Loading...
PC 08-30-76 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF ~ ADJOUBNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO HELD ON AIJGUST 30, 1976 IN THE COUNCn. CHAMBER, CITY HAIJ. CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chairman Adams called the meeting to order at 7 :32 PM with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Comm. abaent: Gatto, Koenitzer, Woodward, Chairman Adams None Staff present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Director of Public Works V1.skovich Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Attorney Kilia~ / APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of August 23 Regular Meeting will be available at next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission. POSTPONEMENTS: None WRITtEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 1'UBLIC BEARINGS 1. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Hearing to consider establishing a neW R3 high density, mul.tiple-family residential zone relating to density, setbacks, permitted. uses and other development stand- ards; and the repealing of existing R3-2.2 and R3-2.7 multiple family residential zones. Firat Hearing continued. -~-_._--_..- -- -. - - ._-~- ----.-_.._-. --'"-._~--_._-~_._------ -------_._-_.._~_._-.._~- PC-235 Page 1 PC-235 Page 2 MINUTES OF AUGUST 30, 1976 ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Assistant Planning Director reviewed the concerns brought out by the ~lanning Commissioners at the previous, public hearing on the new R3 ordinance, as reflected in the August 6, 1976, staff report. Another section in this ordinance should address City-initiated applications. Comm. Gatto noted that we now have an existing R3 ordinance with density based on area of the lot. In the new General Plan a density range was established. Policy statements are needed. The Assistant Planning Director added that the new General Plan does not talk about types of people, etc. Comm. Gatto is concerned that there is a gap between the ordinances; e.g., if a person comes in and has too many units for R3 he then drops back to R2. Comm. Gatto would like to have it possible for an individual to be able to come to City Hall and go to the ordinances related to the General Plan and determine for himself whether or not his plan for his property is feasible. The Assistant Planning Director stated that the staff is in the process of putting together a "coordination document". COII1II1. Gatto said there should be a policy statement to the effect that the developer must build under certain designated constraints, .......... The Assistant City Attorney advised the Planning Commission must be able to make a finding that a privacy problem is unique to a given type of zoning. Determination must be based on a general category, and there must be some reasonable basis for the determination. There followed a discussion on the privacy intrusion issue. It was acknowledged there is a problem in the Alpine Drive area, but there are not many lots left in Cupertino where this problem would come up. Comm. Woodward does not believe R1 should be exempt from this constraint. He referred to the owner of a single-family home who wished to add a second story to his home, which could create a privacy intrusion with placement of windows, etc. If the City is going to deal with privacy intrusion at all, he felt all residential zones should have the same set of rul"s. The Assistant Planning Director explained a separate privacy ordinance was explored sometime ago aDd at that time it was determined this factor should be studied within the individual types of zoning districts. The Assistant City Attorney added that this approach is easier to defend in Court, also. Comm. Gatto submitted in writing his thoughts on how to handle this problem. Chairman Adams commented that Comm. Gatto' s draft appears to be the most reasonable approach that has been introduced to date. MINUTES OF AUGUST 30, 1976 ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Barry Feeley, 1472 Stelling Road, Cupertino, said a single- story is the way to go when yon have a large lot. Placement of windows is very important. He suggested alternating the living areas fr~ one unit to another to help protect privacy. CamR. Gatto proposed a new introduction to Section 9.1. He added that when the applicants come to City Hall the staff can tell them that the City Council is very interested in the matter of privacy intrusion and they should be prepared to speak to this. Word travels very quickly throughout the industry. Comm. Koenitzer had a prepared statement which he suggested as a definition of pets under Section 6.21. The Assistant City Attorne said this would be enforced through the citation procedure. There followed a discussion of numbers and types of animals to be allowed. The Assistant Planning Director will check with the County Health Department on this issue. The words "designed for the sole use of the occupant" were added to Section 6.20, line 3, after the word "private". In the same paragraph, line 5 should read: "as defined above also applied to proposed . n On page 6, (f) was added to Section 8.1. ./ On page 7, Section 9.1 (a), the last 3 lines: "300" was changed to "20%" and "ISO" was changed to "10%". In the last paragraph on that page, the 3rd line under (b): Change "preclude" to "minimize" and delete the entire sentence beginning with: "The figures provided.. ...." On page 9, the word "Setback" is to be added to the title of Sections 10.6 and 10.7. Section 10.1 is to be reworded by the staff. Section 10.2 shall indicate a maximum of 4 stories. Moved by Comm, Gatto, seconded by Comma Woodward to continue the public hearing on the new R3 Ordinance to September l3, 1976. Motion carried. 4-0 2. CITY OJ!' CUPElIl'INO: Hëaring to consider establishing a new R1 single-family residential zone relating to density, setbacks permitted uses and, other development standards; and the repealing of the existing single-family residential zone. Ordinance No. 220(n). First hearing, The Commission elected to go through this ordinance, page by page, and make comments where appropriate. PC-235 Page 3 R3 Ordinance continued to Sept, 13th -_._-----------.-- -- ----,--- _.- ,.-- PC-235 Page 4 ..".. R1 Ordinance continued to Sept. l3th. MINUTES OF AlIGUST 30, 1976 ADJOURNED PUNNING COMMISSION MEETING On page 7, item 8 - add the words "20' setback for any second story". Same page, item 10, line 2, change "structures" to ''buildings''. Same page, items 11 and lZto be reworded by the staff. Same page, item: 13, line 1, change "metal" to "portable". Comm. Koenitzer introduced the problem of parking', a homeowner's recreation vehicle. He suggested consideration of 6' setback on one side and 9 or 10' setback on the other. The staff will research this option. The Assistant Planning Director stated a citizen has asked that the Planning Commission consider carports in this ordinance. The Planning Commission rejected this suggestion. ' Item 15 on page 7 should indicate garage space should be 20 x 20. Item 17 on page 8 regarding the privacy intrusion incorporation into the Rl Ordinance drew a split vote: There was a lengthy discussion on this item. Comm. Woodward said he would vote for this as long as a minority report is also submitted to the Council. Mr. Feeley described a problem of a front yard setback in Tract 5561, lot 11. He asked the Planning Commission to address a 25' setback from property line where streets are narrower than normal. The Planning Director said the new ordinance will take care of this problem. Mr. Joe Shepela, 1514 Mallard Way, Sunnyvale, said he based his plans on information he received from City Hall on the telephone. The matter was discussed and he' was advised the best way to resolve this problem would be through a variance request. Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer to continue the Public Hearing on the new Rl Ordinance to September 13, 1976. Motion ca=ied, 4-0 3. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to review proposed Tree 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. The Commission was asked whether this Ordinance should be directed toward preservations of trees during development or should they be protected altogether. MINIJ'J:ES 01A1JGUST 30. 1976 ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-235 Page 5 COIIIII1. Koen:!.tzer said he would not like to see spedmen trees rSllOved from Rl. or duplex lots at the wh:lm of the property owners. COIIIII1. Gatto believes this is a. case where we have unwarranted goveramental regulations. C01IIII1. 'lCoenit:er was I:oncerned that this ordinanl:e. in its present form, would have no I:ontrol over the property owner who first I:lears his land of all trees and then looks for a developer for tbe property. Comm. Woodward would lilea to exc:lude single-family and duplex zones from tbis ordinance. Further. he would like to indude something to prot&t the undeveloped property. Moved by COIIIIII. lCoeni.tzer. seconded by COIIIIIL. Woodward to I:ontinue the- public bearing on the Tree Ordiua=e to September 13. 1976. Tree Ordinanl:e I:ontinued MÐt10n I:arried. 4-0 Cba~ Adams l:al1ed a recess at 9:58 PH. The meeting reconvened at 10:02 PH. ..- UNFINISHED RtISIN'ESS 4-. Conaideratioa. of Pol.1cy reI, Evaluation of Traffil: Constraint. 'the Direc.tor of Pub1J.c Works sta.ted tha City could. be put in jeopardy if tha b1~n1<et approach is used. It was felt the City would be best served if' the entire develOpllent were evaluated rather than parcal-by-parl:el. The problem at band is how to avoid having to reevaluate øery time the tenants changed. Discussion foUowed. COIIIIII.. Gatto suggested a number be assigned toa certain sue mall shop. 'the Director gf Publ1c Works said the staff has full l:ontro1 now over every use in a shopping center. It was generalIy faLt by the Planning Commissioners that it would ba :Impractical to try to svaluate every change of use. The alternative is to' p1ck some numbers and live within these - constraints. It was the consensus chat the 1Ddividual I:asas shoul be evaluated at this tima. PC-235 Page 6 I I I I I i MINUTES OF AUGUST 30, 1976 ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ¡ 5. Evaluation of Public Notice Procedure. The Director of Planning and Development referred to the August 26th staff report on this subject. He suggested the City stay with its present policy. Comm. Koenitzer was concerned that perhaps the 300' from the property in question would not reach all the people who should be reached and suggested instead that, it should be 3 parcels or 300 t . NEW BUSINESS: None. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Adams announced that he and Comm. Koenitzer had attended the recent PPC meeting in regard to formation of an intergovernmental council which would report to the Board of Supervisors. They also listened to consideration of a light trolley system. The PPC meets the last Thursday of each month at 7:30 PM. Comm. Woodward accepted the responsibility of permanent representative and Comm. Koenitzer and Chairman Adams will be alternates. The Director of Planning and Development will bring this before the City Council. ~ REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR: None. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Adams adjourned this meeting at lO:37 PM. ~_._'--"_._-----'--'.-.._~ . -_._--_._-~,- -_.-.'--~---~-' --,-~----,- APPROVED: ATTEST: Wm. E. Ryd , City Clerk