stated the house was desiGned to be 31 ft . from the property line, but could concur with a condition that it be 35 ft . he said. He felt the house would be an asset for the subdivision and confirmed an intention to respect privacy Questioned by Chr. Claudy, Mr. Cobb confirmed the pool shown on the architectural rendering was conceptual only, and acknowledged that a 12 inch pipe and the roots of the other oak tree would have to be avoided in any pool construction. Questioned by Com. Adams, Mr. Cobb confirmed the whole western foundation line of the plan would be post and beam construction to avoid disturbing the roots of the adjacent oak tree. Mr. Koenitzer wanted to see the house as far away as possible from the property line and felt 45 ft . was not unreasonable. Mr. Cobb noted the two-story houses in the neighborhood and that they would be glant_ing trees as a screen. He reminded the prior approval was for a 35 ft . setback and felt 45 ft . could be quite restrictive. Chr. Claudy explained that the 35 ft . setback figure had been for a one-story house,but noted the difficulty of moving this one . Mr. Piasecki advised the house had to be redesigned anyway since it did not comply with the conditions. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 4-0 The consensus of the Commission was that the tree in question should be removed. Chr. Claudy was concerned with minimizing privacy intrusion and noted the design was in opposition to Condition 16 of the use permit . The only way to ensure this be followed, since the use permit was not being addressed, was that a new tree be placed in the same location, he felt . Com. Szabo pointed out that even then, privacy could not be ensured. Com. Mackenzie felt there should be limits on the property, to preclude reward for removing the tree. The consensus of the Commission was that the tree should be replaced to compensate the neighborhood for the loss . • Mr. Piasecki suggested a Minute Order to Staff on the privacy issue. He noted that Staff would not have approved the proposed house because of the orientation of the windows and the setbacks, but admitted the deck might have posed a problem. Mr. Kilian noted Staff ' s discretion would not have included moving the building to a 45 ft . setback. PC-480 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, N0VEMBER 12, 1985 Page 6 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to approve Application 27-TM-79 • (Revised) subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and the Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Conditions 1-2; Condition 3 deleted; Conditions 4-5; New Condition 6 requiring that a large specimen tree. (at least 24 inch box) of a species acceptable to Staff, be installed where Staff approves on the property, but not in the side yard. SECOND : Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent) MOTION: Com. Szabo, to send a Minute Order to Staff to express concern that the plan submitted by the Applicant must comply with the Conditions of the Use Permit and Condition 16 in particular. Should there be any doubt, Staff should bring the plan back to the Commission. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 3-1 (Com. Sorensen absent , Com. Mackenzie opposed on the grounds the matter could be adequately handled by Staff) 6 . GOOD SAMARITAN UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: (41-U-85) USE PERMIT to operate a preschool and day care facility in an existing church building. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEIA : The Lnviron- mental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative411 Declaration. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Homestead Road and Linnett Lane. First Hearing. The Planning Commission action is the final decision, unless appealed. Mr. Cowan noted the only issue was the traffic situation, but that Staff had not felt it significant enough to warrant a full-scale traffic report . Chr. Claudy ascertained the Applicant had seen the letter from Mr. Ward of Vallco and did not have any concerns with it . Georgia Stigall-Prince, 824 Parnell, Sunnyvale was concerned that the aggressive commuter traffic situation in the neighborhood would pose a safety hazard to school traffic. Though the City of Cupertino had not addressed the problem, she said, the City of Sunnyvale had been ticketing speeders once they crossed city lines. Bill Prince explained that commuters entered the neighborhood to avoid traffic lights, and that there were entrances and exits from Vallco Village into the neighborhood. The Commission was concerned with the situation and discussed closing off access at a future time (since it could not be done in conjunction with this Application) . Staff undertook to investigate with Vallco Park and the City of Sunnyvale. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing 411 SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 4-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to grant a Negative Declaration SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 12, 1985 ?C-480 MOTION: Com. Szabo, to approve Application 41-U-85 Page 7 411 per the Findings and Conditions of the Staff Report and the Subconclusions of the Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent ) 7. TERRY BROWN CONSTRUCTION CO. : (42-U-85) USE PERMIT to remodel a single family residence, including an approximately 600 sq. ft . addition. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposal is categorically exempt, hence, no environmental action is necessary. The subject property is located on the south side of Byrne Court approximately 280 ft . west of -Byrne Avenue in a P (Planned Development with residential, 4 . 4-12 dwelling units per gross acre intent zone) . First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date is November 18, 1985 . Mr. Piasecki reported that Staff had no concerns. Com. Mackenzie addressed the setback encroachment . Mr. Piasecki confirmed it was not unusual in the area and was very minor. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 4-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval cf Application 42-U-85, subject to the Findings and Conditions of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent) 8 . GENERAL COMMERCIAL ORDINANCE to consider an amendment to the CG (General Commercial) zoning district . ENVIRONMEN- TAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The amendment will concentrate on provisions of the Ordinance relating to uses permitted in the zone. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - December 2, 1985. Mr. Piasecki reported that the concerns raised on the old 7-11 site on Bubb Road had caused Staff to suggest that a use permit be required for all restaurants; also that minor vehicle repair was suggested to be permitted with a use permit, which reflected the Commission' s concern to encourage such, since many auto repair facilities incorporat =• in gas stations were closing. Com. Adams suggested adding two items under"Auto Repair" in the Staff Report (page 2) trash enclosures and location and also waste oil and hazardous material. • Mr. Cowan advised the latter was already covered by Ordinanc = . Mr. Piasecki questioned whether the items in the draft Ordinance, Section 5 (f) (j ) and (k) would be appropriate on such sites as the old 7-11 site, and whether they might be subject to use permit review. PC-480 PLANNING COMMISSION .'MINUTES, NOVEMBER 12, 1985 Page 8 Com. Adams registered of video g disapprovalgame machines • close to school sites. :Lon Chapman, 21461 Elm Court , discussing the old 7-11 site, wanted those activities creating off-site intrusion, noise, traffic, litter, odors, smoke, fumes, loitering and extended hours restricted. He suggested the uses of restaurant, donut shop, ice cream parlor, self-service laundry and video game machines . be excluded. Gary Stokes, Vice President of Smog Doctors, supported the proposal to include minor auto repair as a permitted use in a CG*zone, subject to use permit . It was difficult for them to find locations, he said, and when they did, they were tied to the sale of gasoline, which was not economical for them. He described their use as lighter than the typical service station use. Questioned by Com. Szabo, Mr. Piasecki explained that Staff in the past had interpreted that an auto repair facility that did not sell gasoline was an illegal use in a CG*zone, and that the Non-conforming Use Ordinance did not address this . MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing SECOND : Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 Com. Mackenzie felt Mr. Chapman ' s ideas were good, but was concerned about the expense and delay of obtaining a use permit for a small operator. 111 Mr. Cowan reminded that the Commission and City Council had asked Staff to consider streamlining the process . He suggested the Master Use Permit approach used at Vallco Park; or different uses allowed in different CG* settings; or tailored*PD' s,were approaches that might also be used. Chr. Claudy noted the items mentioned by Mr. Chapman could not be eliminated entirely, only controlled by use permit . He felt any store selling prepared food for consumption on or off the premises needed a use permit, i . e . , bakeries, etc . should be included, and noted the difficulties of definition . He suggested making the proposed changes, getting the new Ordinance operational and then planning how to streamline the process (since Staff had advised little progress had been made in that direction) . Kathy Myles, Executive Director of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, felt that as the changes discussed would have a great impact on business, they deserved further hearing. Chr. Claudy explained the Council would have the final action on December 2, 1985, and that the Commissioners were in support of the changes. Ms. Myles noted some Commissioners had been concerned with additing restrictions to business operations, and she • questioned how far the Commission could go in one Meeting. Mr. Kilian clarified that, in matters of Ordinances, the Commission and City Council had a wider discretion than in other matters to discuss items not raised in the Staff Report, and could even adopt without P.;Iblic Hearing. L ,t.1 �{. V. PLANNING 00101ISSION MIINUTFS, NOVEMBER �15 1985 PC 4�0 Page.'9 9 Corgi. Mackenzie suggested the Item be continued to allow ;r Ms. Myles to prepare input. Ns. Myles noted ahe was asking the Commission to consider, in their recommendations the burden on all involved.' She < acknowledged, however, that in some areas, such as the old 7-11 property, there might be special needs. Mr. Cowan suggested that at the next fleeting Staff could give outlines of four different approaches, i.e., the Staff approach; Mr. Chapman's approach; the approach of waiting until the streamlining process was prepared; the approach of a CG*PD*for neighborhood commercial. Mr. Chapman was concerned about the timing of the Ordinknee because of thb City Council hearing regarding the old 7-11 si e. Chr. Claudy explained that the site was riot being discussed. per se, and that the Ordinance would not, in any case, be going to City Council before the hearing on the old 7-11 `site P,:OTION: Com. I`.ac'kenzie, to reopen the Public Heart SECOND: Coin. Szabo VOTE: Passed 4-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to continue Item #8 to the r Regular Meeting of November 25, 1985• ! SECOND: Corn. Szabo VOTE: Passed 4-0 1 ® (Cora. Sorensen absent) E NEW BUSINESS � REPORT OF THE PLANNINIG &' .. ' . "�� 6 Mr. Cowan advised that traditionally, the Comr:istion had not E net for the second Sleeting in December. MOTION: Corn. Mackenzie, to cancel the Regular Meeting of December 23, 1935 SECOND: Com. Adar..s VOTE: Passed 4-0 . (Con. Sorensen absent) ;dr. Cowan asked permission .to simplify the format of the Staff Report and A3enda to contain only key facts.. The consensus of the ConLrission was to try this as an experiment; that details of issues and concerns would still be necessary. REPORT OF THE PLANNING CO.111 iSSIONI Co,m. h:ackenzie ascertained with Staff that office use was being requested at the Exxon station site at the corner of McClellan Road and De Anza Boulevard. ADJOTJRN:ME\T: 10: 25 p.m. until :'Iovember 13, 1985 at 7:00 2 i Attest a"-'.'. .,.. Approved: Cit Gleskairperson *CG - General Commercial. *PD - Planned Development ' b07111!! IIIA.1131 01M �. a �t•: a u .. .. 0_0 �. ;�� .,���, ry;• fir- •. ���, . z � s, r �.