PC 10-13-86ci'lY OF ClJP.ERI'lNO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue OJpertino, CA. 95014
(408) 252-4505
MINt1I'ES OF 'IHE ru:x;tJIAR MEErING OF 'IHE PI.ANNING a:M1ISSION
HEID ON OCIOBER 13, 1986 Meet.in] Held in the council CwnOOrs of Cl.lpP.rtino City Hall
SALVI'E TO 'IlIE FI.AG;
RoIL CALL:
Ccmnissioners Present: Olainnan Szabo Vice Cllairn.an. Mackenzie commissioner lldams Connnissioner Claudy commissiona-SOren....c:;en ~ -t
7:30 P.M.
Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning & Develc:pnent Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planning Director Travice Whitten, Aseistant City ED;Jineer
Pe1:]g'j M. OXker, .;\tt.or.ney
~ OF MINUI'ES
J.mICN: cam. Sorensen, to ai;prove the Minutes of the Regular Msetirq of
sept.ember 22, 1986, as suhnitted.
SECX:!ID: can. Claudy
VOI'.E: Passed 5-0
IUSTroNEMEN'I'S OR NEW ~ ITEMS:
-Item 5. Application 30-U-85 (Revised) Marriott Corporation -Requestin:J approval. of minor :rocxilfications to a previously approvoo use Pe.unit.
WRITl'EN C01MUNICATIONS
-None
. ORAL o:::MvnJNICATIONS
-None
OJNSENT CAT.ENDAR
-None
ITlliS REMJVED FRJM CONSENT CAIENDhR
-None
-1-
-•!
PI.ANNING cct1MISSION MrnU'I'ES Regular Mooting of October. 13 , 198 6
P.N:.iE 2 R: -503
RJBLIC HEARINGS:
ITEM 1.
At:Plication No(s) At:Plicant:
Property o.vner: U:x.:ation:
Pa.reel Area (Acrf'..s) :
15-'IM-86 BAS Hgoos. Inc, same southwast corner of Stevens Greek l?Q!dlevard and Pasadena Avenue
• 55 gross <amrox. l .35 net (approx.)
TENTATIVE MA.? To consolidate 5 lots into 1 lot.
FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DEr.EHMINATION: catcqorically Exempt
o•PIANN1NG a:l'1MISSION ACl'ICN FINAL UNIESS APPI::AI.ED***
§t.aff PresentatiQD.l Mr. cawan stated this Applicaticn is a request to consolidate. five parcels datin;J fran 1917 inbJ a single parcel. '!he City requL--es this action to eradicate p~ lines that W'OUld ot.heJ::wl.se cross through a structures on the site. currently, the. City has a recorded instnnnent that guarantees that present constJ:uct.i.on will not be sold until the Tentative Map is recordoo.
'lbe Public Hearin:! was ope.md. 'Ihere were no speakers.
M'.)TION: Com. Clauqy IOCJVed to cl~ the Public Hearin3'. 5EXX>ND: Com. AdarnS . .
\Urn: Passed 5-0
IDI'ION: Com. Claudy lrDlled to i~ approval of 1.Wlication J,5-'IM-86 · subject tu the f.in::l.i.n:J of this F..eari· g that this awlication is a non-controversial item, reyuiI'OO. by the ci+:y, am subjec:t to Conditions of the ModP..1. Re;;;olutian.
SEOOND: cam. SorerlSen
VOI'E: Passed 5-0
-PI.ANNIN::i a::t1MISSION MINUI'ES
Regular Meetirq of o.::t.cl::>er i:, 1986
PAGE 3
K: -503
ITEM 2
Application No(s)
Applicant:
Property OWner:
I.Dcation:
Paix:el Area (Acres) :
2-EXC-86
2225Q Ynrian way, southeast corner of Varian Way and N.nsworth Drive
EXCEPl'ION Fran Ordinance No. CS6, Sec...tion 16.28.040.2 to all~ a fenoe to en:::roach into the required fence setback area.
FIRSI' HEARING
mvm:l:~ DETERMINATION: categorically Exempt
***PIANNING cx:l'lMISSION ACTION FINAL UNIESS APPFAIED***
staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki presented exhibits and };'hotographs of
the property showin.;J the fence location requirOO by the ~, fence
locatioo requested by the Applicant and location su:Jge.sted by Staff.
'Ihe AI:Plicant requests a 5 ft. encroacl1rnent into the ?Jblic right of way; the Ordinance raquire£-a 5 ft. setback f:ran property line, reultm;" in a
total 10 ft. difforence. Staff suggested that sani:a encroactxment may be
warranted in this case, since the 15 foot setback from property line to
curb line is extraordinary.
As noted in the Staff Report, the objective of placirq a fence is to provide privacy; due to the slope of the pi:oparty, the public \tJ'CW.d have an ac:x:::essible view into the rear yru:d if the ff'...o-:e is located as the urdinance requires; increasirX] the height of the ff':.x::e W'OuJ.d offset this
riituat:ton. Placement of the fence per the Applicant's request would leave only 5 ft. of plantin.;J area when a sidewalk is installed, rather than 10 ft. if the fenc:e is placed pP..r Ord.inanc.e requ.irem:mts. L'1 response to cam. Adam's question, Mr. Piasecki noted where a proposed $Winlmirq pool was to be lcr..atej on the property.
Applicant's rresentation: Mr. Russ lu stated that the slope of the
property is steeper than shCMn b Staff em.ibits. He stated. that the reasons for his Application are: -Privacy protection . -safety. Mr. Ill cited ex.a:mples of accidents that have OCC\.ll'.red; in one i.nstazx::e, a boy an his bicycle was killed when he rode his bicycle over the slq:ie. -I.aOOscapin.;J. Placerrent of the fence r.is required by the Ordinarx::e Wt'Alld create a lan:lscap~ problem due to the distance am the ~le of the
slope.
PI.ANNWG C01MISSION MINUTES
Reqular Meetir¥] of October 13, 1986
PAGE 4
PC -503
ITEM 2 (cont'd)
Mrs. 01.a:upsky, 10247 Vista Knoll Blvd., euptartino, noted that statements made by the Applicant are probably true an:l that a disadvantage to the Applicant would bo incu.rre:l by placement of the fence half way dcM1 the hill; this would be a difficult area to laniscape. She ooted concem for privacy impacts to the Applicant's property.
'Iha primary conC1=>..rn, however, is the safety issue. Sha assiste:i the boy who was killed at tltls site and has helped 11Ul11e.rouB other children who have been hurt. In response to Com. Maclc.enzie 1 s question, Mrs. Qialupsky stated that she will accept a fence built close to the. sidewalk; she questioned whether t.he city will larrlscapa the remainin:J area if ttw f<ence is built half or a thin:l of the way down the hill?
MYI'ION: Com. Claudy lTDV'ed to close the Public Hearin;. SECX:>ND: cem. Sorensen
vo:rE~ Pas~ 5-0
. ;
OJm. Claudy stated that there is a privac..y issue and a security issue. Security is required by the City Oro.inaN::e; hCMSVer, a soUd ferx::e is not necessary to meet security requirements; use of a solid fence' enmests
mee~ privacy nea:ls. 'Ihe Applicant in:Ucated that he will not lairlscape outside the fence, to th.a detriment of the City. To ensure that the 41!\
property will be landscaped, the fence should enclose the area. 'lbe use W of shrubbecy may act as an effoctive privacy bar.:ier.
· c:m. Claudy expressed his concern regan:ling the responsibility of the
purchaser of a property with respect to liability. Maintenan::e of private
property is not the. responsibility of t.be City. '1he p.u:pooe of this
Application is to ensure privacy in thE rear yam area; once privacy is ensured, it is the property owner's responsibility to ln3.intain the property.
OJm. Sore.."1.Sen stated that she is familiar with the steepness of the slope
arxi noted her concern for safaty. If the fence is built half or a third
of the way down the slope, safety concerns for the children will remain. ccrn. Claudy questioned how the COnunission could provide for the privacy of
the Applicant and still address the issue of safety; consensus reached that shrubbery may be the rost effective solution to both concerns.
com. Mackenzie favors placing tl1e fence in such a position that
lan::lscaping would be the primacy responsibility of the Applicant. Com.
Adams concurred that neither a cyclone nor a W'OOd fence would address the
safety issue; he concurred that larrlscaping of the property is the· owner's
responsibility.
·-t
commissioner Adams favored a compromise; namely, the planting of shrubbi=i..ry
on the slope by the applicant in return for placement of the fence on the
property 1 ine. St.a ff and Applicant will work together to complete the agreeJnP....nt. Chr. Szabo favored the compromise. -,,
P!.ANNDC <XM1ISSICN MrnUrFS Regular Meetin;r of Oct:d:>er ,13, .1986
PAGE 5
PC -503
ITEM 2
In response to o:m. Mackenzie's question, Mr. CcWclr stated that there are oo City stan::W:t'\s for larrlscapin;r materials or maintenance of the right of way in front of residential property.
MJI'IW: can. Claudy moved to reopen the Public HearirxJ t.:i allow the AR;>licant to address the canprctnise being suggested.
SECDND: cam. Sorensen VOI"E: Passed 5-0 .
Mt·. Lu '-tgreed to the canprcmise: placement of an s ft. fence on the
property line (a 5 ft. ~c:hlrent on Ordinance requirements) in exchan;Je tar the landscaping arx1 :ma.intenan:::e of the property between the fence ard the p.lblic right of way. He stated that the ~ fence may prevent sane accidents ard will insure privacy while trees mature. camnissianers urged the Applicant to o:insider the use of shrubbecy.
M:YrIW: can. Claudy noved to clooe the reopened Public Hearing.
SEC.aID: can. Sorensen
VOI'E: Passed 5-0
M.Jl'IOO': can. Adams n~ved to appl."OVe AJ.:plication 2-EXC-86 subject to th9 fi.rdi.ngs an:l subconclusion..CJ of the Hearing am the Staff Repo:i:.t, COrrlition l; an.titian 2 cmeOOec:l to state that an 8 ft.fence is
to be placed on the proparty line; delete condition 3; Con:iltion
4 to becaoo OJndition 3; the addition of a Condition 4 requirin:f
the Awlican:t to provide arrl maintain laniscapin; between the
fence arrl the public right of way, subject to Staff approval.
SEa:>ND: cam. Sorensen
VOl'E: Passed 5-0
ITEM 3
Application No(s) Applicant:
Prq>ercy OWner: r..cx::ation:
Parcel Area (Acres) : USE PERMIT (29-U-86)
29-U-86 an::l 29·-;;A-86 Sigi arP GiselJ,e Valencia (The Soup §,tationl
Seet Farni],y Living, Trust Bollin;Jer Plaza Cent.er. north side of J2Ql_lin;Jer Road, 200 ft. west of De Anza . BoUlevard
To operate an approximately 1,200 sq. ft., 45 seat restaurant.
FIRSI' HEARING
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration
TENI'ATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARrnG Dl\TE: october 27, 1986
' I • .. .,J
PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUl'ES Regular Meeting of CX;tobe.r 13, 1986
PAGE 6
PC -503
rrm 3 (Cont Id)
Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan stated that th:Ls is an A};:plicatio.n to replace · a take-out restaurant with a family style restaurant, The staff report raises parkirq as the only issue affecting this Application.
'!he project was approved by the City of San Jose whic.h did not require a
l~ped area between the parking lot aro the Flood Clu.mneJ.: staff is
not requiring the installation of landscaping since the.re is a deficiency of parking space. Staff proposed replace.rent of parallel. :par~ spaces with 45 degree angle parking on the north side of the project. Th.ere wa.Ud re.ma.in a deficit:mcy of 4 parking spaces, whic.h could possibility be
rernedie<l by restrippfrq of some spaces for camPa.ct cars. Con1itians of AR:>roval require a more detailed plan to be submitted by the AWlicant.
In response to Com. So:-ensen's question, Staff stated that tllere·are no trash enclosures; there are only trash bi ·;,
Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Sigi Valencia asked Staff to clarify the canputation of park.ing' 9P'1t;eS; Com. Mackenz;ie state.a that staff has
suggested that the Application be approved conti~ent upon l."eSOlution Of
the parking deficit. With reference to 1--estrictions on the Use Perm.it,
Parki.'1g Solution, A., Com. Mackenzie stat.00 that staff's restriction of the canopy noted is in reference to addressing the parkin:J deficit; if the canopy has been installed illegally, the ~er of the c:anof.Y will have to obtain a pennit. If, hCMeVer, the canopy is legally installed· an:l. does not interfere with addressill;J the parkin:J deficit, it is of no concem. Penn.its granted by the City of San Jose have been grarx:lfathere:i in.
In the Model Resolution, Conil tio.n 5, Trash Enclosures, Mr. Cowan st:a:ted that the City may require the building of trash enclosures in conjunction
with tbe issuance of a Use Permit allCNJing the City to ~ older
sites. Com. Claudy noted with approval an Ordinance instituted by the City Council requirir.g the use of trash enclosures. 'Iha Use Per.mit does not state that the applicant is responsible. for buildin:J the trash enclosures; however, building of tr.ash enclosures for trash bins used at the site must
be completed. Mr. cowan stated that property c:Mners are requi:rOO to sign applications so that they may be aware of both the o.pplic..:).tion·ar:d any corrli.tions that apply to the site.
With reference to seati.rq capacity of the proposed restaurant, the Applicant was informed that seating is limited by parkirq available.
Com. Clauc:iy questioned whether a representative from the Seet Family Living Trust, was present: he was informed. that there was not.
t-
PIANNTh~ o::J.SMISSION MINUI'ES
~ar Meetirq Of October 13, J.986
PAGE 7
PC -503
ITEM 3 (Cont'd)
canmissioner Claudy stated that corx:titions previously imposed an the take out rat. ':aurant were not fulfilled b\J the seet Trust; he saw i-10 reason to
a.sst.nne that Conditions placed on this .AWlication will be fulfilled by the prq;>erty C1tJI'lerS. He ooted that tlie J\I:plicant may be forced to canplete
the Corxlitions of AJ;:proval or lock for another site to locate the business. Q:rn. Mackenzie stated that a number of ~ing centers were
undel:parkeCl and a.re inadequate for restaurant use.
KJI'ION: o:::m. Mams m::wed to close the Public Hearing.
SEXXND: Can. Sorensen
WI'E: Paasa::'l. 5-0.
H:1I'ION: Cc:m. Mackenzie lll:1VOO. to grant a migative Declaration to
~lication 29-U-86. SEO:tID: can. Sorensen vom: Passed s-o
M:>TION: can. Claudy m::we to :rec:x:mnem. appi:oval of AJ;:plication 29-U-86
subject to the firxlirgs an:! suboonclusions of this Hearin:J an:1
the Staff Report, Corxlltions 1-4; Corxlition 5 modified to rGad.,
" ••• the property owners will const.l:UCt of :masonry materials one or more t...'.:ash anclosures as .cequired to meet site trash generation. Said enclab"'ures ••• "
SD:OND: can. Adams
\Ul'E: Passed 5-0
• can. Claudy noted that at Monta Vista Park trash bins are not in the erci.osures am. are filled beyond capacity.
ITEM 4
AWlication No(s) AWlicant:
Pl:'qlerty OWner: I.Dcation:
Parcel Area (Acres) :
].6-'IM-86 Debcor Co:t:paration
West side of s·;;.ei1irg Road, 175 ft. south
of Qrogrande Place
• 70 net .ao gross
TENTATIVE MAP To subdivide l parcel into 4 parcels with lot sizes
rari:Jin;J from 6, 100 sq. ft. to a, 100 sq. ft.
FIRST HEARlNG ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: categorically Exempt ***PI.ANNING o::t-1MISSION ACITON FINAL UNLESS APPEAI.ED***
j .··
PIANNING C'OMHJ.SSION MINUI'ES Regular :Meeting of October 13, 1986
PAGE 8
PC -503
ITEM 4 (Cont'd)
~ff Presentsition: Mr. Piasecki stated that Staff raised tvtU issiles: -SUl:division acc.ess
-Tree preservationi
He stated that develq;::crient surroond.in;; the proposed project is conventional single fa.."nily residential, with the exception of a sin;Jle family development on Orograrxle where easements we.re use:1 to gain'acx::ess to back lots along the Creek; this is an issue in this Application also.
'Ihe Applicant prqx>ses to use private easerrents to serve the comrentional lots. The City has allowed private €'..a.sements in hillside dwelopnents; minimal right of way alla11ed greatr.>-r preservation of the ie.nvirornnent jJ1 sensitive areas. In addition, private easements havo been allowed on the valley floor in private developnents; in both cases sare p.lblio obje.ctive
has been identified.
In the absence of such idantif:!.dble plbHc objectives, the City hes
favored public street access for alJ parcels 1 the principle reasons l:JE.d .• ""¥J: -guarantee of access ani prevent ~ disputes -maintenance of public ao::essil>ility and visibility into develcpne.nts -consistent treatment an::1. equal awlication of atarda.rds
Options for this Application are request for a variance allCMing iesoer lot width; request that flag corridors be narror.i.-er than required; reduction of yield to 3 units. Staff feels that this application sets a precedent on the valley floor an::1. may have repercussions for other projects.
Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Richart'I. Childress stated that this development is similar to other developments completed throughout the
City. 'Ihe configuration presented does not inc:r.:ease density 1.lrlrP...asonably.
The primury question of the Staff seemed to be who ownec'l the ao:ess; the applicant's question was whether this wa.,; a quality project. 'Ihe question
then is how to site the project in a manner that is both reasonable am attractive. He is not favorable to fla.g lots-facing the first two lots
tcwa....-0. Stelling Rd., leavin;J the remaining two houses "in the.back yard." Plans submittOO. place the two :1.:ron+:. lots tcwruxl the e.a.seioont; the easement then oocomes a private street used by the four lots. Mr. atlldress cited projects completed that resarnble the plan submitted; he presented several drawings sha..ving configurations of other projects. He stated that he was suxprised that Staff felt the project would set a precedent. ·
PIANNllC a::HfiSSION mNU1'ES Regular Meetin;J of october 13, 1986
PAGE 9
~ -503
IT.EM 3 (cont'd)
·When Mr. atlldre...qs asked whether there was a requirement for p.lblic ownership of an access, Staff stated that there was not a requirement;
however, they preferred it. '!he easement was placed through the front lots due to the irre;Jul.ar shape of these lots, makirrJ it necessary to · position the lots as presented rather then ask for a varian=e of front yam setbacks. Every effort will be made to preserve the trees; he noted
the loss of one large palm tree in Lot l an:i two large trees in rat 4.
Due to the proximi\ .. -y of the freeway, tbs garages were placed toward the front of the develop:oont. Were the yield reduced to three lots, the project 'WO\lld be economically difficult to do.
In· summary, Mr. atlldress stated that the project pres:mted is a gQ9d dsvel.c.pnent arrl is consistent with projects done in the past. '1he request
that they be ~tive with infill projects has been meet in this
prqnsal and prevents potential owners facin:I Stelling Rd. 'll10 only remain.irq question was placere.nt of the e.asenY>..nt.
can. Claudy questioned the layoot of the int.erntl ll'Jt lines and stated
that the smallest lot (rot:. l) gives up tha U¥:>St property to easement~ the Jq;:plicant stated that they used specific plans for thesi& hcm:?.S, plans . which 'Wl:W.d meet the set.back requirements. In current City requirements, the lot line parallel to the p..iblic street is the front yard, thUs it is·
necessary to site the hOIOOS as presented.
In response to questions by the Commissioners, Mr. Piasecki gave lot size of adjoining developments. R.egardin:;J the issue of precedent raiso:l by staff, if this project was a Planned Development, or if identified p.ib.lic
objectiv~ we.re being met in accordance with the Planned D:!velotment concept, staff would not have raised the issue. Hc.MeVer, because this project is a conventual subdivision, the lots can be sold and developOO. in
whatever way the new owner may wish. Mr. Childress stated that rezoning to Planne1 Development would involve significant tilne an:l cost. .
'Ihe Pl..lblic Hearing was then opened. 'lhere we.re no speakers.
MJI'ION: can. Claudy nx:ived to close the Public Hearing.
SEWID: can. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 5-0
eom. Claudy f~ no particular problems witl1 the design of this project on the assumption that an easerrent will bP. used. 'Ihe design ms only one driveway unto the street; the Cannnissioner fcun:i this of positive benefit
to the City. cam. Adam.s concurred an:i added that efforts have been made to have "transitional areas," i.e., areas of greater density, near
freeways.
PI.ANNING ro-:mssroN MI:NUI'ES
Regular r~eetin.J of October 13, 1986'
PAGE 10 tc -503
ITEM 1 (Cont'd)
cnn. Mackenzie noted tliat the 6600 sq. ft. lot, mi.mu; the easement leaves a 5500 sq. ft. lot. 'Ihis is a rather small lot. He noted that the
~it.y s-oomed a bit intense. He concurred that the plan presented seemed reasonable and favored a compromise that wculd prevent the c:x:n::e.m noted
by staff, na'nely, that once sold, lots cx:iuld be used as desired by the re.-1 o;.,ner. !~. Cowan suggested tJ1at additional setback requirenvants could be
:inlp.)Sed C!1 the Tentative Map. A Corrlition of Approval could be added stating tl':at tJ1e only access to Stelli.rq Pd. would be the et\SE!lOOnt.
Com. Sore:-:sen concurred with the above an:l stated that given the design of the lot the project was acceptable; however a Planned Develop:nent would have been preferable. Com. Mackenzie concurred. Com. Claudy suggested a two week continuance; Mr. cowcm state:i that. use of an additional OJndition of Approval, requirin;J setback :Eran the easerDE1nt, WOUld be sufficient:. Consensus reached at 12 ft. setback easement .requ.i.m?msnt.
MJI'ION : com. Claudy moved to approve A};:Flication 16-'lM._86, sul:>j act to the
findings and SUbeonclusions of Staff Report ard this Haaring,
ConJitions 1-15; addition of a Condition 16 to inilcate that the st..'ti.lctures on Lots 1 arxi 4 shall have a setback · e8.sema.nt requirement of at least 12 ft. 'Iha Applicant shall recx:>rd an
erisem<?..nt line on tl1e Final Map €:.qlla1 to 12 ft. from the center access driveway; addition of a condition 17 statin;J that rats 1 and 4 shall not have access to Stelling Ft:i. other then by the
e.1serr.811t which serves rots 2 an:l 3; SEOJND: Com. Mackenzie
VOI'E: Passed
Break 9:13-9:22 P.M.
OID BUSillZSS -None
NEW BCSilH:~SS: ITEM 5 Postponed
5-0
ITEM 6 l>p:.:ilication 3-U-84 (Revised) -I.any Guy -Requesting approval of minor modifications to a previously approve.:i Use Permit.
***PLANNING 0.)MMISSl(.·N ACTION FilUil, UNLESS APPEAIED***
Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki state::.i that this iE a request for a rocx:lificat:.0:: of a formedy approved Use Penni.t. The Awlicant has asked
to re:pl.:ir:'J c. :.;tructural screen on the upper floor of the building with
trees pla:-:'.:c..d along tl1e property line. Staff recarnmen:led denial of this interprctzr':icn and suggested that other options be considered to
acco:mpLsh '.:2'.c 1,pplicant 's objective of increas.irq light to the offices.
fil?.2lirnnt.'._;--1):"e2entacion: Mr. Larry Guy stat.00 tllat after buildin';J corrpletion a requirement to screen was impose:i; plywood was place:l'agains:": the wincc·.:.:o, which t~liminated 90% of natural lighting. SUites of 500-700 sq. ft .. :,re. ;;· ... <r.kut,:t!Jle; however, tl1ese suites are not occupied.
PI.ANNIN::; CXMilSSION MINUTES Regular Meetin:r of October 13, 1986 PAGE 11 FC -503
ITEM 6 (Cont'd)
'Ille Applicant offered to plant 22-25 ft. evergreen ash tl\.;160 along the propei:ty lino; in a year they will be sufficient to eliminate visual penetration of neighbors property. An alternative suggestion madF..i by the Staff, IOOdifyin:r the screens, placin:r t.l-iem in a horizontal fashion, was also acceptable to Mr. Guy.
Mr. Ross Ketchum, 20412 Silverado Ave., Olpertino, questioned the reason for a modification o.-: the Use Pe.nnit. He presented a copy of the original awlication ar.d cited the text. He stated that snme provisions have never
been adhered to by the Applicant, not.in; that trees only grcM so fast. He cited Privacy Inrpact . ~. I..an:lscapin:J con:iltions, ~tati.ng' · that he envisioned a trellis on the eastern side of the building that would effectively screen t.he view of his yani. At this time, he cannot use the
recently built patio in his yard due to the laclc of privacy. He suggested
that the windc1Ws on the secorrl story be rem::Ned; 01r. Szabo infonm Mr. Ketchum that the camnissian did not have the power to eliminate the windows.
Mr. Ran Smith, 20415 Silverado Ave., OJpertino, stated that he lives across the street, at an an;Jle fran the property in question. He stated that he is concerned that reiocival of the screens will enable the occupants of the office CXll'Plex to look down into his two bedroaos which face the street. He concurred with Mr. Ket.chum's statement regru:."din; the trees.
He favored de.signing screens that will effectively block the view of residential .:irea. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, Mr:'. S'm.ith stated that he is favorable to the screens beirq suggested as long as they will block the view to the side of the office windows.
Mr. Guy stated that the Smith house is over 100 ft. fran the office build.in:r and is at an arx]le to the build.in;. He pointed out that a 30 ft.
tree was preserved on the property which blocks SCllOO of the view. Mr. Smith disagreed with the above assessrrent.
Cam. Sorensen favored the Staff suggestion of horizontal louve....--s placed over the win::lows; can. Mackenzie concurred. can. Claudy noted that the original eon:iltions of A};:proval :required tbe blocking of direct view into
adjoirJ..-q residential areas ard. cautioned that the commission should oot
require addi tianal C.orrlitions of Approval. He questioned the claim of Mr. Smith that the office view of his bedroom windows should be blocked; hc1wever, the use of horizontal louvered screens would be an exoe.llent
solution. Chr. Szabo concurred with Cam. Claudy's caution. Mr. Piasf.!Cki stated that the Applicant was free to adopt the use of horizontal louvered. screens at the present time; this could be approved at a staff level.
MJI'ION: cam. /\daJns mcve::l to deny the request for a minor nroification per the Resolution with the addition of the words, "The Pla.nnin;r Comrn.i.ssio11 denying minor nmification to Use Pennit for a two story office building to install landscaping in lieu of privacy
screens."
SECXJND: Com. Sorensen
VOI'E: Passed s~o
PU .N!ITNG C:·!·!':HSSION MINUTES Regular ?looting of October 13, 1986
PAGE 12
l:-'C -503
' (• . ~ ( ~
' • '• ~ r :
ITill 7 Application .-GPA-80 -Request for General Plan '"Jl"Bl'1dment: Dio::cse of San Jose -Apprmdmately 4. 86 acres of lard located at Salem Aveni..:e and Foothill Boulevard in C\lpertino.
TENTATIVE CITY ro.lNCIL HEARING Cll\TE~ October 27, 11}86
staff Presentation: Mr. Piasec-..Jd. stated that under the General Plan
Review Procedure, Applicants are required to come to the Plan;d..""V:J Ccamnission for rel:onunerrlation to the City Council on whether the City would ba entertain a General Plan Amen::lme.nt. The Applicant asks tnat the 6. 4 gross acre parcel in question be ~ed !'ram the present General Pla.""l designation to 1-5 dwelling units per acre which would :rem:::ive it. from the Foothill Hoditied slope density formula. 'Ihe 1-5 dwelling units pei• acre. designation w0uld allow the Applicant to seek a rezoning of the property
to R-1-7,5,
'lhe staff Report notes that tl1e task of the Planni."lg carcrmission is ~ to judge the merits of the specific request, but to evaluate lt.'hether naw inforni.:.;Cion has been brought forti.'1 or th.'lt an error was made previously that should now be addressed by increasin:] the density. Mr. Piasecid. presented the three criteria f:ran the General Plan Aioor.dloont GLtidel.ines
adopted. by the Cit~· Council; the Commission would have to fin:l for or.is of the criteria prese.nt.ed. The Applicants are probably re.lyin:J on the third of the criteria, that the existin:J Gene.rd! Plan Policy is based on out
datocl or inaccuratE:I infornution; th.a existence of higher density
developments justifiP.s the char¥;Je of Ckm3ity allCMad on the site in
<:i,'Uestion.
'llle burden of proof lies with t.he property owner/applicant. Staff dOP.s
not feel thnt tJ1e burden of proof has been i:ret. There seems to be confusion on the~ of the Applicant reqarding,the dens:l.ty allowed; the applicant could have approximately 20-21 dwellin:;r units unier the Footidl.1 modifiC::d. sul::dcmsity formula. This assumes the willil'Y3lie5S of the City 'to
zon~ to conw'ntional R-1 distric.ts. If the Applicant ·were required to accept cm RP.S zone, there is a minirral lot size requirement of 12,445 sq.
ft.; this would reduce yield considerably. Mr. Piasecki cited surroun:ilng developments and stated that Staff is not apposed to use of oomrer1tional
~oning in this case, thereby allowing the Applicant to get maximum yield under RHS. Staff does oppvse the adoption of a higher density
desir:rnation.
Orr. SzaL--o statE:d that he would abstain on this Applica:i:ion due to
potential conflict of interest. I1.s. Cock.er confirrood that the O:lairman was not required to give up the c.."':i.air since he was abstainirig.
Mr. Guy, 2C432 Silverado Ave. 1 a.tpe.rtino, representing the Diocese Of 5an Josn, stated that he has presented a contract to the diocese of San Jose to .:\cquire the prope..."'ty in que.ztion. Upon investigation cf adjoini.n:J
properties I the applicant-fl realized •·rot tJwse adjoinirg prqierties are a
zonc..'Cl R-1-7500. W
PlANNIN:i cn1MISSION MillUl'ES Regular Meetin;J of c.,ctober 13, 1986
PAGE 13
FC -503
ITEli 7 (COI1t't)
Mr. Guy pre&tntE.ld. schexoos for design of the property to Staff; the prq:erty could contain, 22 lots, the ,smallest of which wc:W.d be 7800 sq.
ft. 'lbi.s is larger than lots on adjoin.in] properties. He asked for clarification ~ the designation of the property.
Mr. Ccwan gave backgroun:i information on the, surroorxilnq area an::l the
various designations of these properties arx.l answered questions of the
camnissianers ~the RHS arrl R-1 zon.i.n;J.
MJI'ION: cam. Claudy m::wed to f.in:l that the General Plan Designation for the 6.4 gross acre san Jose Diocese Property not be considered for an amendment from its current residential very-law density designation under the Foothill modified slope density formula '\:.o residential 1-5 dwell.ing' units per gross acre.
sro:tID: can. Adams
VOI'E: Passed, Chr. Szabo abstain.inJ 4-0
RERlRI' OF 'lliE PI.ANNING a:M1ISSION
-a:m. lo'..ackenzie asked about the b.tlldin;J on the old Olpe.rtino Nu:rsw.y site; Mr. Cowan clarified the wordi.rq of the O:m::litions of Awroval· 'Iba Applicants are currently getting curtesy inspections due to
i.nperdi.n:J winter weather. cam. Adams asked regarding larrlscapi.t~ plans · at this site; Mr. cowan stated that he thought the AA?licants had to
return to ASAC for approval of lamscaping materials.
-cam. Claudy noted that the small garden site on this property is not bein; carei for; should the trees die, they will have to be :rem:wEid.
'Ibe building was designed. to have this area as a focale point. Mr.
Cowan stat.Ed that a new larrlsc ~ plan is being designe:l an1 will be presented to ASAC.
'Ibe O:::mnissioner asked regard.in; Foothill Blvd. arrl Poppy; Mr. Whitten
stated that the slope will be somewhat steep •
. -c:hr. Szabo raise::l t.he issue of the practice of ~ an illegal operation until a complaint. is made, then applying for the proper pennits; he cited the Application rnade by Mobil Oil Station, Plannin:J camm.lssion Hearirq of SepteI.lber 22, 1986. He stated his cancem regardim' this practice am :.:uggested that application for a Use Pe.nnit cannot be made on an illegal operation; operation of the use WC\lld have
to be suspended during the application prc.:::ess. Mr. Cov.lan concurred.. Ms. COCker stated tb..at the city has the :p:JWer to·bring legal action against the operator of an illegal use; this le.gal action would be in
the fonn of an injunction, stoppin.J construction or the operation of the use. A temporary restraining order could also be used.
PI.ANNING a:?-!MISS.fON' MINUI'ES Regular Mae.ting of October 13, 1986 ;-AGE 14 R: -503
REFORl' OF 'IBE PI.ANNT.tiG DIRE ::TOP
-Written Report sul:l'nitted.
AD1CURNMO..T: Having concluded its business, the Planning Ct...nmission adjourned at 10:15 P.M. to the next Regul~ Meetin;J of Qct("..lba.r 27. 1930 at 7:30 P.M.
, 1986:
Nicholas Szabo, Chainnan
e •