Loading...
PC 07-14-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-336 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Staff Absent: Present: Planning Commissioner Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Attorney Foley Com. Claudy Com. Adams Com. Johnson Chairman Koenitzer Com. Blaine , ' POSTPONEMENTS Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked for Continuance on Item #1, MAY INVESTMENT, INC, and discussion of proceeding with zoning on Item #2, lO-Z-79. Item #9, 12-TM-Z&~; request by telephone by applicant, motion by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Claudy. PASSED ABSENT: approved by a 4-0 Com. Blaine NEW AGENDA ITMES/WRITTEN CO}wruNICAIONTS Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Hiester on Item #7, entered into the record and included in the file. Letter from A. L. Irwin, Item #4, entered into the~~cord and included in the file. ORAL COtll1UNICATIONS Mr. A. C. Edwards, 10371 Miller Avenue, #1, Cupertino, asked that Item #4 be heard immediately as advertised on the notice of public hearing mailed to him. CHR. KOENITZER reviewed Staff procedure for sequence of agenda items, and he e~plained that Item #4 would be heard in proper order. The copie of the Staff reports, available on the front bar, were oã11e~~to the attention of the audience. PUBLIC HEARING (Chr. Koenitzer explained the issue being limited to Prezoning and outlined the order of the meeting: Staff review, Commissioner's inquiry of Staff, public input, then decision by the Commission. - The necessity of conforming to the requirements of the law on prezoning matters was reviewed, and it was stated, emphatically, that the hearing had no reference to annexation, which was totally the responsibility of the City Council.) , / ITEM #1, Application 26-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (COLUMBUS/VAl): PRE- ZONING approximately 16 gross acres from Santa Clara County AI-lac (Agricultural-Residential) and Rl-lO (one-family residence, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino Rl-lO (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone ma be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRON}ŒNTAL PC-336 Page 2 MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property encompasses all unincor- porated parcels located on Columbus Avenue and Vai Avenue easterly of Bubb Road. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 18, 1980. Planning Director Sisk identified the area on an aerial map -- 16 acres with 45 dwellings developed in a Rl-lO pattern. Large lots that might be subject to~future subdivision were pointed out. Mr. V. Dean Skeels, 21430 Columbus Avenue, Cupertino, had questions to address to the Planning Commissioners. 1. What guarantee would the City grant to maintain the area in its present rural state? 2. Was that possible? 3; What advantages would accrue to belonging to the City of Cupertino vs. City of San Jose? (He pointed out that the City and the County had the same amenities) 4. Would the residents be re- quired or forced to switch service from one city to the other? CHR. KOENITZER responded to the questions and advised that they were questions best addressed to the City Council should there be a future annexation hearing. Mrs. Norma Etter, 21301 Columbus Avenue, Cupertino, called attention to the curved section in the corner of the cul-de-sac through which a creek flowed and within which a mini-wildlife preserve had developed. She asked for a guarantee of preservation of the area against subdivision. Mrs. Etter shared her feeling of fear and lack of understanding for the necessity of the prezoning. She said there was a feeling of helplessness that was very uncomfortable and that was felt by many of the residents of the area. They wished the neighborhood to stay as ~ was. Mr. John F. White, 21471 Columbus Avenue, Cupertino, advised that he was opposed to the change in zoning. He said he understood that they were dealing with a procedural matter, he said he wished to make his statement objecting to the prezoning as a statement for the record as a procedural matter. Mr. .White submitted a letter to the Planning Commission (accepted and made a part of the file by Planning Director Sisk). SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Johnson. Second: Com. C1audy PASSED: ABSENT: Com. Blaine MOTION: Com. Adams, commenting that the prezoning seemed to than previous prezoning applications, asked for the a Negative Declaration. Com. C1audy PASSED Com. Blaine 4-0 be no different granting of 4-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Adams, Approval 26-Z-80 Com. Claudy p~srn Com. Blaine 4-0 Planning Director Sisk advised members of the public that a meeting would be held in their neighborhood and notifications would be sent out prior to City Council consideration of Item #1. MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-336 Page 3 ITEM #2, Application 10-Z-79, l2-TM-79 and 19-U-80, MAY INVESTMENT, INC. REZONING approximately 1.4 acres from R3 (Multiple-family residential) t P (Planned Development with residential intent) zone or whatever zone ma be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to sub- divide the subject property into five parcels ranging in size from approximately 4,500 sq. ft. to 14,700 sq. ft.; USE PERMIT to construct five (5) single-family homes; and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence no action is required. Said property is lo- cated at the northwesterly terminus of Scenic Boulevard just south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 18, 1980. Planning Director Sisk identified the area being discussed and called attention to the part of the Staff report that indicated the problem of fill on Parcel #3 and fire and emergency access problems on Lots #4 & U5 Continuance had been requested by the applicant for time to consider the access problems on Lots #4 & #5, and also redesign of unit #3 to accommo date the fill slope. It was asked that the zoning be decided and be passed on to the City Council for approval. Mr. Jason Chartier, applicant, said he did not regard the problems as being irremedia1. Access for fire and emergency units, and compen- sation for the fill situation on Lots U4 & #5, and #3, respectively, would be "worked over" by his staff of designers and engineers, and the solutions would be brought back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Charles Scales, 10077 Scenic Boulevard, Cupertino, asked what privacy would be available from the houses on the top of the hill, how close they would be to the property line of his property. Mr. Chartier said he could not answer the questions immediately.('-.þut promised to have the answers when the matter was returned to the Plan~ing Commission. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Claudy, for 10-Z-79 only. Com. Adams PASSED Com. Blaine 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Claudy, Recommend Approval of Application lO-Z-79, subject to Conditions Ul through #14 as outlined in Staff Report. Com. Adams PASSED 4-0 Com. Blaine MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Claudy, Continue l2-TM-79 and 19-U-80 till August 11, 1980. Com. Adams PASSED 4-0 Com. Blaine MOTION: ITEM U3, Applications 27-Z-80, 9-TM-80 and l3-U-80 of ALBERT L. RUSSO: REZONING approximately .3 gross acre from R3 (Multiple-family resi- dential) to CG (General Commercial) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately 4.3 acres into two parcels equaling .3 acres and 4.0 acres; USE PERMIT to construct a parking lot- and ENVIRONtlENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negativ Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of PC-336 Page 4 MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 4.3 acres approximately 500 ft. easterly of De Anza Boulevard. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 18, 1980. The property at issue was pointed out and the planned expansion of square footage outlined along with the area expected to provide additional parking space for the expanded office space. The question of whether or not trip constraint could be transferred to another parcel within the constraint area was described as a new issue totally. Ingress and egress and reciprocal easements were outlined along with the complication of adjacent property owners objecting to providing necessary agreements. The Commissioners discussed the various difficulties and then dis- cussed the probable solution of utilizing a corridor from an adjacent property to provide a second entrance or exit to the new parking area. (The Camarda property or the Lands of Wilson property upon which ease- ment agreements were already secured.) Mr. Albert Russo, applicant, reviewed the difficulty with The Roman Catholic Welfare Corporation of San Francisco, a party to the re- quest under consideration, and related and corroborated a letter from Mr. J. Robert Dempster, owner of two properties, (Letter available in the file on Application #4, received by the Planning Commission under Written Communications at the July 14, 1980 regular meeting). Planning Director Sisk observed that he felt the Commissioners would be interested to note that the fire department was interested in ob- taining alternate access to the area. ~> Assistant City Attorney Foley, in response to a request from Chr. Koenitzer, advised that the City could require easement from Mr. Russo or whoever else was the applicant (s). CHR. KOENITZER observed that Condition n18 seemed to refer arid apply to both the 4 acre plot and the remaining parcel of the Welfare Corporation of San Francisco, and the property identified as Lands of Russo -- Condition #18 being binding on them. Mr. Russo. 20311 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Applicant, of Cupertino, said the property owned by the church was utilized as a playground to some extent, but most of it was too dangerous for use, which is the condition that motjvated the church to agree to sellout the portion contiguous to his existing parking area. He related that a redwood fence separating the properties had been repaired, at his expense, many times to prevent students from using a short cut through the parking lot. He pointed out the 1/3 acre at the tailend of the basketball court was paved; but, he pointed out that the balance of the area was unpaved and full of rocks and debris. Mr. Lance T. Will, 20325 Stevens Creek, attorney representing Mr. Dempster, said that Mr. Dempster would oppose any proposition that would force him to allow ingress and egress through his adjacent properties. (A letter received from Mr. Dempster, which had been given to the Commissioners under Written Communications at the July 14, 1980 meeting, was actached to and became a part of the file on Item #3.) MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-336 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Johnson PASSED: 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Blaine MOTION: Com. Claudy, commenting that there seemed to be nothing to obligate Mr. Dempster to easement or assessment, thus making those considerations moot, except as he should redevelop and submit an application for his changes to the area; and, also commenting that on the church property there was not any construction of a road until such time as the part adjacent to Stevens Creek developed in some manner, and recognizing that the fire department did feel need for access to Mr. Russo's building (it being impossible to get fire equipment under the building), ...... PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: Com. Adams. Second: Com. C1audy PASSED: 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Blaine COM. ADAMS asked Mr. Russo if he'd had any conversation with Mr. Dempster or his representative. Mr. Russo said that he had had informal conversation about a month ago, at which time he had advised Mr. Dempste of his plans. It was left that he would call and we would get together and talk about it. Mr. Russo said that although he had not explored the possibility, he felt that access could be obtained through the property to the east. COM. ADAMS related that the packet implied that Mr. Demp- ster would like to talk to Mr. Russo, and you say you have talked to him (Mr. Russo indicated the discussion had taken place about 4 or 5 months previously. ) ?--. CHR. KOENITZER said he felt the access through the ndrth east corner of the property, where the City already held easement rights of agree- ment, would be fine, but he felt it would require some kind of a Reso- lution. Mr. Russo said the fire department wanted 10.6 x 9 ft. to provide the circulation required by the City. He reported he could not record a map until the easement was established to the satisfaction of the Staff. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams. Second: Com. Johnson PASSED: 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Blaine MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: PASSED: ABSENT: Com. Adams, Approve granting of Negative Declaration. Com. C1audy PASSED 4-0 Com. Blaine Com. Adams . Approval 27-Z-80, to City Council Com. Claudy PASSED Com. Blaine 4-0 Com. Adams, Approval 15-U-80 subject to Conditions #1 through #17 and subject to the findings set forth in page 1 of the Staff Report. Com. Claudy 4-0 Com. Blaine PC-336 Page 6 MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM #4, Applications 29-Z-80 and 15-U-80 of Grace Clover: REZONING approximately .25 acre from R3 (Multiple-Family Residence) to BQ (Quasi-Public Building) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to convert a triplex apartment building into a residential care facility for elderly persons and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is lo- cated on the east side of Miller Avenue approximately 150 ft. south of Greenwood Drive. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 18, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan briefly described the scope of the changes being requested, and he advised the Commissioners that the facility on the site had exemplary reports from the County as to operation and character. The aerial map of the property was exhibited. Staff indicated mixed feelings because of conflicting objectives -- encouraging residential care for senior citizens; yet, it was felt that maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods was of great importance, and that quasi-public zoning was inappropriate. Mrs. Bernadine Narcisse, 10366 Miller Avenue, Cupertino, explained the reason they were expanding the care facility from six to twelve (6 to 12) clients, and additional employees for their care. They were a family-type group and the people were treated as family. She said it was a business only in the sense that they had to meet the bills for a happy home: good food, good care. Having six (6) residents, in order to add even one more resident, they had to redesign and install sprinklers. Therefore, in order to bring the property into conformance, they felt twelve (12) residents would help them meet their obligations. ~, COM. JOHNSON asked Mrs. Narcisse if she could state how many supply trips were made to and from her facility in a day. She replied that meat was delivered once a week and she shopped for groceries once a week. Mr. Charles Edwards, a neighbor, said he had lived across the street from the residence and he said he'd like to know how they received a Permit to remodel the residence in the first place. If there was no record of a permit, he said there had been an error because it had been remodeled. He reported that pigs and chickens were kept on the site. COM. JOHNSON asked for clarification of the pigs and chickens, which Mrs. Narcisse said had been brought onto the property for a short period of time by special request as an enrichment experience COM. CLAUDY reported that there had not been a permit issued for the remodeling of the building. The Commissioners discussed the remodeling' of the garage into an extra bedroom and a kitchen. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that building inspector, Lieber, had reviewed the property on a number of items for correction, one item of which was the lack of a building permit; another item being approving the conversion of the existing garage. The County reviewed the correction with the owners and indi- cated that the matters were to have been corrected within 30 days. MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-336 Page 7 Mrs. Mary Reynen, 973 Miller, Cupertino, said she owned 10366 Miller, next door to the property in question. She did not feel that the neigh- borhood was an area for what they were getting into as a convalescent home. She predicted more noise into the area. She said the livestock was a continuous problem. Mr. James C. Kirkman, 10353 Miller Avenue, Cupertino, agreed with the previous speakers in objecting to the change of zoning and the approval of the establishment being expanded. The Commissioners discussed the narrowing of Miller Avenue in the area near the proposed home. Mrs. Mary A. Pollack, a neighbor, said she also lived across the street and felt that it should not be rezoned. She agreed with the rest of the neighbors in objecting to anything other than dogs and birds. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams. Second: Com. Johnson PASSED: 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Blaine The members of the Planning Commission agreed it was laudable of Mrs. Narcisse and Mrs. Clover to wish to help senior citizens; however, they were greatly concerned with the animals on the property, the remodeling without proper permits, accelerated noise and traffic within the neigh- borhood caused by the increased number of residents. The house location was a problem and it was suggested there might be other areas in the City where the business might fit in better. SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Claudy, Recommend Denial, 29-Z-80, the reasoning being that such a change of zoning with the resqi~ant density in- crease would be incompatible with the existing neighborhood, both from use and also from the point of view of traffic con- gestion. Com. Adams PASSED 4-0 Com. Blaine MOTION: MOTION: Com. Adams, recommend l5-U-80 Denial. SECOND: Com. Johnson VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (CHR. KOENITZER explained that the zoning action would go to City Council automatically, and that the Use Permit could be appealed to the City Council. The appeal should be provided in writing to the Staff within five (5) working days.) Mr. Richard G. Hansen, Attorney representing Mr. Greg Bunker, applicant on Item #11, asked for a Continuance of the item pending his having a full Planning Commission sitting for determination of the issue. He asked that the record reflect both requests. Assistant City Attorney Foley advised Mr. Hansen that he and his client were entitled to a quorum of the sitting Planning Commission. RECESS: 9:40 p.m. - 9:50 p.m. PC-336 Page 8 MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM #5, Applications 30-Z-80 and l6-U-80 of BYRNE AVENUE PROPERTIES: PREZONING approximately .22 acre from Santa Clara County Rl-8 (one family residence, 8,000 sq. ft., minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino P (Planned Development with Residential intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct two residential dwelling units and ENVIRON- MENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 200 ft. easterly of Byrne Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 18, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan described the property as having a density range of 4.4-12 units/acre, and stated that the project was in conformance with the General Plan. The Staff recommended favoring approval of consolidation 3 lots into a 2-unit detached project -- a mode more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Terry Brown, applicant, said he had had very little chance to re- view the Staff Report. On the consideration of separating the units, he said redesigning would be a hardship. Mr. Richard Meek, 2559 So. Bascom, Campbell, CA, said his main approach was to preserve as much yard areas as possible and still provide privacy. The narfowness of the property was constraining on design con- siderations, and a change in design to detached units would make it difficult for solar heating on hot water. A front to back roof line on a narrow lot makes the buildings themselves too narrow and too tall and not esthetically good looking from the street. The victorian design fit into the character of the existing neighborhood, he stated. Mr. James Hemphill, 2693 Iversen Court, Santa Clara, real estate agent and partner in the proposal, said that a term tha¿-~as going to be heard more and more was "duet." He said that was what was proposed -- basically two end units of a town home put together. In cases of areas like Monta Vista,where there are many older homes being replaced on different sized lots, this type of design fit the neèds for the future -- using the side yard for entrance and retain very good back yard space. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Johnson. Second: Com. Claudy PASSED; 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Blaine Planning Director Sisk called attention to Par. 2 -- a statement as to what is said on the setbacks. PUBLIC HEARINGS REOPENED: Com. C1audy. Second: Com. Adams PASSED: 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Blaine In response to COM. CLAUDY, Mr. Brown said that the units being dis- cussed -- 4 units of 5 units having rear-facing decks -- said the plans were drawn and met the conditions of Staff relative to east and west screening and distance from the property line. MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-336 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams. Second: Com. Claudy PASSED: 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Blaine Planning Director Sisk asked that on #1 Conceptual Plan a statement be added that subsequent Use Permits must be consistent with the General Plan. Delete #2. On the Use Permit, eliminate Par. 1 of Condition #16 and the first eight (8) words in Par. 3. Architectural and Site Review is not necessary. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Adams, Recommend Approval of Negative Declaration. Com. Johnson PASSED 4-0 Com. Blaine Com. Adams, Approval 30-Z-80, consistent with the General Plan. Com. C1audy PASSED 4-0 Com. Blaine Com. Adams, Approval l6-U-80, Conditions #1 through #15, and modified Condition #16 as per comments and suggestions of Planning Director Sisk (above -- Minutes July 14, 1980 Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Page 9, Par. 2.), as per discussio with Staff, and Findings & Subconclusions of Staff Memo. Com. C1audy PASSED 4-0 Com. Blaine ITEM #6, Application l4-U-80 of VALLCO PARK, LTD. ~DEM COMPUTERS): USE PERMIT to construct a 140,000 sq. ft. industrial building and ENVIR- ONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property consists of approxi- mately eight acres located on the northwest corner of Tantau Avenue and Val1co Parkway in an MP (Planned Industrial Park) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 21, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan noted the application fell within the "uncommitted" status of property as assigned by the Va11co Park Con- struction phasing memorandum -- the properties to remain in undevelop- able status except as transportation or collector/distributor roads may be realized. (Cf. Page 2, Staff Memo, dated July 10, 1980, by Robert Cowan on Application 14-U-80, Vallco Park, Ltd. -- Item #6 of July 14, 1980, PC-336 Agenda.) Assuming the trip transfer mitigation traffic measure is imposed, the Staff recommends for approval of the application Mr. Walter Ward, representing Val1co Park, volunteered to answer any questions from the Commissioners Mr. Richard R. Griffiths, 1080 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, CA, briefly described the facade of the proposed building and compared it to the older building. Mr. Griffiths, an architec~ said the two structures, although somewhat different in appearance, would be compatible and pro- vide pleasing structural and textural contrasts. Mr. Walter Ward of Va11co asked for the correction of 140,000 sq. ft. to 150,000. He said they were working on the total solution of the overall development of Vallco and total traffic solution for the future based on the counts at the shopping center. PC-336 Page 10 MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING It was determined that storage of chemical equipment and gases was not required on the premises. Tandem was a computer manufacturing organi- zation only. COM. CLAUDY introduced the subject of increased housing, which he said 'would be addresæd,in all probability, in the next General Plan Amendment, The Vallco area being a prime target for combining jobs with housing, he: said he felt it would be profitable to discuss the subject more easily in the absence of applications for approval. COM. JOHNSON said that struck him as talking about City Council policy ,decisions. COM. CLAUDY responded that sending ideas up to the Council would provide information and possibly insight for discussion of the results of the Planning Commission and recommendations to the Council. Mr. Walter Ward, Vallco, said he heard what was being said. that there had been discussion of the issue through Regional 'groups that recommend jobs close to housing. He advised and County PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: PASSED: ABSENT: Com. Adams. Second: Com. Johnson ?:'. 4-0 Com. Blaine MOTION: Com. C1aud~, Recommend Approval l4-U-80, Standard Conditions #1 through #14; Conditions,#15 through #22 as per Staff Report Change reference in Par. 1 of Chart on Page 2 from 150,000 sq. ft. to 140,000 sq. ft. Com. Johnson passed 4-0 Com. Blaine ,SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: ITEM #7, Application l8-U-80 of WARREN HOLT: USE PERMIT to vary from setbacks and height requirements to accommodate solar panels and related solar equipment and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence no action is required. The subject property is located ,on the northeast corner of Merritt Drive and Larry Way (10510 Larry Way) in an Al-43 (Agricultural, Residential) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 21, 1980. Planning Director Sisk exhibited a drawing of the proposed solar system and showed slides of the property from different perspectives. Mr. James Holt, 10510 Larry Way, Cupertino, licensed contractor, ex- plained the reasons for designing the solar system with the setbacks and heights shown on the drawings. Alternative designs were discussed with the Commissioners and Mr. Holt explained why the panels were not placed over the house, were positioned perpendicularly instead horizontally, and he identified th~ material of the panels as having been selected for thp, most efficient job. Adequate support for the 440 sq. ft. of panels ould be provided, MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I ICOM. ADAMS asked Mr. Holt what kind of material he was going to utilize ¡for the panels and Mr. Hold replied that of the two materials available he was not certain which he would use. ~sistant City Attorney Foley said she wished to make a comment to the 'effect that Section 65850.5 of the government code reads: "...the Ilegislative body of any city or county shall not enact an ordinance Fhich has the effect of prohibiting or of unreasonably restricting the µse of solar energy systems other than for the protection of the public health and safety." She said the section went on to define that any !restriction that would increase the cost of a system or decrease its efficiency. She said that if the system was changed and changed suffi- fiently to change efficiency or cost, it would have to be ruled that the ~hanges were for the protection of public health and safety. i Mrs. Ruth Fukigawa, 10525 Larry Way, Cupertino, said that she was a neighbor and that she was in favor of the installation. , COM. KOENITZER entered into the file and record of Item #7, a letter from rr. & Mrs. Victor and Bernice Hiester. ! PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Johnson. Second: Com. C1audy PASSED: 4-0 ¡ i ¡Planning Director Sisk identified the plans on the board as Site Plan A ;and Drawing B. He asked that Condition #17 be deleted and that IExhibit A and B be placed into Condition #15. , , MOTION: Com. Adams, Approval of l8-U-80, subject to Standard Conditions #1 through #14; Condition #15 modified to~c1ude Site Plan A and Drawing B; Condition #17 deleted; Condition #18 deleted; and subject to findings anc conclusions outlined in Staff Report Com. Claudy PASSED 3-1 Commissioners C1audy, Adams, Johnson Commissioner Koenitzer Com. Blaine I SECOND: VOTE: YES: NO: ABSENT: C-336 age 11 P1annin~ Director Sisk announced that the issue was completed except for the issuance of the Resolution (it was not subject to City Council approv 1). The ordinance would need to pass the City Council level. ITEM #8, Application 10-TM-80 - KEY CHEVROLET (PAUL WEISS - MARK THOMAS & CO., INC.: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately 5.3 acres into two parcels equaling 4.4 acres and .9 acre and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative ,Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Steven I Creek Boulevard approximately 150 ft. east of Stelling Road in a CG ! (General Commercial) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 21, 1980. Assistant Planning Director traced the request for change of property line on the map posted on the board; reconsolidate five acres, one small lot, and eradicate lot lines in order to create two larger lots. Easement was a consideration and was agreeable. PC-336 Page 12 MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Adams PASSED: 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Blaine MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Claudy, recommend Granting of Negative Declaration. Com. Adams PASSED 4-0 Com. Blaine MOTION: Com. Claudy, Approval 10-TM-80 subject to Conditions #1 through #16 as outlined in Staff Report and subject to the Findings and Subconc1usions of the Staff Report. Com. Johnson PASSED Com. Blaine 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: ITEM #9, Application l2-TM-80 of ZRM: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approxi- mately 2.4 acres into two parcels equaling approximately 1 acre and 1.4 acres and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the east side of De Anza Boulevard approximately 150 ft. north of Pacifica Drive in a P (Planned Development with Professional Office and related commercial intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 21, 1980. Item #9 continued at the request of the applicant. Item to be heard on August 11, 1980 at the Regular Planning Commission Meeting. ITEM #10, Application 14-TM-80 of STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately 6.2 acres~nto three parcels equaling 5.0 acres, .57 acre and .63 acre and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 125 ft. westerly of Saich Way in a P (Planned-Development with commercial intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 21, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that Parcels A and B were divided and the proposal was to re-subdivide Parcel 5 into 3 parcels. The major concern 'of Staff, aside from feeling that moving the lot line on the southern-most row of parking stalls on Parcel 2, was adequate parking in all of the lots for all of the businesses. An easement would be an alternative, but it was felt that shifting the lot line was better. Mr. Bill Hirschman, 812 Castro Street, Mountain View, represent applicant felt that changing the lot line might jeopardize future plans for the area where the lot line was moved -- 'easements were fine with the applicant. They had handled parking problems in the past with easement and reciprocal agreements on parking and access. CHR. KOENITZER asked Mr. Hirschman if he wished approval or a continuance on Item #10. Planning Director Sisk stated that approval would permit Mr. Hirschman to present his argument to City Council. MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-336 Page 13 The members of the Commission discussed the application and CHR. KOENITZ R asked Mr. Hauser if he wished for them to take action or to continue the matter. Mr. Hauser asked that the matter be continued until his architect had an opportunity to inspect to determine that all site requirements of lot coverage would be sufficient for the proposed building. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams. PASSED: ABSENT: Com. Blaine MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Second: Com. C1audy. 4-0 Com. Claudy, recommendation of Granting of Negative Declaration Com. Johnson PASSED 4-0 Com. Blaine Com. Claudy, Approve l4-TM-80, subject to Conditions #1 through #18 of the Staff Report and subject to the Findings and Con- clusions of Staff Report. Com. Adams PASSED 4-0 Com. Blaine CHR. KOENITZER explained that lending institutions liked to lend on parcels that meet City requirements. Mr. Hauser was advised that he had the opportunity to take the issue to the City Council July 21, 1980. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM #11, Application 33-U-79 of GREGG C. BUNKER: pJ¿E PERMIT to operate a photo driveup window facility in conjunction with retail sales of photographic equipment and supplies and ENVIRON}IENTAL REVIEW: The Envir onmenta1 Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declar- ation. Said property is located on the northwest corner of Wildflower Way and Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road in a C-1 (Commercial) zoning district. Referred back to Planning Commission by City Council per applicant's request. Planning Director Sisk advised the Commissioners that the matter had been sent back to them based on the applicant indicating he had new in- formation to present. Assistant City Attorney Foley said she had consulted with City Attorney Kilian on Item #11, and it was decided that the Planning Commission was to sit as a San Jose Planning Commission and review the application as San Jose Planning Commission would. And, the Planning Commission was to do so without taking into account the later amendment which said that you can't have two driveup windows within 500 feet. The approach is that you are acting as San Jose Planning Commission and look at the application as of July 1st of 1979. Mr. Kilian also said, Ms. Foley reported, that in the event the Commissioners decided to deny the application it should be on the basis that our ordinances says that it is part of the San Jose annexed into Cupertino, and therefore it was possible to make the application under the existing San Jose Ordinance in effect at the time the application was filed. PC-336 Page 14 MINUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COM. JOHNSON said that he did not know when the application was filed, but he understood that it was presently before the Planning Commission because of new information. CHR. KOENITZER said that the Planning Commission had sent its advice to the City Council. Planning Director Sisk said he was concerned with the City Attorney's new advice or position and hoped it could be clarified at the City Council level. Mr. Richard G. Hansen, 220 State Street, Los Altos, CA, representing Mr. Bunker, said that back in November or December it became apparent that there was some question as to whether Mr. Bunker had been misled by the City of San Jose pursuant to the transfer of property from San Jose to Cupertino. He said he now had no doubt that Mr. Bunker was mis- led, and therefore asked the Council to extend the ordinance that had been adopted to insure that property brought into Cupertino from San Jose would come into the City at the same zone designation. The new situation was that his client might have been injured by the misleading of San Jose that they would consider for a limited period (for a 6- month period to the 1st of July through the 1st of December 1979), . an application according to their criteria prior to June 30th -- the date when the property was transferred to the City of Cupertino. This, in fact, Mr. Hansen said, was what he had asked the Council to recognize. Mr. Gre~~ Bunker, Applicant, told the Planning Commissioners that the delay and misunderstanding over the request for a Use Permit had led to his having a breakdown, and he asked that approval be granted and the City be willing to work out appropriate 1andscapin8'~or the property with his cooperation. He said they had been putting' in landscaping but had been stopped by the City before they could complete the task. Mr. Bunker said he would install any landscaping the City wished. CHR. KOENITZER said that in review the Planning Commission should look at the application as the San Jose Planning Commission would have looked at it on July 1, 1979 (Without the later amendment.) Assistant City Attorney Foley said that the reason for that was that the City Council adopted the 500 ft. criteria allowing applications for a 6-month period. Planning Director Sisk reminded the Commissi~ners that his information indicated that Mr. Bunker had been advised that Use Permits would be re- quired to operate his facility; and, he was not told that he should not apply in the City of San Jose. He was also not told that he should go ahead and put in the facility without benefit from anyone's permission or application to do so. Mr. Greg Bunker said he could not fathom the fight Mr. Sisk had a~ainst him to prevent him from operating his business. He said he had a 25- year ground lease and he had gone out of his way for an attractive plant. HlNUTES JULY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION HEETING PC- 3 36 Page 15 Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised the Planning Commissioners that he had been working with the San Jose officials at the time Cuper- tino was preparing their General Plan for the area, and they were dis- cussing the Stevens Creek area in general. There was a general concern about the character of development along the street -- it being the concern about the character of development along the street. He noted that Mr. Bunker had mentioned that it was the idea to have greater quality development on the street and not to have free-standing building. . The general feeling was that "You can see if that driveup was not on tha site, a substantially greater amount of landscaping would be possible on the corner." It goes beyond -a question of light and speaker noise. It is the whole character of that particular intersection. COM. CLAUDY commented that unfortunately the question is what was in the minds of the Commission or San Jose officials at the time. He asked when the 500 ft. criteria established. Planning Director Sisk he believed it was presented in February and was adopted in September -- clearly after the date of the boundary transfer. The application of Building Permit or Use Permit was filed in December of 1979. In reading through the file, he said that Mr. Bunker had con- sulted with the City of San Jose until March of 1979- COM. CLAUDY stated that March 1st was the first date he had. He said he could find no information that Use Permit was applied for; and, he said that his information indicated that that was the meeting that told Mr. Bunker that they would not consider an application pending an adoption of an ordinance that was in the process of being amended ( March 15 ~an Jose meeting). MOTION: Com. Adams, for Continuance of 33-U-79 to the Planning Com- mission Meeting of July 28, 1980 pending receipt of a memo from the City Attorney. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE PASSED 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Blaine NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT 12:30 p.m. ATTEST ~ / ,/ ) /// /1 _ //.~ I / '1 /_ /t/~ /~æ - City Clerk APPROVED: ru~~,~ Chairman -.