Loading...
PC 06-28-76 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Telephone; 252-4505 MINurES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 28, 1976 IN THE LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALurE TO THE FLAG Chairman Adams called the me~ting to order at 7:31 p.m. with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Comm. absent: Gatto (7:40), Koenitzer, Woodward, Chairman Adams Cooper Staff present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Engineer Whitten APPROVAL OF MINurES: Minutes of Regular Meeting of June l4, 1976 Comm. Woodward moved to approve Minutes of Regular Meeting of June l4, 1976 as presented. Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer. Motion carried, 2-0-1 Abstain: Koenitzer Correction of Minutes of April l2, 1976, Page 2 The first paragraph under Public Hearings, delete the second sentence. Moved by Comm. Woodward to approve correction to Minutes of April 12, 1976. Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer. Motion carried, 2-o-l Abstain: Koenitzer POSTPONEMENTS: Item #l - Tree Ordinance postponed to August 9, 1976. Moved by C01llll. Koenitzer. Motion carried, 3-0 PC- 230 Page .L Minutes of 6/l4176 approved Correction to Minutes of 4/U/76 approved Tree Ord. postponed to 8-9-76 PC-230 Page 2 Tree Ord. postponed 1O-U-76 St. Andrew's Residence fo Boys - Star House MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to review proposed Tree Ordinance' - Postponed to August 9, 1976 2. Application 10-U-76 of SAINT ANDREW'S RESIDENCE FOR BOYS STAR HOUSE: USE PERMIT to allow the use of an existing residence in a planned development with commercial use intent zoning district as a residential care facility for teenage' boys, Said property is located at 20240 Stevens Creek Blvd. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan referred to staff report which. indicated that while it is anticipated that future pressure to develop this area consistent with the planned commercial intent of the General Plan will intensify, staff feels this proposal represents a sound interim usage. Assistant City Engineer Whitten noted standard conditions l-14 should be included. He answered Comm. Woodward there would be nothing in the conditions that would be constrictive to this operation. The ch.airman asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Leonard Mulbury, Chairman of the Board, asked what the conditions pertained to. A copy of the standard conditions were given to him. Mr. Mulbury answered Otairman Adams that they were negotiating to rent the cottage and garage on the property, Mr. Cowan advised the use permit would encompass the entire area as exhibited. Comm. Gatto ascertained the boys would attend school, church, all community activities, etc. Public Hear- Comm. Gatto moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Comm. Woodward. ing closed Motion carried, 4-0 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm. Gatto moved for approval of Application lO-U-76, subject to standard conditions l-l4, and condition 15: "Each year prior to utilization of the facilities, the applicant shall advise the Planning Director in writing of his intent. If, in the opinion of the Planning Director, there have been no major land use changes in this area, he may authorize continuation of the use permit to the Planning Commission for review." Seconded by Comm. Woodward. Motion carried, 4-0 iliairman Adams advised this would be heard by City Council on July 6, 1976. 3. Application ll-U-76 of KENNETH P. ELVIN: USE PERMIT to allow construction of six duplex residential units in a P (Planned Development with residential, duplex use intended) zone. Said property is located at Foothill Blvd. and Silver Oak Way at the southerly terminus of Silver Oak Way. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan distributed copies of revised condition l6. He explained instead of requiring a more definitive plan, condition 16 suggests it be deferred to H-Control committee with guidelines that will reflect Planning Commission's position regarding site plan. He pointed out concerns expressed by H-Control during the informal review of Planned Development Use Permit application . Comm. Gatto noted it was illegal to have two windows face each other at 5 ft. It was ascertained that two of the three parcels have two separate houses instead of a duplex as on the third parcel. Mr. Kenneth Elvin, 999 Commercial Street, Palo Alto, suggested he could move building westerly to gain additional 5 ft. between units. Mr. Cowan answered Comm. Gatto that the ordinance does not address the question of having two units on one, lot. He read definition of a duplex, noting it does not speak to Planned Developments. With regard to the preservation of the third tree, Mr. Cowan said the tree was a multi-stemmed Oak and not a particularly handsome specimen. The applicant noted he is adding 21 more trees on the site. The Assistant Planning Director used site development plan to indicate where additional parking space would be provided. PC-230 Page 3 lO-U-76 approved ll-U-76 Kenneth P. Elvin PC-230 Pag... 4 MINUTES OF. THE JUNE 28, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Elvin answered C01D I . Gatto there would be a 5 ft. fence around each patio. Comm. Woodward said he thought the requirements of cluster ordinance should be applied to this application, noting the front entries of two units are essentially sight-lined to each other. This is prohibited in cluster ordinance. Mr. Cowan suggested a landscape technique could be utilized to correct this. Comm. Gatto said he had several concerns on this application but would be willing to have H-Control speak to them. Mr. Elvin said initially all the units had been attached. In answer to staff's feeling that this was a monotonous plan, he had made these changes. Another constraint was that all patios had to be at rear of each unit. C01D I . Gatto ascertained only common areas will be the driveway that goes from front to rear. He determined there was an easement for the driveways. Mr. Elvin said he will be putting in initial land- scaping for each unit, but maintainence would be responsibility of the residents. Mr. Cowan said the tentative map had not been before City Council. Comm. Gatto said condition 16 should show that 10 ft. separation would apply only to detached units. A discussion was held on how to identify the third tree. The easterly most tree on Parcel B will be saved by moving units, so it was the westerly most tree on Parcel B that could be removed. After discussion, the commissioners agreed to strike last sentence from condition 16 which said the applicant would attempt to preserve a second oak tree located within the building envelope. It was pointed out unit 3 would need either architectural treatment or landscaping technique to correct line of entrances. Comm. Gatto noted this pointed out this application is nêither cluster nor duplex and he felt staff should be sensitive to this in reviewing future applications. Comm. Woodward felt as long it met the requirements for a cluster, it did not matter. Comm. Koenitzer pointed out the walkways to front entries on A and B went right by the kitchen areas on both units. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Conun. Gatto suggested an alternative was to go back to putting units together as duplexes to avoid all the cross traffic. He felt this would be the better solution. Conun. Woodward felt a few minor architectural changes and land- scaping treatment would answer the concerns and allow the applicant to preserve intent of this plan. The hearing was opened to public conunents. There were none. PC- 230 Page 5 Motion carried, 4-0 Conun. Gatto moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer Public Hear- ing closed Conun. Woodward suggested adding requirement to ensure privacy of front entries on units 1 and 3. Conun. Gatto ascertained the a Planned Development zone. lot. only reason for use permit was that it is He felt it should be treated as duplex It was noted that H-Gontrol would be aware of their concerns when reviewing this application. Conun. Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of Application ll-U-76 to the City Council with the following conditions: l-14. Standard conditions to the extent that they do not conflict with ,the special conditions enumerated herein. In the event a conflict does exist, the special conditions as enumerated herein shall apply. l5. That the approval is based on Exhibit A, ll-U'-76, as may be amended by other conditions contained herein. 16. That all the conditions enumerated in Resolution No. l54l and No. l542 shall apply to this application with the exception that conditions 17 and 19 of Resolutions 154l and Conditions l6 and 17 of Resolutions be modified and consolidated to read as follows: PC- 230 Page 6 ll-U-76 approved w/ conditions MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The site plan and tentative map shall be modified and approved by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee to provide a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the detached units of each duplex on parcels A and B, that a minimum of 11:1 parking spaces per dwelling unit be provided (excluding garage spaces), and that the dwelling units on parcel B be shifted to avoid the northerly most oak tree. The tentative map shall be revised to reflect the above site plan changes. Privacy of front entrances on units 1 and 3 from Silver Oaks Way shall be preserved by proper location of buildings and/or screening. Seconded by CODDD. Gatto. Motion carried, 4-0 Chairman Adams advised the applicant his request had been approved as conditions and would go before the City Council on July 6, 1976. 4. Application 15-Z-76 of HARRY SAKAE: PREZONING approximately 0.21 acres from Santa Clara County Rl-8 (Residential, sing1e- family, 8,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) to City of Cupertino Rl-7.5 (Residential, single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said property is located southerly and adjacent to Hermosa Avenue approximately 20S ft. westerly of the intersection of Orange Avenue and Hermosa Avenue, First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan referred to staff memo, indicating it contained all pertinent information. Comm. Koenitzer asked if the City had a general policy in this area for the future improvement of streets. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said this was a new procedure initiated because it takes six month to annex single-family lots. On all these that will be built in the county, they are giving the City a cash deposit in the amount to cover street improvements until land is annexed. They sign a deferred agreement for street improvements that will run with the land, and they agree to join the assessment district. The hearing was opened for public comment. There were none. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm. Gatto moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Comm. Koeni tze r . Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Woodward asked if the City had any say in what was done on these lots, since they are developed under auspices of Santa Clara County . Assistant City Engineer Whitten said three conditions applied: (l) Applicant will make cash deposit with City for street improvements until such as they are annexed, (2) Applicant will give the City a letter stating they will follow through with the annexation, (3) That the City will have the latitude of reviewing all grading and building plans and that any comments will be incorporated,by the County. Comm. Gatto moved to recommend approval of lS-Z-76.' Seconded by CODIII. Woodward. Motion carried, 4-0 Chairman Adams advised the motion had carried. He ascertained the applicant would be notified of the July 19, 1976 hearing since he was not present at this hearing. 5. Application 17 -TM-76 of RUTH, GOING AND CURTIS, INC.: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide 9.8 acres into three parcels. Said property is located southerly and adjacent to Homestead Road approximately 250 ft. westerly of the intersection of Homstead Rd. and No, De Anza Blvd. First hearing. Staff report contained concern for future assurance of coordinated architectural, signing and landscape design, circulation and parking. Mr. Cowan explained "contract" zoning. Stafr-was suggesting as conditions of approval requirements for maintenance continuity, reciprocal parking and driveway easement to make center flow together as single unit. Also a condition to limit degree of signing for each individual parcel. PC-23O Page 7 Public Hear- ings closed l5-Z-76 approved l7-TM-76 Ruth, Going and Curtis, Inc. 'C-230 ?age 8 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm. Koenitzer said he thought the general intent for signing for the rest of the center was approved at time of S&H Green Stamp approval. Mr. J. D. Vanderlaan, 28 N. First Street, San Jose, said because the law requires them to file a parcel map they are doing so, but they have no intention of selling at present time. They have no objection to conditions as set forth nor to a uniform sign program. Mr. Vanderlaan said they have a recorded agreement with Payless which provides for common driveways and access. They will be recording a memorandum of lease on Carl's Jr. which will also provide for common maintenance of landscaping by owner. With regard to Condition 21, Mr. Vanderlaan said this was immaterial since they will be agreeing to maintain landscaping. Relative to Condition 22, there is a sanitary sewer line in parcel A to B. If this could be shown on map, it would be recorded as an encumbrance. Assistant City Engineer Whitten agreed an easement cannot be required prior to recording map. You cannot grant yourself an easement. He explained how this should be handled. This has to be done after map is recorded. Mr. Vanderlaan said he had no objection to showing it on recorded map. After discussion, it was noted this could be included as part of Condition 16, deletin¡ Conc1itions 21 and 22. In answer to Comm. Gatto, Mr. Vanderlaan said parcel C represents PW Market. He said the building was not shown correctly on exhibit. Parcel B was S&H Green Stamp store. The present pavement is common line, be,tween' C and D. Comm. Gatto ascertained there is a party wall agreement between PW and Pay less. He noted this agreement should be included as part of general supporting data. It was agreed to include this as part of Condition l6 also. Mr. Vanderlaan answered Comm. Gatto that Texaco was never part of this center and Goodyear is a separate parcel. The hearing was opened for public comments. There were none. ?ublic Hear- ing closed Comm. Koenitzer moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Comm. Woodward. Motion carried, 4-0 ., MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28. 1976 PLANNING COOUSSION MEETING COIIIIIL. Woodward moved for recolllllll!1lding approval. of 17-TM-76, subject to the standard cond:l.ti.ons l-14, 15, 17. l8, 19, 20 and Condition 16 as modified: 16. That the applicant record a deed restri.ction 'and covenant running with the land satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer, which provides for cross automobile circulation, parking easements, ~ mixed utility easements. and any common wall agreements among and between all of the vanous divisions within this subdivision prior to recordation of the final map. Additionally, the applicant shall grant to adjo1xú.ng Parcels A and B of Parcel Map Book 272, Page 5, recorded on the 20th day of August, 1970, an appur;.enant easement right of ingress/ egress circulation and parking; sa:1.d easement shall be satis- factory to City Engineer and City Attorney. Seconded by C01llll. Gatto. Motion carried" 4-0 The' applicant wu advised this~ would be before the City Council on July 6, 1976. ' UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 6. Abandonment of a portj,on of BeUvue Avenue, Palo Vista Avenue, Janice Avenue. Assistant City Engineer Whitten noted development of Montebello West subd:l.vision bad made existing paper streets unnecessary. He indicated the reduced exhibit was not correct and identified corrections. Mr. Whitten referred to cond:l.tion that parcels A and B on ,Bellvue and parcels C and D on Palo Vista Road be retained as public utility easements. After a brief d1scuss1on, COIIIIIL. Gatto ascertained the commission could abandon road and leave staff to take care of technical aspects. Comm. Woodward moved to rec01lllll8tld approval of abandonment of portions of Bellvue Avenue, Janice Avenue and Palo Vista Road as outlined in staff report of June' 23, 1976. Seconded by COIIIIIL. Koenitzer. Motion carried, 4-0 PC-230 Page 9 17-M-76 app roved w / conditions Abandonments PC-230 Page 10 Minutes of 6/14/76 amended MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NEW BUSINESS - None REPORT OF THE PLANNING CrnMISSION Chairman Adams reported he had attended the June 24, 1976 meeting of Airport Land Use Commission and PPC, subbing for Comm. Cooper. He reported briefly on items agendized. Chairman Adams said he would like someone to replace Comm.' Cooper on these commissions as he could not always attend. Comm. Gatto wished to amendment approval as follows: of June 14, 1976 minutes On page 4, paragraph 11, last line should read, ".. .possible alternative for preservation." On page 5, paragraph 6, second line, delete the words "the formula of" . Comm. Woodward moved to approve amendment to Minutes of June 14, 1976. Seconded by Comm. Gatto. Motion carried, 3-0-1 Abstain: Koenitzer REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised the commission members that study of General Plan consolidation would begin at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Adams adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. to the June 30, 1976 joint meeting with City Council, Midpeninsula Regional Park District Board, Parks and Recreation Commission at 7:30 p.m. APPROVED: ArrEST: