PC 02-11-80
.. "I,
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 9501~
Telephone (408) 252-4505
PC-326
Page 1
MINUTES FEBRUARY II, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEET IN
CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG
7:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Commissioner Claudy
Commissioner Adams
Commissioner Koenitzer
Commissioner Blaine
Chairman Gatto
Staff Present:
Assistant Planning Director Cowan
Associate Planner Piasecki
City Attorney Kilian
Assistant City Attorney Foley
APPROVAL/MI~UTES of JANUARY 28, 1980
COM. CLAUDY: Page 2, par. 3, strike from the sentence the
incorrect statement "in order to enable the Council to deter
mi.ne whether or not the area should be annexed."
Page 2, par. 5, line 2 & 3, strike from the sentence the
statement \.¡ithin parenthesis II (which was provided)."
Page I" ] ine 4 from bottom, insert "by 1990" after the word
expec.t.¿d.
Page 7, reference to Southern Meeting be changed to refer to
San Diego Meeting. Strike last sentence.
COM. BLAH;!: Page 5, par. 5 edit to read, "COM BLAINE felt
that the density of 20 to 35 might create problems in each
area where it was zoned for such. She suggested that the
Commission review all properties with higher density."
HOTION:
PASSED:
Com. Claudy, Approval.
Second:
Com. Koenitzer
5-0
APPROVAL/MINUTES of JANUARY 30, 1980.
COM. BLAINE: Page 2, par. 6, last sentence to be changed to
read: "If there was no traffic problem because of the under
pass, she suggested that Town Center could be allowed to
develop as a regional shopping center.
CO'!. ADAHS, Page 2, par. 2, line 7, delete the \?ord "done."
MOTION:
PASSED:
Com. Adams, Approval.
Second:
Com. Blaine
5-0
POSTPONEMENTS/NER AGENDA ITEMS
Assistant Planning Director Co\?an asked for continuance of
Item #2 (Application of Woolworth Construction Company) in
order that Staff could complete necessary work on traffic
alternatives. Since agendas were heavy and since the
PC-32ó
MINUTES FEBRUARY II, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 2
Woolworth matter would be lengthy (public interest was hiRh),
it was agreed that continuing the matter ovp-r to the ~larch
10, 1980 Agenda would insure proper preparation and time
for discussion in the public hearing.
Mr. Gordon Lachland, legal applicant, through Hoolworth
Construction Company, explained that delay would crente a
hardship on his family in that they would not be able to
move into their new property until much later than they
had planned.
Mr. Woolworth, developer, reminded the Commissioners that
they had been delayed since November because of a shack in
the back of the property. He reRretted further delay. but
he recognized the problem and felt delay was inevitahle.
Second:
VOTE:
Com. Claudy, Continue Item #2, 24-Z-79 and
27-TM-79 to the Regular Planning CommIssion MeetIng
of March 10, 1980.
Com. Blaine
AYES: Commissioners Claudy, Adams, Catto, 810lne
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Koenitzer (Knowledge of Project).
4-0
NOTION:
PASSED:
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Assistant Planning Director Cowan called tile Cc)mmissionerR'
attention to letters from Greg C. Bunker, Item "4, wllte11
had been delivered just prior to the meeting. The second
matter was the letter from Oakdell Ranch Homeowners Asso-
ciation, which had been considered during the continuance
discussion of Item #2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item #1, Applications 28-2-79, 32-U-79 and 30-TM-79 of
DOROTHY HELDMAN: REZONING approximately .nn gross acres
from RI-IO (Residential, single-family, ln,nnn sq. ft.
minimum lot area) to P (Planned Development with single-
family residential cluster intent) zone or whateuor 2onO
may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE
PERMIT to construct three new single-family residential
cluster homes; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide tht! sllh1l!ct
property into four parcels and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The
Environmental Revie,.¡ Committee reco¡;L¡:en~ls thè grantin¡.\ of
a Negative Declaration~ Said property is loenttHl at tht!
northeast corner of Blaney Avenue and Price Aven11e. J~irRt
Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hl!i\rlng datl! -
Harch 3, 1980.
MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING CO~~ISSION I1EETIN
PC-326
Page 3
Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the application and
advised the Commission that Mrs. Heldman had conformed to
the advice given during the First Hearing, January 14, 1980.
The number of windows looking into adjoining yards had been
decreased, one unit had been eliminated, and the modified
roof lines had better solar orientation.
City Attorney Kilian advised, on the question as to whether
or not the City had accepted dedication of the small piece
of land on which the water tank stood, and which was in the
right-of-way on city property, that there were three ways to
resolve the problem: 1) ~ove the tower. 2) Switch the lot
line to go around the water tower within the City right-of-
way, and abandon the small area. 3) Issue an encroachment
permit. In the event an encroachment permit was issued, if
tl1erc was any liability, the City, as the underlying owner
of the land, could be made a defendant in a suit. A Hold
Harmless Agreement could be required of the owner of the Ian
and holder of the permit; yet, the agreement could not guar-
antee the owner of the land would be in a position to de-
fend the City in a suit.
After discussion the Commissioners agreed that the property
should not be accepted by the City through dedication.
Mr. Norman Garcia, representing Mrs. Heldman, reminded the
Commissioners that the offer to move the building out of the
right-of-way was still valid. He noted that they were
talking about fifteen inches.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine.
PASSED:
MOTION:
Second:
VOTE:
PASSED:
MOTION:
Second:
VOTE:
PASSED:
MOTION:
Second: Com. Claudy
5-0
Corn. Claudy, to Support Environmental Review Com-
mittee recommendation for a Negative Declaration.
Com. Koenitzer
AYES: Commissioners Claudy, Gatto, Koenitzer, Blaine
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Adams (Knowledge of Project)
4-0
Corn. Claudy, Approval, 28-2-79, subject to Standard
Conditions #1 through #14; #15 to note approval is
based on Exhibit A of Application, and Staff Report
Com. Blaine
AYES: Commissioners Claudy, Gatto, Koenitzer, Blaine
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Adams (Knowledge of Project)
4-0
Corn. Claudy, Approval of 32-U-79, subject to the
Findings and Subconclusions as outlined in the Staff
Report of February 7, 1980. Standard Conditions #1
throcgh V14; #15 as per Staff Report; #16 changed to
PC-326
MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MKKTTNC
Second:
VOTE:
read two (2) units instead of threu ("I) unHR; /"17
and #18 as per Staff Report of February 7, IYRO.
Com. Blaine
AYES: Commissioners Claudy, Catto, Koeniteer, Blalne
NOES: None
ABSTAINED:
Commissioner Adams
(Knowledge of Project)
4-0
Page 4
PASSED:
MOTION:
Com. Claudy, Approval 30-TM-79, subject to the
Findings and Subconclusions as outlined in the Staff
Report of February 7, 1980. Standard ConditlonR II
through #14; #15 as per Staff Report; eliminate #16;
substitute for Condition #16 the option that the
Applicant shall bave the option of removing the
water tower from the right-of-way of City pr0l'urty;
or, consulting with the proper City aAent, or, shall
modify the right-of-way in dedication so as to retain the
water tower within the private property line.
Second:
VOTE:
Com. Blaine
AYES: Commissioners Claudy, Gatto, Koenttzer. Blatn~
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Adams (Knowledge of Project).
4-fl
PASSED:
ITEM #3, Application 26-Z-79 of CITY OF CUPERTINfl (MANN
DRIVE PUMP AND STORACE FACILITY): REZONING approximately
;25 gross acres from Rl-10 (residential, single-family,
10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to BA (Puhlic ÐuildinA)
or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Plutlning
Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Re-
view Committee recommends the granting of a Nenative Oeclar-
ation. Said property is located on the northeaRt side of
Mann Drive approximately 100 ft. northerly of the inter-
section of Dos Palos Court. First Hearing. Tentative City
Council hearing date - Ma~ch 3, 1980.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff ¡(eport
and located the property on the Exhibit on the board. lie
said the water tank size would be reduced from 4flfl,OOn nol-
Ions to 180,000 gallons, the existing pumps would be re-
placed with more efficient pumos~ and a new concrete buildlnf~
to house the pumps, City equipment and an office woulll b~
~onstructed. Landscaping and decorative fencing would he
installed on the Mann Drive frontage. He pointed nut that
180,000 gallons of water was not judged to he 0 problem in
the residential neighborhood.
UHLIG HEARING CLOSED: Com. Koenitzer.
PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY
Second: Com. Adams
5-0
MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING CO~MISSION MEETING
PC-326
Page 5
Second:
PASSED:
Com. Blaine, recommend Granting of Negative
Declaration.
Com. Koenitzer
MOTION:
5-0
Second:
PASSED:
Com. Blaine, Approval, 26-Z-79, Standard Conditions
#1 through #14; #15 & #16 as per Staff Report.
Com. Adams
MOTION:
5-0
ITEM #4, Application 33-U-79 of GREGG C. BUNKER: USE PERMIT
to operate a photo driveup window facility in conjunction
with retail sales of photographic equipment and supplies and
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee
recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said
property is located on the northwest corner of Wildflower
Way and Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road in a C-I (Commercial) zoning
district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing
date - February 19, 1980.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan exhibited a diagram of the
area and located the photo driveup facility as it was pos-
itioned on Mr. Yamagami's property. Explaining that there
had been conflict and violation of the General Plan and Use
Permit regulations, and because of a transfer of property
from San Jose to Cupertino, a grace period had been allowed
to Mr. Bunker to permit him to make an application as through
he was still in San Jose jurisdiction. He stated that Mr.
Bunker had not acquired a Use Permit from San Jose; and, he
said Mr. Bunker had been informed that in the absence of the
Use Permit the operation was illegal within the boundaries of
Cupertino and/or San Jose.
COHo ADAMS asked about work having been done on the building
after the issuance of a Stop Work Order. Mr. Cowan confirmed
that such was the case, including landscaping.
Mr. Gregg Bunker, 1337 South Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, Cuper-
tino, Applicant, outJined his position in the impasse on the
photo driveup installation. Having 43 stores in the State of
California, comparatively, with that number of cities, he
found the City of Cupertino defensive and willing to find
difficulty for him. Mr. Bunker denied making structural
changes to the building and said that he'd not continued
work aftpr receiving the Stop Work Order except for a paint in
face lift, resurfacing the floor, installing a luminous
ceiling and replacing a window with a sliding window. Mr.
Bunker read a letter for the record (copy of letter in files).
Mr. Bunker stated that his attorney had arranged for Cuper-
tino to approve the project. It was to allow the particular
position as to driveup windows as was used in San Jose at
the time the property was annexed.
PC-326
MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 6
City Attorney Kilian corrected Mr. Bunker by stating that
the purpose of the Ordinance was to provide Mr. Hunker
with an opportunity to present an application before the
Planning Commission and City Council for the purpose of
having them make a consideration as to whether thIs would
be consistent had it been in San Jose at the t.lme. II"
said the intent was not to allow him to utilize old pro-
cedures or old guidelines in the City of Sao Jose. but,
because Mr. Bunker had not filed for a Use Permit' ln
either City, it was reasonable that the Planning Commission
should take into consideration any changes in policy after
annexation.
City Attorney Kilian advised that the Planuing Commls.ion WaR
still operating under the procedures of the Clty of Cupertino
and that the findings must be made under the City Ordinance.
However, Mr. Kilian also advised that a specilll. {)rrllnilncu
had been adopted by San Jose to allow certain appllcant.8 t.o
be considered under the criteria of that ordinance!. 1\e!
pointed out that the applicant had not both.'r"d to apply
for a Use Permit in either San Jose or Cupertino. 1'1",
Applicant could not now complain that this waR adopted after
final annexation. And, he said the 500 ft. distance
should be considered as to whether or not to approve the
application.
I
'PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED:
PASSED:
Corn. Blaine.
Second:
Com. Claurly
5-0
CHR. GATTO asked City Attorney Kilian if the building and
the drivein window was of non-conforming Use.
City Attorney Kilian said that there were morlifications to
the building and the drive in window, and the bulldlng was
of non-conforming use. His office, he statall, w()il1rl in-
stitute an action (an Order of Injunction) ReekIng the
closing of the drivein window and asking for necessary
applications for building permits and sign permits as re-
quired by ordinances.- The point' was made that the real ISHUD
was the drivein facility and not the commercial facility.
MOTION:
Second:
VOTE:
Com. Blaine, for Denial of 33-U-79 under the
San Jose Ordinances which prohibit drlvenp win-
dows within 500 ft. of another drlv'''II' Installation,
based upon date of application, and hilsed on th"
finding that the proposed use is inconsistent
with the City of Cupertino General Plan, and alNo
considering the property is inade~\latu 1n H1ze
and shape to accommodate the proposed use In
that the City of San Jose guideliues øpunk to a
500 ft. difference between driveup wI ndowB; and,
in addition, the proposed use is detrimental to tbe
health, safety, peace, moral and generill welfare
of those residing in the neighborhood. In addition,
the Finding of City Council shall prevaIl.
Com. Adams
PASSED 5-0
MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEET IN
PC-326
Page 7
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised the Commissioners
and Mr. Bunker that an appeal could be made.
ITEM #5, Application l-V-RO of JAC0UES LASSERRE: VARIANCE
from Section 9.3 of Ordinance 780 to permit a 8 ft. side
yard setback for a proposed second-story addition in lieu of
9 ft. as required by Ordinance and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is categorically exempt, hence no action is re-
quired. The subject property is located on the west side of
La Roda Drive) in an Rl-7.5 (Residential, single-family,
7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size). First Hearing. Tentative
City Council hearing date - March 3, 1980.
Associate Planner Piasecki read into the r.ecord ~ letter
from the applicant (copy in file), which had not been re-
ceived in the packets prior to the meeting. The Staff
Report was reviewed by Associate Planner Piasecki, and it
was pointed out that the criteria set forth for the granting
of a variance was taken almost verbatim from the state law
permitting variance ordinances. A major consideration was
the recognition of extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the building, etc.. It was pointed out that
the Staff felt the circumstances did not constitute extra-
ordinary circumstances in this case.
COM. KOENITZER inquiring about the present property lines of
the house added that more than likely the owners of older
homes would be coming in and asking for variances to expand
one-story homes into two-story homes. Since the homes were
oriented on the lo~ and conformed to regulations, Com.
Koenitzer stated that he could see no reason to set a precedent.
Mrs. Lasserre, owner and petitioner, said there was not
annther two-story house on her street. Pointing out the
major problems on the board exhibit, she asked the Commissio ers
to grant the request.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Koenitzer. Second:
PASSED:
Com. Blaine
5-0
Com. adams said that technically he had to believe it was
feasible to build, but he agreed that offsetting the wall
would leave a lack of foundation'for the second-story wall.
After general discussion, the Commissioners found that they
could not find extraordinary circumstances because the
one-story building was correctly placed as a one-story home.
The distinction was made between what the Commissioners
would like to do and what they could do legally.
PC-326
MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 1930 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 8
MOTION:
Second:
·VOTE
Com. Koenitzer, Denial of l-V-30 on the has is
of finding no exceptional characteristics, or
special conditions in the nature of the parti-
cular property that would justify granting a
variance. There is no need for a variance to
preserve property rights. Under denial of
Conditions #1 and #2, Condition #3 is not
applicable.
Com. Adams
PASSED 5-0
ITEM #6, Application 1-2-30 of RICHARD CHILDRESS: PREZONING
approximately .3 gross acres from Santa Clara County Rl-R
(Residential, Single-family, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum lot
size) to City of Cupertino RI-7.5 (Residential, Single-
family 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district or
whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning
Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Re-
view Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
Declaration. Said property is located on the north side of
Lomita Avenue approximately 200 ft. westerly of Orange
Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing
date - March 3, 1980.
The Staff Report was reviewed by Associate Planner Piusecki
who pointed out that the property had no use under existing
laws; however, he said that with conbining R1JrrOUlldlng
parcels, it was likely that it would be subdivided. Since
the zoning change was consistent with the Cupertino General
Plan, Staff recommended for approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED:
PASSED:
MOTION:
Second:
VOTE:
MOTION:
Second:
VOTE:
Com. Adams.
Seeon(l:
Com. Clau(ly
5-1)
Corn. Blaine, Approval, Negative Declaration.
Com. Claudy
PASSED 5-0
Com. Blaine, Approval, 1-2-80, as per Findings,
Conditions, and Subconclusions of Staff Report.
Corn. Claudy
PASSED 5-0
ITEM #7, Application 3-Z-80 of RICHARD CHILDRESS: PßEZONING
approximately .4 of a gross acre from Santa Clara Couoty
Rl-B6 (Residential, single-family, 6,000 sq. ft. minImum
lot size) and approximately .6 of a gross acre frt)ln S~)nta
Clara County Al-43 (Agricultural, Residential I acre mini-
mum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appro-
priate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting
of a Negative Declaration. Said property i8 located on the
east side of Bubb Road approximately l5a ft. northerly
of Folkstone Drive. First hearing. Tentative City Council
hearing date - March 3, 1980.
PC-326
MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 1930 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN
Page 9
Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out parcels #30
and #31 and #44 on the board exhibit. He said it was felt
the application was a straight forward request for rezoning
that would bring the property into conformance with the
Cupertino General Plan. It was expected that at some future
time Mr. Childress would be back for a subdivision map. The
parcel #44, he explained, would come into the City under the
rule of any existing parcel was allowed to develop.
Mr. Richard Childress, Applicant, 22025 Regnart Road, Cuper-
tino, advised the Commissioners that at one time the three
parcels had been in three different jurisdictions and that
the request for Prezoning was an attempt to get it together
for annexation.
City Attorney Kilian
dition of prezoning,
with other parcels.
asked if it was agreeable, as a Con-
that the small parcel, #44, be combined
Mr. Childress had no objection.
Mr. Robert Brown, neighbor in adjoining property, said he
was trying to get information on what was going to happen to
the property. The rumors around reported five (5) single
dwellings on the property.
CHR. GATTO explained that the applicant was asking for pre-
zoning only and that coming into the City the parcels would
be Rl single family. Subsequent applications might indicate
Mr. Childress' intent.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy.
PASSED:
Second: Com. Adams
5-0
~!OT ION:
Second:
VOTE:
MOTION:
Second:
VOTE:
Com. Koenitzer, to support the Negative Declaratio
of the Environmental Review Committee.
Com. Adams
PASSED 5-0
Com. Koenitzer, Approval, 3-Z-30. City Attorney
Kilian asked that the motion record that although
it was not usual to do so, in this instance the
record should show that Lot #44 was not deemed a
buildable parcel and should be combined with the
adjacent parcels as shown on the subdivision map.
Com. Claudy
PASSED 5-0
MINUTE ORDER TO CITY COUNCIL: Com. Koenitzer.
Second: Com. Claudy
to indicate that as a Condition of annexation
the Planning Commission does not consider Parcel
#44 to be a buildable parcel and that Parcel #44
should be combined with the adjacent parcels.
VOTE:
PASSED
5-0
PC-326
Page 10
MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
ITEM 118, Application l-TM-SO of VALL CO PARK, LTD: TENTATIVF
MAP to adjust lot lines affecting three existing parcels con-
sisting of approximately 45 acres and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of
a Negative Declaration. Said property is located in the
southwest quadrant of Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge AV(!r1Ue in
an MP (Planned Industrial Park) zoning district. First
Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - March 3, 1980
(Correction: Assistant Planning Director Cowan reqllested
the City Council hearing date be changed to February 19, 1980)
Associate Planner Piasecki, after reviewin~ the Staff Report,
advised the Commissioners that the plans exhihited were in
conformance with City policies and that tho Stnff recommended
approval.
COM. KOENITZER was given a review of the changes In order that
he might be certain he understood them.
Mr. Walter Ward, representing Vall co Park, explnined that
the application was largely an attempt to straighten IIp
property lines, create more buildable lots, and comhine
areas to create more parking.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED:
PASSED
Com. Adams.
Second: Com. Koenitzer
5-0
~IOTION :
Second:
VOTE:
Com. Adams, Approve the Negative Declaration.
Com. Koenitzer
PASSED 5-0
MOTION:
Com. Adams, Approval l-TM-SO, subject to the
Findings and Subconclusions of StafE Report, and
Standard Conditions #1 through #15 as per Staff
Report.
Com. Koenitzer
PASSED 5-0
Second:
VOTE:
CHR. GATTO again called attention to the corrected date for
hearing before City Cõuncil -- February 19, 1980.
ITEM #9, CITY OF CUPERTINO: AMENDMENT TO VARIOUS SECTIONS
OF THE Rl (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONING ORDINANGE
including but not limited to setbacks, building height,
lot width and architectural projections and ENVIHONMENTAL
REVIEH: The Environmental Review Commíttet~ rncommendH the
granting of a Negative Declaration. FIrst Hearing continued.
Tentative City Council hearing date - March '1, 19i10.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised tt1C CommiHRJor\
members that Item #9 dealt with the question of solar
access, a problem which had been put off by the Staff for
some time because of the press of critical projects. lie
recommended a three-step process in City regulatIons
governing solar rights. 1) Subdivision maps in terms
of orientation of lots. 2) The question of the proper
MINUTES FEBRUARY II, 1980 ~EGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI G PC-326
Page 11
siting of homes. 3) Building Code Regulations. A book
from HUD was shown and promised to each Commissioner as
soon as additional copies were received. And, Mr. Cowan
explained that the book was to acquaint them with the basic
facts and problems of solar orientation of buildings. He
recommended rather drastic changes in ordinances on height
regulations and setbacks to prevent second-story buildings
shadowing one-story buildings. There having been no time t
go through all the subdivisions to determine the implicatio s
of the changes, he said he'd like to have their reactions
at the present time and then would like to corne back in six
months for detailed discussions of a whole set of changes
or setbacks based on solar problems.
COM. KOENITZER said that the area of solar access being a
subject that was unfamiliar to most people it would require
considerable efforts to educate the public. And he sug-
gested that the Staff use every advertising vehicle avail-
able for ambitious advertising on the changes in ordinances
that would corne about.
Associate Planner Piasecki explained the setbacks, the
roof slopes, and heights of structures: 25 ft. from two-sto y
on rear yards, 10 ft. minimum required for sideyard two-
story, and setbacks on accessory buildings (no overhangs)
would have a 7 ft. restriction at the lower level (in-
creasing at the rate of 1 ft./l 1/2 ft. from the property
line). The angle of calculation was 330. The specific
section of the Ordinance being changed was identified as
Section 8.5, page 9.
CHR. GATTO suggested they go through the ordinance and
comment.
COM. KOENITZER: page 8, called attention to square footage
of homes vs. square footage of lots and pointed out that
a two-story building of approximately 5,000 sq. ft.plus, an
400 sq. ft. garage could be placed on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot.
He wondered if limitations should be imposed on house
sizes.
COM. BLAINE: Page 8, Section 7.1 -- the 6,000 sq. ft. size
meant to bring San Jose lots into conformity. She asked
that they consider other undeveloped lots corning in at
R6. ~he variety of lot sizes and the possible modes of
development were discussed.
CHR. GATTO: Page 11, Section 13,-- what mechanism would be
used for setbacks. Associate Planner Piasecki said that it
would be through Use Permits and also Section 6.2:E re-
quirements, public hearing and termination at the Planning
Commission level.
-
PC-326
MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 12
PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second:
PASSED
Com. Adams
5-0
MOTION:
Second:
YOTE:
MOTION:
Second:
YOTE:
Com. Claudy, Approval of Negative Declaration.
Com. Blaine
PASSED 5-0
Com. Claudy, Recommend Adoption of the RI Zonin~
Ordinance (PC-326, Item #9) in accordance with the
Staff Report, with the following exceptions:
Section 7.l, line 3, is amended to read, "(e.g.
7.5 corresponds to 7,500 square foot minimum lot
area;...." Delete sentence beginning This number
down to lot area;. Next sentence should read,
"It is provided, however, that any parcel...."
Section 10.3, change 30% to 20%.
Section 8.5.1 (typographical error) chan~e 300 angle
to 330 angle.
Com. Adams
PASSED 5-0
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
COM. CLAUDY asked if the three driveups at Home Federal
had been approved. Mr. Cowan said that they had been.
REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR
Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked that the Commissioners
turn in the forms for the meeting in San Diego. And, the
members of the Planning Commission were invited to attend
la meeting at Saratoga City Hall, Thursday; 7:30 p.m.
for a presentation on Living Within Our Limits.
ADJOURNEMENT: 10:50 p.m. to the Joint Meeting on Public
Safety at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, Februsry 13, 1980 at City
Hall, Cupertino, CA.
A~~;
City Clerk