Loading...
PC 11-29-76 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC-243 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Page 1 Telephone: 252-4505 0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 29, 1976 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chairman Adams opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams Comm. absent: Woodward Staff present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Attorney Kilian Deputy City Attorney Foster (7:45) City Engineer Whitten I) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5 . Application 26-Z-76 of MISSION TRAIL BUILDERS (MICHAEL G. 26-Z-76 AKATIFF) : PREZONING approximately one acre from A Michael G. (Agricultural) to R1-40 (Residential, single-family, 40,000 Akatiff sq. ft. per dwelling unit) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said property is located at the western terminus of Lindy Lane 150 feet west of the intersection of Lindy Place and Lindy Lane. First Hearing. Planning Director Sisk referred to staff report of November 19, 1976 . He noted the property involved is contiguous to the Candy Rock subdivision to the east. As explained in the staff report, the property is a recorded parcel with access to a public street so the General Plan recognizes it as a building site for a single dwelling. Mr. Sisk answered Comm. Blaine that there were not many individually owned lots in this area. • • PC-243 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1976 Page 2 Mr. Michael Akatiff, 52 S. Autumn, .Cupertino, said the property was fairly steep but the house would be designed to fit the lot. The meeting was opened to public comment. There were none. Public Hear- Comm. Koenitzer moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Comm. ings closed Blaine. Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of Application 26-Z-76 to the City Council. Seconded by Comm. Blaine. 26-Z-76 AYES: Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams approved NOES: None Motion carried, 4-0 The applicant was informed this would be before the City Council on December 20, 1976 . 27-Z-76 6 . Application 27-Z-76 of RICHARD CHILDRESS: removed from Removed from calendar at Planning Commission meeting of 11/22/76 calendar 12-U-76 7. Application 12-U-76 of USA PETROLEUM CORPORATION: MODIFICA- USA Petroleum TION OF USE PERMIT to convert existing self-serve gasoline Corporation station to post pay design. Said property is located at the continued to southeast corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd. 12/13/76 and Blaney Avenue. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said he had received a call from the applicant requesting a two week continuance. It was ascertained there was no one in the audience wishing to comment on this item. Comm. Gatto moved for a two-week continuance for Application 12-U-76. Seconded by Comm. .Koenitzer. Application to be heard at the December 13, 1976 meeting. Motion carried, 4-0 • • . f MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1976 PC-243 oPage 3 8. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to review proposed Tree i Tree Ordinance Ordinance providing regulations for care and removal of trees on private property, providing for a system of granting permits for removal of specimen trees, and providing for protection of all trees during construction operations. First Hearing continued. Assistant Planning Director Cowan briefly reviewed background of this item. He noted the ordinance was continued at the last hearing because of lack of a majority vote. Chairman Adams briefly reviewed previous positions taken by the Commissioners and asked if there were any further comments . Comm. Koenitzer said he still felt Section 6 .1(e) should be removed. Comm. Blaine felt it should be retained. Comm. Gatto felt the whole ordinance should be dropped. Chairman Adams agreed with Comm. Blaine. Comm. Blaine reiterated her view that people in residential areas are more apt to be concerned about keeping their trees because they are an asset to the property. Comm. Koenitzer reiterated his view that if the ordinance was 110 considered reasonable for one tree, it should apply to all trees regardless of location. Chairman Adams felt it was imposing upon a single-family owner's rights to dictate how his property was landscaped. The hearing was opened for public comment. There were none. Comm. Blaine moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Comm. Public Hear- Koenitzer. ings closed Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Blaine moved to recommend adoption of the third draft of the Tree Ordinance with the amended Appendix A, including addition to Section 2 and rewording of Section 9.2. Seconded by Chairman Adams. AYES: Blaine, Chairman Adams NOES: Gatto, Koenitzer Tree Ordinance denied Motion denied, 2-2 PC-243 MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1976 Page 4 City Attorney Kilian advised the Commission could forward the ordinance • to the City Council for their final action or they could hold it until a new Planning Commissioner was seated. Comm. Koenitzer said he could find no reason for exempting any specimen tree in the City. Comm. Gatto disagreed, noting that while he could see the benefit of such an ordinance, he felt at this time it would be an infringement on public rights since there was no demonstrated need for it. After further discussion, it was decided to forward the ordinance to the City Council. Tree Ordinanc- Comm. Blaine moved to send the Tree Ordinance on to City Council with forwarded to findings as stated. Seconded by Comm. Gatto. City Council Motion carried, 4-0 It was ascertained the ordinance would be heard by the City Council on December 20, 1976. ( UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 30-U-74 9. Consideration of use permit 30-U-74 of DONALD WIENER AND • Donald Wiener PAUL CASTANEDA and Paul Castaneda Director of Planning and Development Sisk referred to staff report of November 19, 1976, giving background of application. Condition 16 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1367 was intended to permit a temporary use of the existing service station for a retail tire sales outlet until the Stevens Creek Boulevard Plan Line was reviewed. Mr. Sisk pointed out the applicant has failed to comply with other conditions of approval pertaining to the operational aspects of the tire sales facility. It was therefore recommended that the Planning Commission initiate a public hearing to revoke the use permit based upon the grounds that the applicant has failed to comply with the conditions of approval that relate to the operational aspects of the facility. If the hearing determined that the use permit not be revoked, the appropriate extension of the tire sales facility would be discussed and the period of extension of the use permit be programmed to conclude at the expected date of the adoption of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Plan Line. • MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1976 PC-243 Page 5 0 As noted in the staff report, the earliest date for consideration of the revocation of the subject use permit would be January 10, 1977. Comm. Gatto ascertained the Plan Line study would be heard in February or March, 1977. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported on status of Plan Line study. In answer to Comm. Koenitzer, Mr. Sisk enumerated complaints received and action taken by the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Sisk read a letter from Mr. Ross Smith listing violations and issues on which there were complaints. The intent and the actual wording of. Condition 16 of the use permit were discussed. Comm. Gatto felt the use permit could be reconsidered at the end of the two-year period which was intent of the condition. City Attorney Kilian felt the time limit was predicated on the completion of the Plan Line study. If there were other bases on which the use permit should be revoked, the Commission has the power; • to do so independent of the Plan Line study. In the interest of being conservative, a revocation procedure would be the most appropriate manner to review it. Mr. Kilian did not think the Planning Commission could make a renewal type hearing without having the Plan Line completed, as per condition 16. Comm. Gatto ascertained that, at revocation hearing, the Planning Commission could grant new use permit for a 3-6 months period 30-U-74 After further discussion, Comm. Gatto moved to follow staff Revocation recommendation and set a revocation hearing for January 10, 1977. hearing on Seconded by Comm. Blaine. 1/10/77 Motion carried, 4-0 In- response to comments from a gentleman in the audience. the City Attorney advised it would be inappropriate to receive testimony on merits of the use at this time. S PC-243 MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1976 Page 6 23-U-76 10. Referral by City Council back to Planning Commission: • Carl Holvick Co. Application 23-U-76 of CARL; HOLVICK CO. Application 26-TM-76 of DR.,,,JOSEPH F. BROWN 26-TM-76 Dr. Joseph Planning Director Sisk referred to staff report of November 19, 1976. Brown Revised site plan and building elevations were exhibited and described. Mr. Sisk noted the Council had concurred with the Planning Commission's position requiring that development be coordinated on an overall basis in accordance with the adopted conceptual plan for North De Anza Blvd. As noted in staff report, the major ,issues yet to be resolved involved vehicular access to Bandley Drive from the private drive. A condition of approval recommended an easement be provided and the driveway constructed from the private driveway providing vehicular access along the north property line of Parcel B. Another concern was the issue of building orientation to the private drive. Comm. Gatto ascertained the revised plans had not been reviewed by ASAC. Comm. Blaine raised the possibility, of there being another driveway adjacent to driveway on northerlymost property line when abutting • property was developed. Mr. Sisk answered Comm. Gatto's question about 20 ft. driveway becoming part of Parcel C by saying it could work either way if it was conditioned so that the driveway would be installed at the appropriate time. Mr. Sisk explained rights to private driveway and use by other property owners . He pointed out the main concern of ASAC had been the width of landscaping along the driveway. , The revised building elevation was discussed. Mr. Sisk reported the City Council had not felt the elevation as proposed would be detrimental to future development. Comm. Blaine said landscaping could be introduced so that elevation did not necessarily look like "back door". Comm. Gatto thought orientation of two buildings was better. The back of building B can be dressed up with landscaping, introduction of wood panels, small trellis, or anything to give more texture and variety. Comm. Gatto felt the driveway front along private street presented a little bit of opportunity to increase the 5 ft. buffer. Something should be done to minimize impact of parking. The same comment would hold true at Building B. V • Comm. Gatto noted the main concern at last meeting was no access to MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1976 PC-243 Page 7 private road. This had been resolved enough to satisfy intent of the condition. He said he could understand why the developer would not want that driveway going through his establishment, providing access from whatever developed across the street. He would suggest striking Condition 20. Condition 22 was something that should be sought for but something less than 10 ft. might be satisfactory. Comm. Koenitzer said if there was to be a driveway on northerly boundary of property it should be planned and set up as common driveway with the property to the north in providing access between Bandley Drive and private drive. He feels strongly that this is something that is needed. Comm. Koenitzer said he would like to see consideration given to facing Building B toward private drive. Regarding Tentative Map, Comm. Koenitzer felt the T-shaped lot will be a potential problem. Leaving arms of the T on Parcel C would be unsatisfactory because of maintenance and Parcel C would be stuck with the legal ownership of road. He felt there could be problems in the future on owner rights, etc. Chairman Adams did not share these concerns. Dr. Joseph Brown, 20985 Pepper Tree Lane, Cupertino, distributed a letter which he then read for the record. He said the industrial development did not need or want the alley. He felt it should be deferred until Parcel C was developed. Industrial traffic should use Bandley Drive and Lazaneo Drive., There would be no way to keep other cars from cutting through this development. This is not a shopping center and does not have income to provide those extras. Dr. Brown said the 20 ft. arms gave the De Anza Blvd. property more land to deal with. Chairman Adams noted that without knowing what ultimate development on De Anza Blvd. would be, they had to go with the Conceptual Plan which showed the private drive. The alignment of property on private street beyond this development was discussed. Comm. Gatto said some notation that showed the 'whole 30 ft. strip as a driveway easement should be made so that anyone purchasing the property would be aware of this situation. He suggested that at the northerly end of the property there should be a condition that would allow a slight adjustment of road at that end if alignment further up made more sense when those properties developed. PC-243 MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1976 Page 8 Comm. Blaine noted that on the Conceptual Plan there is a road that connects with private driveway. If they are going to stay with the411 Conceptual Plan, this should conform to it. The private driveway on the east side of property has to be maintained and has to go in now at least to the driveway. In response to Comm. Blaine, Comm. Koenitzer illustrated on the site plan how he felt the driveway should be divided. With regard to Building B, Comm. Blaine felt the rear of the building as shown on revised plan would be satisfactory. She noted there are many ways to "spice" it up. She questioned how much truck traffic there would be. Mr. Jim Walker of Carl Holvick Company said he had thought they had a favorable reaction from ASAC. He pointed out revisions they had made to answer concerns . Mr. Walker said they were concerned with impact of exiting businesses on De Anza Blvd. and this was one reason they had for putting front of building to the west. He said they saw no benefit from having private drive and a project such as this one could not support another 20 ft. of driveway or property they did not need. He said they did not want people coming through their project. They would prefer having driveway to south so there would not be a straight shot through their project. Mr. Walker said to eliminate door at north end of Building B would create a hardship on them. An overhead door is necessary to their use; this is an industrial project. The building should be looked at for what it will be used for. In answer to Mr. Walker, Mr. Whitten said a signal light cost around $60,000. He did not know what percentage would be charged to this piece of property. Mr. Walker said in regard to Conditions of approval, they could live with Conditions 1-18; 22 - the depth of landscaping could be worked out with H-Control. He said they would agree to moving, increasing, or whatever with landscaping; 23- they would like to keep door on the south side of Building B. With regard to Condition 19, Mr. Walker asked how easements would be worked out and how they would be reimbursed by other users when other property developed. The City Attorney said these easements contemplated mutual granting of easements and as such no compensation would be contemplated. Normally this is a cross-easement situation. The City would not become a party to the agreement but would have the right to review the agreement to make sure it met City requirements. MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVMIBER 29, 1976 PC-243 Page 9 Mr. Walker pointed out they would be bearing a cost far greater than the other developers for an easement they did not need or want and over which they would have no control as to its use. Chairman Adams clarified that under Tentative Map conditions for approval, improvements to 20 ft. drive would be installed when Parcels A and B were developed. Mr. Walker then answered Comm. Blaine's question about amount of trucking to development. He said their tenants say they have four trucks per month now. It sounds as though they have infrequent trucking. Mr. Walker said they think this is a high quality developmen• and the trucking would show it. Comm. Gatto moved to report to City Council approval of Application Motion 23-U-76 as shown this evening with the Exhibit A Revision and Condition- 1 through 23 as shown on staff report with the following modifications: (20) Delete (21) Same (22) The depth for the landscaped bed bordering the common drive shall be maximized consistent with site plan shown on Exhibit A Revised as approved by H-Control. (23) Delete Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer. Comm. Koenitzer then said he felt the northern east-west roadway should be designed and planned as part of a common drive with property to the north to provide major access to Bandley Drive. They should look at the entire traffic flow. He felt they should retain Condition 20 and insist they plan a northern east-west driveway. Comm. Koenitzer then moved to amend motion to restore Condition 20. Amendment Seconded by Comm. Blaine. A discussion on this point then followed. Dr. Brown pointed out a street would be constructed only 145 ft. to the north from this propert . VOTE ON AMENDMENT AYES: Koentizer, Blaine Amendment NOES: Gatto, Chairman Adams denied Amendment denied, 2-2 PC-243 MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1976 Page 10 VOTE ON MOTION: 411 AYES: Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams ' 23-U-76 NOES: None approved w/ conditions Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Gatto moved to recommend approval to City Council of Application 26-TM-76 with 14 standard conditions and conditions 15-18 as enumerated in staff report. Seconded by Comm. Blaine. AYES: Blaine, Gatto, Chairman Adams 26-TM-76 NOES: Koenitzer approved w/ conditions Motion carried, 3-1 Chairman Adams advised these two applications would be heard by the City Council at the December 6, 1976 meeting. 11. Staff Report regarding condominium conversion ordinance. Condominium Conversion Assistant Planner Cowan said this was a new approach to ordinances. Discussion A position paper to Planning Commission and City Council prior to drafting the ordinance. At the last meeting, staff member Piasecki 411 had gone through the document. Planning Commission was to comment now on the document after having had time to review it. Mr. Cowan said the City Attorney had advised there are new laws that will be effective January 1, 1977 regarding tenant rights. One law will require individual who desires to convert to condominiums to give tenant first right of refusal for a 60-day period. The second section of the law will deal with notice of termination. The law says the owner of apartment has to give tenants 120 days notice of his intent to convert. Chairman Adams suggested incorporating State laws into the ordinance. Comm. Gatto noted there are a large number of apartments that could convert so they should be prepared with guidelines. The other Commission members agreed. Comm. Gatto said he felt it should be simplified as much as possible by omitting items covered by State law and minimizing social implications. Comm. Blaine disagreed. She felt there are great social implications in a conversion situation. MINUTES OF ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1976 PC-243 Page 11 0 Comm. Blaine referred to report showing extremely small percentage of apartments available in the City. Comm. Gatto said maybe the Commission should address if and how they wanted to regulate living types in the City as one issue and development of nuts and bolts type of ordinance to implement conversion as another. Comm. Blaine said maybe this was the time to plan for a variety of housing in the City. Comm. Koenitzer noted when they are talking about social goals, they are saying there should be a variety of housing available to various price lines. Trying to tie condominium conversion to a vacancy factor in apartment dwellings isn't addressing the issue. Chairman Adams raised the question of whether there should be two or more bedrooms per apartment to be converted. This was discussed. Comm. Blaine suggested an assessment of number of types of housing in the City. Assistant Planner Cowan suggested a nuts and bolts ordinance to protect buyer and tenants, leaving out Section 6 that related to housing mix, 41, until General Plan was updated which would be at least next fall. They could review one or two conversions without benefit of guidelines. Comm. Blaine said they have to know what the social needs are and consider them in the writing of an ordinance. She would not like to see a rash of conversions with no way of controlling them. Planning Director Sisk said the real question was whether they could continue as they have been legally with regard to conversions. The Assistant City Attorney said he would look at the law and come back with a definitive opinion. After a brief discussion on having moratorium on conversions, the matter was continued to December 13, 1976 meeting in order to assess legal position in greater detail. NEW BUSINESS: None • REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Comm. Blaine reported the Transportation Committee was breaking up into sub-committees to discuss various parts of the light rail transit study. • Comm. Gatto raised two procedural points. He noted that the way the Planned Development is set up, the zoning is tied to conceptual plan. When they approve zoning, they are approving that layout. PC-243 MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1976 Page 12 Comm. Gatto said the other item was when something is denied, it might be more appropriate to have the motion, discussion and vote and then list the findings. The City Attorney agreed, advising all findings should be added. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Planning Director Sisk referred to zoning and Tentative Map for San Carlos Homes on Voss Avenue, Applications 28-Z-76 and 27-TM-76. It was found the Al-43 zoning gave them less flexibility and they would like a Minute Order that RI-1 acre zoning was more appropriate. MINUTE It was so moved by Comm. Gatto and seconded by Comm. Blaine. ORDER Motion carried, 4-0 ADJOURNMENT At 10:37 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to next regular meeting of December 13, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. • APPROVED: /s/ 'Victor J. Adams, Jr. Chairman ATTEST: /s/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk 111