Loading...
PC 05-24-76 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFOR."UA l0300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 24, 1976, IN THE COUNCIL CH&~ER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chairman Adams called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL COIIml. present: Cooper (7:38), Koenitzer (7:40), Gatto, Woodward, Chairman Adams None Connn. absent: Staff present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Engineer Whitten Consultant Toby Kramer APPROVAL OF MINUTES This item was postponed to the end of the meeting since all Commissioners were not yet present. POSTPONEMENTS Moved by COIIml. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Woodward to remove applications 8-Z-76 and 8-TM-76 (Noorudin A. Billawala) from the calendar - to be readvertised at a later date - per advice of the staff. Motion carried, 3-0 WRITTEN CO~lliUNICATIONS - None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. PC-228 Page 1 PC-228 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE MAY 24, 1976 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION ~ŒETING PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Sign Ordinance No. 3S3, establishing new regulations for signs. First Hearing continued. Mrs. Kraemer first reviewed the Architectural and Site Approval Committee's comments on the amendment proposed for the Sign Ordinance. She also stated a representative from P.G. & E., who is a lighting expert, had been invited to attend this meeting and make comments. Comm. Koenitzer proposed further changes to the last paragraph on page one. Comm. Gatto felt Section 2.06 on page three should be an illustration to further clarify the position of the City on this point. Comm. Koenitzer objected to the term "and/or" on past four, stating that it should be either "and" or "or", but not both. He added that this was just his personal opinion and was not insistent upon the change. On page five, Section 2.16, line two, "was not" was added between the words "or" and "inti. Also in the same section, line four, the word "andll was changed to "or". Page five, Section 2.20, the phrase "from or transmitted" was added to the first line after the' word ·'reflected". Page five, Section 2.21, line two, the word "or" was changed to "and!l. Page ten, Section 3.04.3, last line, the words "by the applicant" were added after the word "appealed". Page eleven, Section 3.0S.4 Cd) was changed to read: "That the sign's color. . . . . . distraction to the motorist, incompatible with surrounding signs, or nearby residents." Page eleven, Section 3.0S.7, last line, the words "of this Ordinance" were added after ttSection 12". Page thirteen, Section 4.07, instead of Section 8.5 it should be 8.4. Page 16, Section 6.03.2 Cb), last line, it should read Section 7.12 instead of Section 7.13. At the top of page 17 the formula for ground sign is to be rearranged. On the Same page, section 6.03.4, the words "and shall be computed in the area permitted" shall be added to the end of the sentence. The typo on the first line in Section 6.0S.S on page 19 is to be corrected. MINUTES OF. THE MAY 24, 1976 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-228 Page 3 On page 23, Section 7.01, first line, the word "are" shall be changed to "forming", and the words "shall be" shall be added to last line after the word "and". On page 26, Section 7 .11, second line, the word "height" shall be changed to "top". On page 27, Section 7 .13. second line, change the word "point" to Itresidencell.. Page 30, Section 8.07 title shall read "REAL ESTATE SIGNS/ RESIDENTIAL ZONES". The word "written" shall be added just prior to the word "permission" on the last line of Section 8.07.2. Page 31, the title of Section 8.08 shall read: "SALE/RENT/LEASE- ALL BUT RESIDENTIAL". The phrase "except those allowed in Section 8.07.1" shall be added to the end of Section 8.08.1. On the same page, in Section 8.09.4. the phrase "by the subdivision developer" shall be added after the word "sold" in line 2. Page 34, line 3. correction to the word "switch" shall be made. Page 36, Section 10.02.1, line 2 - change "and" to "or". Same page, Section 10.02.3, the first sentence shall be changed to read "Any person . . . . .Planning Director in accordance with Section l2 of this Ordinance." Page 37. Section 10.03 shall be altered to reflect conformance to statements on page 9. Page 39, first line, change "on" to "one", and delete the words "and the minimum variance" in (c). Page 39, Section ll.OS.l (a) shall read: "Approve the r,ecommenda- tion.1I On page 40, it was decided Section l2 shall contain a 10-day appeal time. Chairman Adams asked for comments from the audience. Mrs. Juanita Richardson, representing Western Oil and Gas Association, 609 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, referred to details in her May l4, 1976, letter addressed to the Planning Commission. She spoke in defense of service station price and identification signs being considered separately. PC-228 Page 4 MINUTES OF TRE MAY 24, 1976 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chamber of Commerce President Frank Mulkern, 2800 Homestead Road, Cupertino, wanted to address pages 13, 16 and l7 of this amendment. He is opposed to Section 6.03.06 limiting it to 3 tenants. On page 23 he suggested 13.5 feet rather than 15 feet since this is a trucking standard. He does not believe service station pricing signs should be included in the reader board signing. The term "all property owners" in Section 7.l2.2 (a) on page 26 could present a problem, and he felt it should read "an owner". He said (b) is predicated by the sign ordinance itself. As to political signs, he would like to have the 90 days changed to 30 days. In Section 8.07.3, he would like 4 sq. ft. changed to 6 sq. ft. Mr. Carl Heymann, representing Sign Users of California, stated they violently opposed Sections 7.07.1 and .2. They feel this is discrimina- tory. He suggested the signs be turned off within 2 hours after the business is closed. He said the present wording is very restrictive, very subjective and very discriminating. He said enforcement of this ordinance would be quite difficult because of budget and staff problems, He charged that if this ordinance is enacted, then his organization would like to see it enforced to its fullest. He said he was talking about constitutional rights of citizens in the State of California. Ms. Nancy Sallan introduced the opinion of the Architectural and Site Approval Committee in regard to Section 3.04.2 on page 9. She said the Committee questioned whether the full responsibility should be given to the Planning Director. Comm. Gatto objected to this, stating that this would wipe out the entire intent of the Section. Mr. Hugh Henrichs, representing ARCO, stressed the importance of the service station pricing signs. He endorsed the comments made by Mrs. Richardson and Mr. Mulkern. Since there were no more comments from either the audience nor the Commission, it was moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Woodward, to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 Comm. Cooper agreed with Ms. Sallan's statements. Since the Architectural and Site Approval Committee is the body that has dealt with signs on a regular basis, it is unfortunate that more dialogue has not taken place between them and the Planning Commission hQwever, she would approve of the Planning Commission amendment to Section j.U4.~. Comm. Woodward noted that public testimony was taken from a very large segment of the citizenry and some consessions have been made. He felt that the Ordinance in its new form would be self regulating. Comm. Koenitzer pointed out the philosophical differences between the Planning Commission and the Western Oil and Gas Association. MINUTES OF. THE ~AY 24, 1976 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Gatto, to forward to the City Council the fourth draft of the amendment to the sign ordinance, along with changes made at this meeting. AYES: NOES: Carom. Cooper, Gatto, Koenitzer, Woodward, Chairman Adams None Motion carried, 5-0 The Assistant City Planning Director noted this would be on the City Council Agenda for June 21, 1976. Chairman Adams called a recess at lO:18 PM. The meeting recon- vened at lO:30 PM. 2. Applications 8-Z-76 and 8-TM-76 of NOORUDIN A. BILLAHALA. This item was removed from the calendar at the beginning of this meeting. 3. Applications ll-TM-76 and l-V-76 of ROBERT G. MERRICK fu~ LETHA M. MERRICK: TENTATIVE ~~P to combine two parcels into one parcel; VARIANCE to Ordinance 686 to extend height of fence from eight feet to ten feet. Said property is located easterly and adjacent to Hillcrest Road, approximately 350' northerly of the intersection of Hillcrest Road and Crescent Road. First Hearing continued. The Assistant Planning Director referred to the May 21, 1976, staff memo on this item. He said it was continued to allow Mr. Merrick to describe the impact of the grading on the neigh- borhood. Mr. Merrick's new plan shows a slightly enlarged cut and fill situation and a change in orientation. The varience request is to allow a 10' fence within the side yard setback. The staff is of the opinion that this is justified. The proposal is to consöIídat~ two lots into one. The ordinance allows a 10' structure within the rear yard setback. The Assistant City Engineer confirmed that the City policy allows 6' fences measured from the high side in situations with step lots. There were no comments at this meeting from the applicant. Comm. Koenitzer commented that this new proposal cuts down the 10 fence for the neighbors. It provides a reasonable answer to some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. PC-228 Page 5 Sign Ordinance Amendment fwde, to Counc il. PC-228 Page 6 MINUTES OF THE MAY 24, 1976 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Cooper to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 ll-TM-76 approved Moved by Corom.Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Gatto to recommend to the City Council approval of application ll-TM-76 with the standard condi- tions and conditions l5 and 16 as enumerated in the staff memo. AYES: NOES: Comm. Cooper, Gatto, Koenitzer, Woodward, Chairman Adams None Motion carried, 5-0 The Assistant City Attorney advised that if the variance is approved, it must be accompanied by findings. 1-V-76 approved Moved by Carom. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer to approve application l-V-76, subject to the 14 standard conditions and conditions 15, 16 and 17 as enumerated in the staff memo. The Planning Commission finds that the installation of a tennis court is a ùnique and special situation in a residential area. Such installation does not harm neighboring residences and benefits subject property. AYES: NOES: Comm. Cooper, Gatto, Koenitzer, Woodward, Chairman Adams None Motion carried, 5-0 It was noted this would be on the June 7, 1976, Council agenda. Carom. Gatto commented that we are not living up to the spirit of the ordinances when we allow grading and then measure from this artificial grade when considering hillside properties. The Assistant Planning Director stated the staff is planning to review the grading ordinance. Chairman Adams said that in this case, two lots were combined, thus eliminating additional residences ¡ohich would have created more problems. Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Cooper to consider agenda item 5 prior to item 4. Motion carried, 5-0 MINUTES OF THE MAY 24, 1976 REGULAR PLA}TNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-228 Page 7 5. Application 2-V-76 of BARRY J. fu~ NO~MA R. FEELEY: VAR~~CE request from Section 10.4 of Ordinance 220(n) as amended by Ordinance No. 674, to permit a rear yard setback of a single-story structure of 9.5 feet in lieu of the lO' minimum setback required and rear yard area providing 725 sq. ft. of rear useable setback area in lieu of 1679 sq. ft. (22 x lot width) as required by ordinance. Additionally, the applicant requests a variance from Section 10.2 of Ordinance 220(n) as amended by Ordinance No. 674, to permit a front yard setback of 15' in lieu of 20' as required by ordinance. Said property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Baxley Court and Linda Vista Drive. First Hearing. The Assistant Planning Director identified the property on the map and reviewed Mr. Feeley's request to deviate the front yard setback by 5' and the rear yard setback by 6". The staff did not think this request was justified because this is a typical single-family lot. He demonstrated on the overhead map how there is almost the same situation on the interior streets in that same neighborhood. Mr. Barry Feeley, 1472 Stelling Road, Cupertino, wanted to point out in similar situations where fences are installed along side yard setbacks. He said that if he used Linda Vista Drive as the front of his lot he could run a 6' redwood fence SOme 85' along Baxley Court. His intent is to construct his home that will be attractive from all four sides. He is very interested in having this look like a planned development, he said. He would like to present an interesting facade to the neighborhood and to the City Comm. Woodward was answered that there were no conditions recom- mended for the tentative map. The Assistant Planning Director pointed out the other lots in thi subdivision that will require some adjustment if this variance is approved. Mr. Feeley answered Comm. Gatto that when he presented the origin I plot plan. He was told a curb driveway ends at the garage. A dual curb cut is proposed. ,The Assistant Planning Director pointed out that the proposal is to provide a garage opening parallel to Linda Vista Drive with a l5' setback, The curved driveway is to allow the parking of vehicles; however, this curved driveway does not provide direct access to the garage. The intent of the Rl Ordinance is to ensure a minimum of 20' between the garage door opening and the property line. PC-228 Page 8 2-V-76 cont'd to second mtg in August. Tree Ord. cant to June l4. MINUTES OF THE MAY 24, 1976 REGULAR PLANNING COMlIISSION MEETING Chairman Adams asked for cornments from the audience. Mr. Joe Chappella, owner of Lot Il, said he presently resides in Sunnyvale. He is concerned about which street his lot faces. Mr. Feeley dne~pHs of homes. said the character of Cupertino is changing. In the past, were moving lot lines down to best serve a large number We are now down to development of individual lots. Cornm. Gatto suggested that perhaps our Rl Ordinance needs to be reviewed. Based on the present ordinance, he could see no reason to justify a variance. He suggested either tabling this application until the ordinance is restudied or deny it. Cornm. Cooper believes there is the need to review the Rl Ordinance as it relates to corner lots. She believes the property owner should be able to choose where he wants his front door. Mr. Feeley said he would like to see the Rl Ordinance restudied for the benefit of others. However, he cannot wait three months so he felt he would have to come up with another plan. Moved by Cornm. Gatto, seconded by Cornm. Cooper to continue application 2-V-76 to the second meeting in August to allow the staff time to research the possibility of review of the Rl Ordinance. AYES: NOES: Cornm. Cooper, Gatto, Koenitzer, Woodward, Chairman Adams None Motion carried, 5-0 4. 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. Moved by Cornm. Cooper, seconded by Comm. Gatto to continue the review of the proposed Tree Ordinance to June l4, 1976. Motion carried, 5-0 MINUTES OF. THE MAY 24, 1976 REGULAR PLA..\fNING COMMISSION MEETING APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of May 10, 1976, Regular Meeting; Page 3, paragraph 8, delete "vacant lots are developed" and replace with "adjacent lots are developed." Page 6, paragraph 3, first line, delete "pet shop" and replace with "toy shop". Page 8, first paragraph, delete "City would like to be moderate in any exterior changes" and replace with "Commission would like to insure proper functional integration with the remainder of the mall be limiting the exterior accesses." Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer to approve the Minutes of May 10, 1976, as corrected. Motion carried, 5-0 Minutes of May l3, 1976, Adjourned Regular Meeting: Moved by Comm. Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Cooper to approve the Minutes of May 13, 1976, as submitted. Motion carried, 4-0-l Comm. Gatto abstained UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. Discussion regarding application of cable television to Planning Commission activities. The Assistant Planning Director explained the City Manager's Office is exploring the possibility of TV coverage of Planning Commission activities as well:;as those of other public bodies. Chairman Adams said he could foresee no issues of general interes to the citizenry at this time. It might have been appropriate for the General Plan hearings of two years ago, however. The Assistant Planning Director asked whether the Planning Commission would like their agenda broadcast as a bulletin, such as a weather bulletin is given. He said John Vaughn would like feedback on this by mid-June. PC-228 Page 9 May lOth Minutes approv May 13th Minutes approv PC-228 Page 10 Hinute Order to Council re HPRPD letter Joint meeting on hillsides approved MINUTES OF TRE K~Y 24, 1976 REGULAR PLANNING CO~ISSION MEETING NEW BUSINESS The Assistant Planning Director stated a communication was received too late to list on the agenda, from Mr. Grench of the Mid Peninsula Regional Park District. He located the property under consideration on the tapa map. The staff recommended the Planning Commission take the same position on this issue as on the previous hillside property. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Planning Commission must reply within 40 days. Comm. Gatto moved to instruct the staff to draft a letter to the Mid Peninsula Regional Park District listing the concerns of the Planning Commission, such as their long-term program, availability of acceSS roads through their holdings, disposition of existing residences, etc. It should also state that the Commission is more than willing to work in harmony with them, but the Commission does not wish to act prematurely., After discussion, it was decided this would be in the form of a Minute Order to the City Council. P~PORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION; None. REPORT OF PLAllliING DIRECTOR The Assistant Planning Director stated the Council is very close to a decision on the hillsides. Since there have been some deviations from the plan forwarded by this body it will come back in the form of a report. The Planning Commission indicated they are very much in favor of a joint meeting to discuss this matter. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Adams adjourned this meeting at l2:13 AM. APPROVED: (l.-1f?¡J~ ATTEST: City Cler