PC 06-23-86..
·cny OF CUPER!'IliO I STATE OF CM.IFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue
Olpe.rtino, CA. 95014
(408) 252-4505
MDJUI'EE OF 'IHE Rl'XiOLAR MEETIN3 OF THE PUiNNING CTMm1SIC:W
HELD CN JUNE 23, 1986 . Meetin:J Held in the o:iuncil Cl.il\ubers of OJpertioo City :H.tll
SAllJI'E 'IO 'IHE FU>iG; 7:30 P.M.
camdssianers Present: Chairman szaro Ccmnissioner Ad&m Crmnissioner Claudy cam.issioner Sorensen
Sta!'! Present: Riob0rt Cowan, Director of Plannin;J & Deval.c:pmnt StaYe Piasecki, Assistant Planninq Dit:OOtor Travica v.1Utten, Assistant City Er-qi.near
Charl!&B Kilian, City Attorney
APP'.ROVAL OF MINtJI'ES
.M:7I'ION: Can. sore.nsen, to approve the M.inutoo of the Regular Meetin:J of
June 9, 1986, as sul:mit.ted.
SECOND: can. Ad.ams
.\IOI'E: Passed 4-0
FOSTroNEMENl'S OR NE.W AGilIDi\ ~:
MJI'ICN: cat. Claudy moved to o:::cit:tnue Item 5, Awlication 19-U-86 to the
July 14, 1986 meeting at the ~ of the applicant.
SEO::'ND: Cc:m. Sorensen
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
-Item 7, Inta.r.pretation of o:msistency with allc::M9d uses in CG zones. Mr. Cowan i-equest.ed that this itam be reu"OVed fran calerdar; the property in queatioo is located within the Malta Vista zoning area where
the a:; Ordinarx::e is not awlicable.
M'.1I'ICN: can. Adams 1'0C1\IEd to renova Item 7 fran tlla c.alen:lar.
SECOND: Can. Sorensen
VOl'E: Passed 4-0
-Mr. cowen ackncMledged the receipt of a letter and photograp1s from. Mr. In.iglas A. Doc.'ids, an attorney representin:f the Grace co., Item 3, Ar-Plication 16-U-86.
-1-
_,
~ a:J.JMI.SSICN MINUl"ES
R>egU.lar Metatirq of Jun.a 23, 1986
PPGE 2
R:: -496
PUBLIC HEARmGS:
ITfl1 1
At:.Plication No(s)
Applicarrl:.:
P.rope.rty owner: Location:
:·;-!
ii+_
·' i;'
USE ~ (11--0-86) f
To ca'lSt'tuct a 2, 400 sq. ft. acklit.icn to an existinq :retail
b.tlldir.q. -
FIFST HE.ARm:; carrrNUED
~.rn:rAL DE'l'ERMINA'.I'ICN: categoric.ally E'Joon¢
TENTATIVE CITY O:XJNCJI. HFARi'.NG DA.TE: July 7 I 1986
staff Prgsf'.rrW,iQru. Mr. Piasecki stated that this ~ication was cont:i..rrued from the June 9, 1986 mee'tL"l:J. 'Ihe c:ami.i.ssial asked the applicant to address three j.ssues:
-The proposed roof SCl"e:Sl'l which should bs a oart.irn.lals, and util.i.ze materials am 0~'.tors similar to the e:Y..isting b.rlld.ing. -Identify lo:::a.t.l.Cl'lS of existinq traM ercl.~ and pt'ti'V'ide a detail of
these devices. -canrmmicate to the o:m.tlssion the property owners 1 ~iticm an the
prqxsed bus duck a.its.
Mr. Piasecki s:tat!Jd that the Staff a.am:nnes that th.a property owners are willirq to provide the. dedication needed for too two bus duck outs; Staff suggests that Condition 2 be retained to make the o:mnission's reccmnerrlation clear to the AJ;plicant and the City Courcil. staff noted also that the ·precise location fer the bus "layover st.op/b.:nn-o..rt" shall
be detennine:i by staff after further review,
~ o::M1ISSICN MINUI'ES Requl.ar Meet.in; of June 23, 1986
Pl!GE J
PC -496
ITEM l (eont'd)
• •• ., i
Staff ~ that the treas locab:rl in the park:irq lot be retained as
ooted in c.orditicn 10; the Applicant dc:E>S IXit q::pose this ooncept. ·
'llle structural report on the roof was rsceivoo by the Sta.ff this past Friday; tha Report IS pro.l.iminary estimate st.ates that tiua p.cesen;t l:OC)f
cannot bear arr.t f\.Jrther weight. Staff requests a more detailai st.ruct:m"Ul report to be erraluated by the City's structural eIY;Jineer; if a detailed report identifies the Gem:::o roof deficient in tanns of bea.rirq additional weight loads, this deficiency needs to be oor.rect.ed. If than are no deficiencies, th.a11 a continuouo screen is to be installed as shown in the Exhibits.
'Ihe ~licant has reviewed some aJ.tematiws in coverir:q the equi~ on
the roof; sara of these alt.ematives ai-e prohibitive in cost relative to
the scope of this application.
o::m. M"UDIS asked for additional info.."'"JMtion a-1 the weight of the ~ roof sc:rean whld'l exceeds the weight bearing load tile buildin;J st:ructure can wit.hstard; Mr. Piasecki added furt:.her information given him by tlle structural. angi.nee..'""3 for the Gem::o Stora •
. .
In responsa to Chr. szabo 1 s question, Mr. Piasecki Btated that the cost of :relocatin:;J the e.xisting bus turn-out pad will be borne by the Iq::plicant, as well as the dedication cost. After t.he initial 25% of the 6oat borne. cy the A:l=Plicant, the City will proeably bear the acklitional CX6t.
hJ;lplicant'~ P~tion: Ms. Mary Pansan, representing the ard'ti.tact,
presented drawinqs of tha proposed roof screen and stated that if the de,rice is unacceptable, the ~pplicant ~d like to refurl:>ish th9 a.n.-rent
rcof sc1:0en. No additia:ial tiJeight loads can be added to t:.he present roof stl:i.lCture ~ hc:iwaver, the At:Plicant' s proposa two alternatives:
-the existing screen could be: refurbished, iec, cleaned and repainted in
the c.:olor of the bu.:!.ldiJ~, addin::J the blue stripe that is on the
Wild.irq, or -new la.iver scr<.:ena o:JUld be erected, fo. r boxe.s arourrl the e.ach of the equipoont i.mits txiinted the color of the Wild.in:], ad:ti.ng the blue strii;ie. 'Ibis woold tie these boxes to the b..tild:i.n"J.
In response to can. Cla•.xly's question, Ms. Rael.San shawred. the location an:l type of three proposed trash encl~. com. Claooy stated his concern that Genx:o has not had an attractive parki.rq lo+~; currently, the bales of
cc.u:clboard box.es on the vre.st side of the parki.n'J l:Jt look like tha tra.'ll1
disposal area of an irrlustrial district . Cam. Claudy stated that he w:W..d
n:::>t approve this Applicatiun unti.l the Applicant dem:snatrated adequate facilities for the disposal of garbage and trash.
PI.ANNING <.:X>MISSICN MINU1'ES
RiagU.lar Meot.:in'J of JUM 23, 1986
PAGE 4
PC -496
ITEM l (ca:tt. Id)
•·.··,
·~ ·. ' ..
can. Adams statOO hln concern rcqantil-q tiw. stl."'Uctunl inteqrlty of the
Gsmco Store am. wo.lld not ~ this Afplication witht:.ut a t\VN'iew by city en::Jineen; ard t.hAei assu:ra.no.'t of tll$ staff that ~ attvct.uraJ. integrity of the rr.....ore is intilct. 'l.bG Co!mm:i.ssicnar a.loo favors a continua.ls screen to oover tl)S ~ on a public, ~ia.1 facility.
Mr. Piasecki stat.eel that panqt:aph V of ~ staff report, "Ro::>f l!kjUipMnt screen", was written to add.rem t.hl9 cx::ncm:.-ns ~ lJY o::m. Jlldams.
<llr. sumo sunU'narizei t'WO significant p:rohlaus with this Applicatic:n: :-I.aclt of adequate traGh encl~, ard
-The separate en:::losu:t-es pn:ipceui as a roof screen
'1.be Olai:cman infonned the AFPlica.nt that t.00 cemn.i.uic.n ha unlikaly to
~ the .AWlication at this t.ime w1thcut r'MDlvinq the alxN.2 stated
cxn.::xuns; can. C'..laudy, Mama, Sorenaen ~. c.aia. Claudy sta~ that it lllUSt be d.enr:nstrated to the satisfaction of thG City st.aft that the structural :integrity of the huild.itq would m ~ by the ~ion of a oontinua.ls :roof screen before al.ternat.ivu will be o::ns~.
Chr. Szabo opened. the Public Heuinq. '1~ wm::v:.i nos~, ltni.i the
Public Hearing was trum clooOO..
Mr. Piasecki requested that the following di..~an be provi&d to the Applicant: 1) A detailed structural analysis, relative ~ts of irist:allir:q a oontinua.ls screen and/or raisin;; of the parapet
2) An a.asassment of the bales of cardboard ~l ganarabad relat.:ive to
the ano.mt of space pi"'O'V'ided for collection of t.hesEll i.~ed be~.
M:Jl'ION: cam. Claudy m::ived to continUa Ar;iplicat.io:n ll-U-86 to the JW.y 14,
1986 meeting.
SEO:lND: ccm. .M&na
VOTE: Passed 4-0
rrrn 2
.Application No"( s) · .AWlicant:
Property <::lwrn!r: r.ocatim:
USE PERMIT (12-U-86)
To c:parate a sm:.:ig test. facility with minor aut.c 1."e[iair.
J?IRST HEARING o:A'Tl'INOED
ENVIF~)NMENTAL DEI'ERMIN1\'I'IOO: categoric..uly Exempt
***PIANNING <Il1MISSION ACI'ION F:rnAL UNLESS APPEA.IED* "'*
~;.
PU.NNIN.'.; a:M{ISSIOO MINUl'FS
R:e;:i\llar Meet:iJ"q of June 2 3 , 1986
PAGE 5
PC -496
ITEM 1 (o:mt'd)
~taff Presentation; Mr. ~ stated that the Application ie a reaffirmlltion of a temporary Use Pennit awrovoo in 1984 which has SU"'IOe lapsed. 'Ihe City o:x:in:::il awrovea a srrog certification station to q;.>erate at a fonoor gas station site as a tEmp::irary use until the property is developed by the Mariani Financial CO.
'!he AJ;i:>licant requests a one year approval of this facility. '!be staff
· Report notes sane ~ts that neuI tc be o:::q:>leted and ~ an initial three m:inth approval. of this Use Penni t with a review to e:t'WUJ:'9 that tile re:;iuestsd ilrprovements have been oo:rplated. ~ ~ inclu:3e t."18 installation of trees arrl the o:Nering of cpan soil wi\:h a material to inhibit dust am littsr. Upon satisfactory revia..r, the balance
of the time can be ~· ·
'!he Sta.ff is not req.uest1ng exte.nsiva .:!.nprovewmtS since this is a
tenpora:cy Use Permit
Applicant's Presentation i Mr. Gaiy stakes re:;iuestsd tn.e ext:enaicn of an existin; use Permit granted abcm a~ and a half ago. 'lbs oriqinal application was denied by the c:mnission; 'When "~ed to the City COOncil this application was a~ unamimoualy. 'llle CcA.m:::il felt that it was better that the prcpe:1.'ty be utilized on an inte.t"im basis than to continua to have th.a vac.ant buildirq varx:\alized and the Pl~ misuser:i.
'!he current an.-arx;:1emant with the Marianis is that the property is avai.lable for redsvel.q;ne.nt; t.hus, his lease is on a ioonth-to-1\'a'Ith basis an:i subject to eviction upon receipt of a 30 day notice. Essentially, the aI;'.t'licant is a caretaker for the property.
With respect to thA C'.orditions, the City Cooncil removed the ~ for placement of trees on the property in view of the fact that t:l1is is a ttenporary Use Permit application.
With respect to the CorW.tion that asks that Smog !)::x:tor caver the open soil areas, this condition has bee.n done on a regular basis. The soil is treated with an ~t based material 'Which seals the groun:l a.rd prevents
dust proble.ma in the surrunar. 'Ihis Y<':lrk has not been done this year,
pe.ndin:J awroval. of the Use Permit.
With respect: ~..o park.L'"):J, employees have been lax and have been park.i.n3' in front; they ~.:..J.ve been instructed that no cars are to be parked in the front area.
Mr. Stokes stated that these cara.oont.s addressed all the~ issur:>.s raiued b'j
staff. 'Ihe Applicant has no objection to Condition 3a, providinJ five striped par~ spaces.
'11'.ie alt:eJ."I1ative trJ approval of this Use Pt:!!.rmit is to allow this site to deteriorate as ~ vacant prop:>...rty until the Mariani cornpany. is re.actr to
initiate redevelopmi?.nt.
P.I.ANNm3 a:HUS..<;ICN MINtJl'ES
RegUlar Maeti.nj of June 23, 1986
~6
PC -496
I'lU<i 2 ( Q:>nt Id)
In :r:aspalSe to questions by the Ccm.nisaic:nal."'8, .Mr·. Cowan st..a'bld that this
pi:ope.rty was zoned before the planniad ~ ~ . so it ia cxmne.rcial with a special ooob:'act designation that awJ.i.es to tha entire Payless site.
can. Sorensen, and ot:l1er Q::mrdssionars, ccmnanted that there was
noticeable :iJ:uprovement of the propart;y; ~' thifii site ha.a daterioratad due ~ lack of upkeep of planted areas.
The Public Hearirq was than opened. 'There were no speakf.mJ.
MOI'ION: o.:m. Claudy 10C1Vecl to cloe.e the Public Hearirg
~= can. So:rens.P.n
VOIE: Passed.
c.cm. Clau::iy stated that ha wishes to see t.hli original o:n:lit.ions i:aplemanted. '.lbs O:mn.isai~ fools that planting trees en tha site is relatively ~ive and roqu.j.ra8 m.iniitum time am effort to ne.:intai:n1 inatallatioo of fast growing ~, such as sane ~ of pirie, watld :lttprove th2 site. o:m. Sorensen an:1 .Ad.alns car.cur.
Cc!A. Claudy ~ a o.:niltic:n eta.ting that if required iqxrwemsnt;s are inplemertted there is no neiad for another hearing on this Application;
howe'ii ar, if these in'p.rove.:n.erits are not .inpl~ within 90 days, the o::mnissioo ~ld again review th.is Application.
Chr. Szabo suggested a tw.:J year Use Paxmit renewal; tlla ecancmics of
x:edevelcpnP..nt will determine ~l'hen the Mariani.a will exrarcise their right
to use their property. A ona year Use Fermi~ :r.~ ~ ~1.istic. Mr. Kilian E:.~. that the Use Permit be.~ 90 days; if all coniltions are met at tile errl' of the 90 days; the Ue.a Paxndt will be autanatically e.xt:erded for a two year period.
MJrION: can. Clatx:ly J.OCtved for approval of Application 12-U-86 subjet.."t to
tbs :fin:l.lngs and subconclusio:nri> of this heaci.ng, per th0 staff Report witl't the follc:Min;l: 'ondition l and 2: Corxiltioo 3 niodified t.J iroJ.cate that approval is for a perio:l of ninety (90)
days c:::mrmenci.rq June 23, 1986. If upon ccanpletion of t.rnll ninety days, all Corxiitiona of AWroval are met, approval of this Uoo Permit will autanatically be exten:led trNO yecrs beyor:d. tOO ninety
days'; Condition 3a; change Con:tition 3b to read --, """lt all opan
soil areas in such a manner as to reduc:e au::..... a.'"rl litter ac:c.-uroulation"; Condition Jc charqe to "InsU..11 fast-growing ·trees
per Staff approval, in the three corner landscape a.raa.s as specified on Exhibit c of 5-U-86; replaca bedding plants as
nece..c;saJ:.y."; change Corrlition 5 to 4, conditicn 6 to 5, COn:.iltion A
7 to 6. v SE<XlND: caii. Sorensen
VOIB: Passed 4-0
PlANNlNG c:x:.:MMISSIOO MINUTES
Regular Meetil'g Of ,J\:!ne 23, 1986 P.AGE 7
FC -496
ITEM 3
AWlication No(s) 16-U-SL_ ___ _
Appli~: li..B..._~ ..... oa ........ C..-.Ba.....,xte:~ ..... -_,.1 1..,.} ______ _
~ OWner: eoaws am S0'm'Ji~~----Ux:aticn: ~~~« ~ corrm:
Q~ J:<!.tleyvd ?!D!.t_Portal AV~ Parcel Area (Aa'es) ':NfA ' .
Ub"'E PE'RMIT (16-U-86)
Tei enclose a 760 sq. ft. restaurant P\tio area.
FIRST ~ a::Nl'lNUED
ElNIR:N>fENI'AL DEI'mfiNATIOO: categorically Ex.Empt
T.ENrATIVE c:r:IY OJtJNCIL HFARING D.T\'.l."E: J'uly 7 I 1986
Staff Pl::'eaentatiom Mr. Cowan statoo. tlmt this AJ;:plicaticn was c:cntinued
to allow tilflJ A{::plicant to inprove upat the parkirq deficitmcy as discussed at the J\lne 9 t 1986 xneet.i.n;J • '!he ~licant ~ witll the plli.."1 presented which involvlEld restrip.inq the parking lot resu1.tirg in a yield of 29 ad:i.itiona.l park.irq spaces.
Staff has ~ the proposal to roof 0\>'8l"' part of tbs ~ seating
area based UfJOO a dete.nn.imtion that rod.sting ~ was adequa~. 'lbe cleterm.ination is not based on theoretical OOii'pliance witll the ord.i.Mnoa,
but upon observed usage of tJ:1.e sito at peak "100l'ltime hours in which a 75% occupancy was noted.
Mr. Cc:Man addressed the issue of parld.rq for the Center. 'Ihe number of infonnal, outdoor seats has irx::r:ea.sed. '1he question of parr...ing" ~~·.1c. for ootdoor seating and the proca::i:w.-e for approval of th.is seating' is a
very grey a:cea~ p:r:avious applications offsr little i.nfonnation in :r:Y:l('}al."d to how other oo:tside seatirq has beerl counted an:i parkirxJ ~ date.mined. 'Ille City C'o\.lrx::il has requested praparation of a parking analysis on rootaurant use.
Mr. cawan ~ that he contact. the C1Nliar Of the Cent.er lll question ru'rl notify the owners that there is unauthorized restaurant spaoo in UlSf.l. Baxter's AJ;:plicati01-,, ho"t.laver, should not be dalayed due to other unauthorized activities •
. With regard. t.o the se:i::.vice alley behirrl the c.enter, Mr. CClwan has
notified. both the CMner and the County Health Departrne.nt of possible violations. In addition, the owner will be notifioo of the noise an:l disturbance to the adjac~mt neighborhood; volurrl"'..aty compliance will be sought. Again, Baxter's is not directly responsible for this situation.
In response to Com. 1ldarrs question, Mr. CcMru'l verified that restripirq of
the park:irq lot is the ol11.y proposed cha'n::;e in this Application.
~ CXH1ISSICN MINUI'.ES Rsg..Uar ~ing of June 23, 1986
P.AGE 8
PC -<.96
rrEM 3 (COnt'd)
l'm.licant' s Pnsent;atiom Mr. IXAJglas A. Do::ld, atto:rney for th&_ Grace P.astaurant Co. I stat.eel that Grzrtoe Coo plaIJnad to restripo ·the parkirq lot to relieve arrx possible~ effect of this wcparmic:n. 01'.'tGn a parkinq
prd::>l.em is pe.rcei ved if availabla parki.n":J space is not adjacent or clc:ose to t."le front door of the restaurant; a clooer look makes clear that parkirq is available th<:UJh f\.1rther away frau the restaurant.
A parkin;J st.udy done for this site showed that at a peak time, there was a: surplus of ai;:proximately 1!50 parkJ.ng mpacea. ~were~ to ~""ate the firdirq. Nonatheleaa, in an effort to be good neighbors and to adclreBa the oo.r¥::erna brought to this O:::m1.ldssic:n, the Grace Co. will propoae this reatrit:P~ plan ani will o::mpleta thia project at its CMl'l cost.
'Iba City allows up to 33% of parking spaoes to ba striP*} for ~ cars. 'l'ak.in:] advant.age ot this plan, 29 new parkirq spaces will be added to the canter. A ~i.sal of the relationship of these 29 ~ to
~ cd:iiticn jn:licate2 that thare will !:le rJO ~effect upcn parking.
'lbere will be a net gain of apprcnd.mately 20 seats in ttlQ :t~;
basc3d l;::a'l indi~ stan:la.rda of 2 ocx:up..-mts errivin;J _par car. ~yin;J that fact.or C'llN , can cniclude , that the 20 seats will ~ about 10 cars. 'Iht.:ua, the awlicant is add.ing al..mcet three times ths speoa9 neaded
to accaim:xlata tl1e additional required parldn:J.
'llle PUblic ~dearin3' was then cpened. 'lhe.x:a were no speakers.
M:Yl'IOO: can. Claudy lWVed t.o close tha Rlblic He.a.ring.
S:EO'.:l:ID: can. Adams
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
can. Clau:ly stated that the Graoo Co. proposal was a reasonable cna. Despite the traffic generated, it has :been ai;:proved. Parkirq demand may
not be in::reased as rm.ld1 as it might ai:pear sirx:e the seats are already
there. 'Ihe aw.lie.ant's figi.ires are calcu.1.ated on a premise of. 2 pm:sais
per car, (the. city uses the figures of 3 persons per car, ) and this seems
to be a reasonable offer. outdoor seatirq used by othsr restaurants are an amenity; however, neither this question !'lOr prablem!J wlth the service
alley shcW.d reflect upoo the ~lic.ation sul::mitted by Baxter's. It is
the ~ibility Of the Cil-y staff to inte.rven9 in the probleoo
connactad with saoo. parts of the Center.
can. Mama concurred. 'Ihe Ctmnissioner cr.:iggested placirq a sign to notify
tbe i;:cl>lic of parkin:J located in the back of the ao..nt:ar.
' "
'PIANNING ca«rssION MINUTES
Rogular Msetin:;{ of J\me 23, 1986 PAGE 9 Fe -4~6
ITEM 3 (CO.nt'd)
r' ' '. -~, • i,I,, • ,
can. Sorensen mcpresaed a:i;:pt'ISCiatian to Grace co. for ·their. etforta. in this ~!cation. 'Ibe caiuuissiona.r favors a.i."tdoor 86ati.nq for ~ in CUpe.rtim.
Chr. SUll:x:> stated that he :l.s t~e t.owmd this A,Wlicatiaru he
expressed ccn:e.m regarc:l.i.xq the ~cal de.fioiency in ~ 'WiWl there is a de facto suxplus in park.in;. '!he camniuianm: qut!Glticned
'Wbether shared parkirq uses in fact creates the alJa;.re situa.tim. 'llltil exaq>l.a of restaurant US0, with diffGI.~ peak hcllUJ than that~ other cxmnercial. uses, was cited as an exanple. Mr. ~ stated that tha parking :requirement of 1 spaoo for 200 feat ot floor area WWI dmigrWid tor
peak Christmas uses and is unrealistic. At one time, thiit ~
oaiside:red dlarqin;J thA parJd..rq r:atio to 1:230, Wt did rU ~this
chan;le.
M:1I'Ia-J: can. Sorenson m:rved to recarmend awrova.l of Applicatic:n 16-<.T-86 subject to the f~ and aubcorx:lusioos stated in ~ Statf Report.
SEO:tID: can. PAan1s
Wl'E: Passed 4-0
• rrFM 4
A];.plicaticn No(s)
Awticant:
Prope.. ""ty OWilf'.r:
I.ocation:
l8-U-86/l5-El\-86
USE PE»flT (lB-U-86)
To amerd an existin;J use permit to increase the number cf~ units ~ran 80 to a~taly 105 units.
FIRST HFARINt; a::N1'INUED
~ DETERMINATICN: Negative Declaration
'l."ENrKl'IVE CITY CWNCIL HEARmG DA.TE: July 7 I 1986
Staff Presetltatim; !'tr· .Piasecki s't<ttocl tha.t in ~ 1985 the City approved the roost recent version of tha plans for the Town Canter
residential project. 'Ihis ~ is to .increase the number of apartment units by 16.
'1'he staff firr.1.s this proposal c.:onsist.a'Tt with tha l:uildi.rq fonn, architectural concepts an.i park.i.rq co.mts which ware previcus.ly
sul::mi.tted. Basically, thin Application proposes to oonvert townhoose
units to sirgle level apartments alarq with m::xilfkatian of t..ha .interior
ccurtyard area, as shcrwn on the ne'W plans sub.m.i.tted.
PI.ANN1N:i cx:MfiSSICN Ml.NU1'ES
Rsgul.'1.r Meetirq or June 23, 1986
PAGE 10
PC -496
ITEM 4 (cont'd)
:• •· . ~.
. :·1
Mr. Henmi :revi&W\d the architectural revisions a.rill the site plan for .t"ha cnmiuioners. II' response to qut;stions, the Applicant stabrl that tl'lBl:"e is an increase ot ~taly J, 000 squan feart in the ~ project.
'Iba Public Hearing was t:hen opened. 'lbare wai:-e no mpooker.S.
KJrICN: a::rn. Clau:iy ?lYJVed to close the P\Jblic Hearirq
SF.X.X:tID: can. Adam
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
• 0
'lbe Canmisslone.rs ooncurred that the p1:cposed project was an~
frc!ll previous desi9J'\9.
a:m. sorensen stated a o::n:::em that the I'V.ll1\b&rs of t'!t«> betiroan ~
had d.ec::reasEd; th.ls red!J06til potential tnlsirq t.or familien.
M:7l'ICN: can. Clau:iy m::JVOO to gi.cmt a Neqative Oscl.araticn for Applicaticins 18-U-86.
SEOJND: can. Mams
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
M1I.'IOO: Can. Soran.9ell moved to rea:mnend approval of ~lications 18-U-86 subject to the f~ am subconclusions of this Hearing am
the stat:f Report
SECX:IND: can. Marus
VOl'E: Passed 4-0
NEl'l ElJSINESS
ITEM 6 Mr. an:i Mrs. D.lane Shore -Interpret.i'\tion of location of front an:l side yards
Staff ~iOQi. Mr. Piasecki stated that the property is located at
the ~ te.rminus of San Felipe Road bati...een Alcalde Road and
Mercedes Road.
'.Ihe Awlicant requests that a portion of the westerly property line be designated as the front yard and that the remaining portions be designa.ted side yard and rear yards.
'Ibe Staff has two ~..ms regardirq this request: 1) the westerly property line has a slight jog in it. Alt.hCJ..lgh it is not unusual f'or p:t\':.lpP..rties to have irregular lot lines, settin;1 such a precedent is undesirable.
-.~
l:
'PIANNmG a:::HO:SSIOO MINUl'ES
Ragular Meat.inq of J\.ma 23, 1986
PAGE ll
~ -496
ITEM 6 (Cont'd)
2) the -wonti.rq of the definition givin;J ti1l9 Plannin:f canmiuim di.scrlltioo. to nOOify a yard orientations indicates that benefit 11Qit
ba ~ fran a design standpoi.'lt to the sur.rc:undln;:J propertieo. 'lll8 design relationship roust be improved frcm such a m:xlificatioo.
In thiB Jipplicatian, the .Applicant has not shown benefit to tha surroon:lirq prq>erties but only that the dt9sign relationship of his own
property ~d be inp1:uved. 'lhere is a prtblem with this propm:ty, namely, a c::reek bect that :runs part of th9 year cuts t:hro.r;Jh the middle ot
the property. 'Ihus the proposed bJ.ildit-q has b@erl ~ in a l'lClrt.hl.y directic:n.
St.aft ~ the difficulty of deVelopinq th.is property ard has
~ to the .Awlicant that this situation ma.y oaistitute g.ro.:mds tar
a Variance; howGIVer, the request au presented is not an ~ solutioo. Mr. Piasecld. stated that the o:mnission may wish to des:!.91'lfltG a portion ot tllt'l prcpert."Y or other orient.atiais as the front property line, thus brir:qin:J the Wil<.ling in oonformity with the ~ck reatrictiaw.
~J.j,cant' s Ermi§.~~ i Mr. O.:ians Sl"~ stated that lw has berm'!. world.nq for tllft past twio years to resolve tht..'SSS problms and~ with building a .hc:ma. He stated that he io, a teacher at a. local high ~l run that the prop.~ halse is one that ha and his fmniJ.y plan to live in.
When the Shorta'« originally .be.came i.nt.e.rested in this property, it 'WaB tbs
Creek bed (storm drainage) that att.:r.'?lCb':ld them to this pa:rtiatlar pieaa of
land. Several alternatives were su;igeated arrl. later rejected.
Nonetheless the Shores urde.rstal'rl that in ordsr to ~ t:.hll!! sat.back requirements, they may dasignate any side of the pzopsrty as tho front
yard. It is the intention of the. Applicants t.o Wild a hane that will provide enjoyment for them · a."'rl will not :1nfril¥je Upon tha righ.t:9 of naighborin;J prcperty owr~; the proposed place:o.e.nt of the hoUse seens t.o
be tM best poaitian for aJ l oanc:erned. If t.00 Planning c.cmnissicn wishes to designate the east sl.d.q of the property as the front yard, the Applicant's have no oojection to such a dasignation.
Chr. Szabo stated that this was not a :f.Wlic hearing; however, tl'lS canmission would accept CCll'll\\9nts fran th.a audience.
Mr. Richard Garcia, 10545 Cordova Rd., CUpexti.oo, stat.ad that he has lived on his property for 49 years. He cautioned the carmission ~the
creek bed which had flocded his entire property th.ia year; scma of the
homes in the area are Wilt on land. fill arrl at present th.ere are serious was.hoot problems in the area.
PI.ANNIN:; <nl.MISSIW MINlTI'ES
Regular Meetirq of J\me 23, 1986
PAGE 12
PC -496
:r.r:EM 6 (cart: 'd)
' '(•''I
In addition, Mr. Gru:d..a objects to individuals who build houses tor profit; thasa house.s sell for $500, 000-$600, ooo. SUd:l lru.""ge ha.ises destroy the privacy of naighbor.1~ l~.
Mr. Randy Brown, 22766 Alcalde Rd.., D..Jpertino, stated his oaoce:rns aJ::.a.xt
the l::W.l.d.i.rq of lJttge ~ in tha area an:-! the resultinq loos of privacy; he expres1lled no abjectior-.a tot.he' Shore~.·
'nv.a winter storms of th.ta past Fe.bruw:y resulted in the loss of several
1:raes in the az:ea; the creeJc bOO. can run 6 feet deep mu-.irq· the rainy" season.
Mr. ~"Y Feister, 10549 San Filipei Rd., Cl.lpertino, conc:ura with the
oc:anmants of ot:henJ who are also ooncer.ned about this area.. Ha stated that
tha c:x::n.:erns expressed are justitiw regardi.rq the large ho.:l.ses that are 1::Jairq Wild in this area. HclW'Ver, since tlwy OClrlplied with all legal :requirements I there WM ooth.in;J that oould ba done b-:1 ad.j oinirq neighbors
to reduce thd.lir inpacta.
Mr. Kaister stated that bD had given t.oo Sho~ an easement for his driveway; th& Applicants then cbtainsd awrnvai :frcm the City for~ dlan;JeEI. Nor#, hor.i.eror, the City tells him that this pt'OpOSed hoose does
not canply with the setback standards; it the Jq:plicants cbanJe the orientation of the front yard, they could l::uild the halse without arr;/
fUrther City awr:ov\.'1 or o:mni.ssian hearirgs. 'lh.i.s wo..Ud place the house as closa as 5 feet to adjoin.:in:J neighbors.
'Iha Shores are proposirq a smnll he.use, well placed an the property in tams of pres.er.ration of the CI~ area an:l the~ a.mas; this is a t.an:]ible benefit to adjacent parcels:.
can. Claudy stated that the Applicant' a pt~ and orientation is reasonable. 'Il'l.e prdolem is not the 20 foot front yard setbac..1(, · but the 5 foot side yard setback; further J:ui.lding vJOUld encroach upon the neighbors' privacy. It seems that a special side yard setback is necessary.
M:YI'ICN: can. Claudy moved to sen:! a Minute Order to the ?larinin::f staff' to
the effect that the west property Lloo should consti tuba the front y;ard. 'Iha buildir.q i.a approved in its location as shown on
the aoccmpanyin:J Informational Exhibit.
SEO:lND: Com. sorensen VOTE: 4-0
Pwamo mmssxm !fiW'l'ES
Riagular Ma9ti.."VJ ot J\m8 23, 1926 PltGI 13
PC -496
REPCIU' OF '!HE PI1'NNING a:etts:uc:w
-air. S~ial:lo st.a.ti.Id that he a.t.terded tl'i9 Mayor 1 11 I.lJndleon. 'Iba v:l..dmro ta.pa of OJpertino was shewn at thD l~. -'lba ChainMn st.at«\ that thll City Cb.mcil did not ao:::ept the raoc:amarx1atioo Of the Plam.ilY.l C."armiuicm C8'I t:htJ ~ Q:eek. Bl.vd.
lan:28cape setmck ~. 'Iha o:runcil witllhm to W11G an irdi.vidual
variance~. -cm. Cl.audy not4ld that the city oouncil ~ tl,.. Narlott !~sign progxam1 he ~ his OCllOelm wit.h this decision. · -o:n. 1'da:mll stated that tb1!lx9 is a "b'.cidqe" to the island in th.ID 198ttli.nq
~ -at the inte:r'll!lection of a1bb Md M:d.el.lan ~. ~ iB a car
1XYW' parksd m the islmxt. Q:im. &:!~ ~ that 1'fa1tl4 Vista High
Sdlool ~ :may be :respant1.ible.
REKm' OF '!HE PI.ANNmG DmlOC."l'OR
-Written report autrnitt«d
~= H&Vinq cai:cluded its twd.nas11, ~ Pl~ ~icm
adjaII"N!d at 9:50 P.M. to ~ nt.lKt ~ ~t.UxJ of July 14, 1986 at 7:30 P.M.
'.
APPROVED:
~.l