PC 10-27-86CITY OF aJPERI'INO' srxrn OF CALIFCenA 10300 Torre Avenue CUpertino, CA. 95014
~ (408) 252-4505
MINUI'ES OF THE REX:;UI.AR MEErrnG OF 'IHE PI.ANNING CXMITSSIOO .
HEID ON OCTOBER 27, 1986 MeetinJ Held in the Cooncil Chambers of eupertino City Hall
SAllJI'E 'ID THE FL\G;
ROLL CALL:
COmmissiona.rs Present: Chairman Szabo Vice 01.airman Mackenzie O:mnissicne.r Adams camnissianer Claudy
Ccmnd ss.iaier sorensen
7:30 P.M.
Staff Present: Steve Piasecki, Assist.ant Plannin:J' Director
APPROVAL OF MINUI'ES
M:1l'ION: can. Claudy, to awrove the Minutes of the P.E.gular Meet.llq of
october 13, 1986, as sutmittOO..
SEOONI:': c:itt. Mackenzie
varE: Passed 5-0
FOS'I'PONEMENIS OR NEW AGENDA rI'EMS:
-Item l P.wlication 30-U-85 (Rav.) Marriott Corporation: Applicant :mquests ca .tinuarr-e to the nvaetirq of NovembE>..r 10, 1986.
MOI'ION: Can. Claudy moved to continue Item 1, Application 30-U-86 to ·the Meeting of NOV'ember 10, 1986.
SECDND: can. Sorensen
VOI'E: Passed 5-0
WRITI'EN C01MUNICATIONS
-au.. Szabo acknowledged ~ipt of a letter ooncern.i.n;f Item 1.
ORAL cx:M11"JNICATICNS -None
-1-
~-
Ft.ANNING cnmssION MINtJl'FS Regular Meet.in:] of Octabar 27, 1986
P.AGE 2
PC -504
a:tIBENT CAI..END.tffi--------------~·~---------
-None
ITEl1S REMJVED FIU1 CCNSEN'".1.1 CAIENT:li\R
-None
FUBT ;re HEARINGS:
I'I'EM 2
AJ;:plication No(s) Awlicant: Property cwner:
I.Dcation:
Parcel Are.a (Acres):
]..2-'IM-86.~--,--·-----------H.l'f. a.ro Associ=tteA> Marvin and Patricia Wel.?er I Dinah D.lshc>k ro.m.ro a.rd Jennie CU8heck. am J· am G--1£Y::ggrl ___ _
· Nortb side :gf McCJ.eUan :Road, 150 ft. e."\st
of~lling Rood
?..7 net
3.1 gross.
TENTATIVE MAP (12-'IM-86) To subdivide 5 parc.::els with lot sizes ran.gin;
from 7,500 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft.
FIRST HEARING
ENVIR:l\!MENTAL DEI'ERMINATION: Previously Assessed
TENTATIVE CI'IY OXJNCIL HEARING DATE: November 3, 1986
Staff Presentation: Hr. Piasecki stated that at the direction of the City c.ooncil, the Awlicants incorporated an additional lot of the ~en property into the subdivision. Because the subdivision area was expanded,
the Application was readverti.sed an:I thus is beirq hea:rd again by the
Commission.
Staff Report notes the desirability of a sourd wall alorq the south
property line and tha addition of indentations in the wall. '!he
Ca.'t!:llission was aske:::1 to discuss an easement access to t:.i.'le rear of the . Lind property; when this property subdivides, should it do so, tha option of using the easement access would be available. The hot..1Be previously
scheduled to be retained would have to be r.:m¥:1Ved; the !'.pplicant intends to do so.
staff Report :rvted the 'l'ree Report, subnitted aft1a the previous Piannir~ Comrnission head.no;}; Mr. PiaseC"Jd indicated the trees which would have to
be reroove::l.
~ cnMI:SSIOU MINUI'ES
RB3Ular Meetin:J of C..\...'"tober 27, 1986
PAGE 3
PC -504
ITEM 2 (cont'd)
Mr. Piasecki stated th.:'\t the remainder of the Tan::ren prq?erty is still
un::ler the R-1-10,000 N:. Zonirq District; there is oo need to alter the current zoni.ll;l designation even a.fte.r the dedication.
In response to can. Mackenzie's ~"Stions, Mr. Pia..c;er..Jd. statt'd that the lot size and shape is typical; tlU.s sul:xilvision has minimum. lot width an:i cwea required by the Orclinanc..e. With respect to parking and driveways,
this proposal :i.s similar to the previous proposal although the cul-du-sac street is longer.
In response to air. Szabo's questions, Mr. Piasecki stated that Staff is concerned about the possibillty of havin:] ti."le fenoa protrude into the front yard setback for Lots · 3 and 4 an::l would prefer that an easemant option be available to the Lird. p1:opert'J for future sul:x.tivisicrn activity.
Mr. Piasecki stated that staff feeJ. that there is a !-'tlblic oojective be:ID;J lllet in hav:ing the opt.ion of aCCEsa available. 'I.ha developer could have been required to provide ?Jblic aoc:>esa to otherwise lan:Uocked parcels.
ln:plicant;'s ~tiom_ Mr. Jim Jackocin, represen"tin.'J the Applicant,
stated that they have substantial o:::ircerns wi tll Staff's request to have an easement; Mr •. Lirrl ooject.s to the p:t:"0p0600 placement of the easement. '!be ARUicant' s property would be Wrdened by the easement affoc:tir.ig the pi:opeJ.ty in perpetuity. such a proposal violates typical procedure ~ch
requires access to be by dedicated right of way, not easeJ\l8l1ts. 'Ibis
Wrdens other property owners as well; in addition, Mr. Lind has said
that he does not wish the p~ easement. 'Ihe.re is property to the
north of the Lln:l property which o:JUJ.d be developed; Mr. Jackson pointecl a.it an alternative route to discharge traffic onto 'I\lla lane.
'll1e Applicants ~rt t;.he -1roc· il clause of tlw Tree Protection Plan. A chan;e of wording in O:Jrrlition 14, Denvliti.on Requ.i.reme:mt, was requested; after the phrase, "'lb:! awli.cant shall renove or post a bon:l," add, "or
<:1t:her financial security .•. 11 ReiocNe tn.e ~' "prior to recoltlation of . the final map" and n'!f)lace with ''prior to the bsuance of l:ulldin:} pennits." With respect to coroition 16, McClellan Road I.arrlscapirq, Mr. PiasEIC'Jd confi.rned. that it W<l.S interrled that the har.eowners shall be respons.ilile for the J.an.:isc.aping ard irrigatinJ of the arr.a bcbleen the wall ard the sid.ewdlk a.rd that there oo a ma.intenanoe easement for this area. Mr. Jackson stated that it is a prcblern to lan:isc.ape and maintain
an area outside of ferx:.ed property. He asked that the applicants be
allowed to plant dee}? rooted 'tref>.s in this area. He requested that the
masonry wall be rai.sOO to a ft. arrl to provide the visual relief requested
by plantin;J trees on the street side rather than constructing an .irdentei::l
wall. In response to Can. Adams' question, Mr. Piasecki stated that there
is 5 ft. between the propert.-y line arrl sidewalk.
PI.ANNING <D1MISSION MINU1'ES RBgul.ar ~ting of octcl:>er 27, 1986
PAGE 4 Fe -504
Mr. Bryce car.roll, :i:epresent:ative of the Applicant, answei."'Eld queaticns
~din:r the proposed easement. ~. Piasecki stated that the Fire District prefers an 18 ft. clearance; due to the configuration of 4.::he plans sutmitted, Staff :recamne.ndc~ a 20 ft. easement.
Ms. Hilda Worq, AppJ.icant, stated that the City~ the proposed easement in order that the ownet'B of these lots be able to subdivide these lots at a t'ut:ui-e · tir.oe. 'Jll.e pl:'q>OOed easemS.nt. was, in the view of the
Al;:plicant, awkward as ~·
'Ihe Public Hearin;J was q:>ened.
Can. Claudy was favorable to the prq:iosed ocnfiguration assumin;J that ttJe
t\\IO houses will faoe stelling Rd. am requj.·.:ed side yard setbacks will l::le met. He q.iestione:i the nesd for an easeioont. His major concm"fl was that
larx:lsc·.aping alor.g M::::Cl.ellan !<i. WM totally inadequate1 a minimum 10 feet
of landscaping shcqld be required ard maintained by t:he owoors of property
~ M:Clellan M. or by tl'l0 subdivision. He noted examples of
lanlscaping whiai have not been niaintllned. An 8 ft. wall witi.1. 10 ft.
setback was acceptable; however, use of sl1.lllJ,)Stone to c:::onstruc'c the wall
~d not be awrcpriata sir¥::e Moelellan Rd. is a major artery of the City.
Mr. Jackson interjected that the Couroil required the wall an::i noted that
an a ft. wall with a 10 :ft. set.bade redu.oes usable yard space on SQllQ lots, ma.king' them difficult to sell.
Mr. Pi.astr...Jd E'lu;;ge5t.ed a landscape naint:.enan:::e district be required if can. Claudy's cco::ern was to be addressed. can. Adams noted the :mass of
th.a proposed wall; he favored an in:ianted wall to reduce mass and
strengthen the wall itself supplemented with plant.in] of trao-S an.i
shrubs. Ms. Wc.r:q asked that the in.ie.nuitiom be placed on an in-agular basis an the perimeter of the lots.
cam. Sonmsen noted a concern for the trees on the property; Mr. Piasecki pointed out 1-l10 location arrl the 'type Of these trees. can. Mac.kenzie
noted that footings r.equire:l for an 6 ft. high :masoro.y wall will damage
tJ..-ees. Mr. Piasec::ki suggested. further review of plans for an iM.ented
wall. ea:i.. C'..laudy SLII!1lnarized that the wall shall be of an attractive
textured niaterial, othm: than slump stone or adobe block, aOO. secorrlly, an a ft. wall requires 5 ft. setback from the prope.rcy lioo (10 ft. f1:"Qn sidewalk); a 6 ft. wall requires only 5 ft. set.back. fran ·sidewalk. A larrlscape mai.ntenance agreement is required of property owners. Mr.
Jackson r.ie;t:ej that a lan:iscape maintenance agreement invol vii~ a c:ommon
area requires nx:Jistratian with the state. can. Adams asked that t.he in::ientations in the wall be required as well.
PI.ANNIOO cx:M>fISSICA"i' MINUI'ES
'Regular Meetin:;J Of Qci:cl)er 27, 1986 PAGE 5
K: -504
In :t'9SpOnSe to can. Mackenzie's canments, Mr. Piasecki sUC}3eSted a requirement recx:m::l:LD;J a covenant prOO.ibitin';J transfer of ownership until any structures are rem:Ned.
M1l'Ic.tl: a:rn. Claudy moved t.o close the PUblic Hearin';J
SECOND: can. Mackenzie
vorE: Passed
MJI'ICN: can. Claudy 11DV9d to recanmend a~roval of Awlicati.on 12-U-86
subject to the conclusions and suboonclusions of this Hearing and.
the Bttiff Report, carrlitions 1-13; Coniltion 14 to read, "'Iha applicant shall rem.::we or post a lxn:'I. or at.her financial security aooeptable to the City for reJWVir:q all existin:;J structures· on the site prior to :reoordation of the final map or provide a oavenant or legal .i.nstrumE.nt acceptable to the City Attorney which precludes transfer of ownership until buildirqs on the site
have been dSJrolilSlli.ed.. 'lbe ai;.plicant .•• ; 11 a::nil tion · 15; o:niltion 16 second senten:::e to read 11'.Ihis wall shall be of an attractive ta>ctured material acceptable to Staff. If t:ne wall· is 6 ft. or lc:Mar, it may }:)Ej placed on tha propa...""'ty line; if .. 6-8
ft. in height it shall be constructed 5 ft. inside Of the
property line. A maintenance district or other ma.intanance arrangement shall be :mads such that residents of thG site, in
whole or in part, shall be responsible for the mai.ntena.n=e of thie
larrlscaped area between the wall an1 the public right o:". way."
' I ' SEXrm>: can. sorensoo
VOI'E: Passed 5-0
OW WSINESS
-None
NEW BJSINESS:
I'l'EM 3 Discussion conce.rn.irg se:r.vioo stations i."1. Olp'..&tino
Mr. Piasecki stated that the Report on Service Stations in CUpe't.1:.ino was
prepared to establish a baseline of information on se:cvice stations in the
City, Staff was .interested in documentJ· g current ope."rational characteristics and approved uses; one of the problems of enforcement is lack of info:rmatian. 'Il1.EI Report establishes the information baseline.
Of thG 30 stati~ listed, one has gone out of business an:'l one is a.tt:sj.de city limits. Of the remainirg 28 facilities, 13 are probably ope.ra;t;inJ within use pennits granted; 3 service p,tations have COde Enforcement actions perxiing. stations operatin-J without the required use permits will
receive letters informi.m' them of prope....~ c:,;ieratill3' pn:x:edures. Mr. Piasecki answered questions of Ccmnissianers n:qa:rd.irq specific service stations.
' j{
PI.ANNING o:M{ISSICN MIN:Jl'ES Regular Meetirq of october 27, 1986
PJ\GE 6
R: -504
New Business (cont'd)
He surornarized the c:x:nments of the Commissioners as follcws:
-'lhe o:nunission does not wish to cha.DJc the p:roc::::ed:u.re in dealinq with
small mini market c:perations, continu.i.n::J to interpret that these operations are convenience sales which requires a use permit.
-'Ihe c.anunission does not wish to airen:l the ordinanoe to allow specified
square footage a:reas, 24 ho.lr operation arrl beer run wine sales.
Chr. Szabo noted hls continuirq concern that stations operat.:1:n:3 without proper use permits, when discovered, c.an apply withwt penalty for
required use permits; he cited the recent example of a Mcl::>il OU Station. can. Malr.s con.finned that operators of these se:tvica stations will be rct.ified "cy the Plar~ Dapartment Of the required procedures an:l
~ ,, u:y use per.mi ta; ha suggested that the district managers also reoe1ve ocpies of letters to be sent. Mr. P:!asecki stated tha:t staff has
spoken to tll«<il district representatives; the Report will aid in dete.t"Illining
those q:ierations which are uncooperative Ylith City requ.irements. can. Sorensen asked that t.'1.e City Cooncil !"30aive a oopy of the Report on Servioe stations in OJpeJ..tino.
With regard to an=.rt:ller it.am of New .Business, can. P.Mms asked that a baseline data stu.ly be done on major ~ing center parking areas in the City for the month of Dec:smber to determine future standards. Can. Mackenzie suggested that the leased square footage of the center be included in the study; Mr. Piasecki stat.00 that the Plannirq Department wishes to use """'l.e services of an :!.ntem to do such proje::t;.
REFORI' OF 'll!E PI.ANNING a:MMISSION:
-Com. Sorensen asked about rt.l!OOrs that Vhllco P-drk Ice Skating Rink :may
be closed and roted the conoarn of residents who use the rink. No infonnation available at present.
-can. /\dams asked. regarding tbs dysfuctianal crosswalk but+...ous at t.11e intersection of De.Anza Blvd. an:1 Stevens Creek Blvd.
He asked about. the left han:::l lane, 60\l~ly direction on saratoga Sur.nyvale ai./H.Canestead intersection, in which drive.rs are caught in the
lane goirg into the freeway. He asked that the intersection be rore clearly marked for through traffic to avo:i.r.l potenti:ll accidents.
-Com. Clau:fy asked abalt tr.e Seven Spr:l.n;Js project; Mr. Piasec:ki stated that dem:>litian permits have been requested. staff continues to "WOrk with the ~ on this project.
He called attention to a Letter to the Editor, San Jose Mercury News,
October 27, 1986, regardi.rq c.cx:ie Enforcement procedures of the city.
PI.ANNING a::fff!SSictt MINUI'ES • Regular Meetirq of Octd:le.r 27, 1~86 PAGE 7
..?C -504
REX>Rl' OF 'lliE PlANNIN3 DIRECI'OR:
-Report to be sul:mitted at. the NOVEUnber 10, 1986, meetitY:J due to the
dlarge of the city council Meetin:;J to October 27, 1986.
ADJCXlRNMENT: Havin;J conclu:'Sed its busil"'esa, the planni.rq oanmission adjourned at 8:50 P.M. to the next Rsgular Meet.in; of November 10, 1096 at 7:30 P.M.
City Clerk . ,
~ °'J the Planning Onnission
At the Regular Meetinq of November 10, , 1986:
Nicholas Szabo, Cllainnan