Loading...
PC 04-12-76 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 9S0l4 Telephone: 252-450S MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 12, 1976 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chairman Gatto called the meeting to order at 7:34 PM with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Connn. absent: Adams, Cooper, Woodward, Chairman Gatto None Staff present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Attorney Kilian Deputy Assistant City Attorney Foster Assistant City Engineer Whitten APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 22, 1976: Page 7,' second paragraph, line 4, add the following after "air quality": "specifically in the pollutants that would remain in the natural valley at Phar Lap Drive." Moved by Connn. Adams, seconded by Carom. Woodward to approve the Minutes of March 22, 1976, as amended. Motion carried, 4-0 Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of March 24, 1976: Moved by Connn. Adams, seconded by Carom. Woodward to approve the Minutes of March 24, 1976, as recorded. Motion carried, 4-0 PC-224 Page 1 Mar. 22nd Minu t approved as amended Mar. 24th Minut approved as recorded PC-224 Page 2 8-Z-76 and -TM-76 cant I d :0 April 26th MINUTES OF THE APRIL l2. 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING POSTPONEMENTS; Item 4 -, Applications 8-Z-76 and 8-TM-76 of NOORUDIN A. BILLAWALA - postponed per staff request. The Assistant Planner stated the staff is requesting this postponement because of the lack of a geological report. The City retains a consultant who reviews reports and studies made by applicants' consultants now. In the event this application should require postponement beyond April 26th, he asked the Commission's permission to notify the people concerned. So moved by Comm. Cooper, seconded by Comm. Adams to continue applica- tions 8-Z-76 and 8-TM-76 to April 26, 1976, and to instruct the staff to notify interested citizens if there is to be a further delay. Motion carried, 4-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application l-Z-76 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: REZONING 20+ acres from RJ-2.2 (Residential, multiple, 2,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone to P (Planned Development with residential land use intended with a density of 0-4 units per acre), or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said property is located adjacent to and westerly of ,Foothill Blvd. opposite the intersection of Alpine Drive and Foothill Blvd. First Hearing continued. he Assistant Planning Director identified the property on tbe overhead ap and reviewed Exhibit A of 4-U-76. The present zoning of the roperty is inconsistent with the General Plan. Future planning ¡or development of this property must take into account the noise and raffic factors of F-oothill Blvd. There are approximately 300 mature rees on the property. The recommended density is 0 to 2.5 units er acre, based upon tbe Planning Commission's formula that has been ecommended to the City Council. - omm. Adams asked what the basis is for the width of the open space orridor on the map. The Assistant Planning Director said that at this oint, the intent of this plan is simply to red flag the corridor. e went on to say there is not enough acreage served by the watershed to qualify under the Santa Clara County Water District. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-224 Page 3 The Assistant Planning Director answered Chairman Gatto that Salem Drive and Alpine Drive are two possiblities for access to the property. It has not been determined which intersection would be signalized. Attorney D. A. Barnett, l625 Taubman Lane, representing the Taubma Company, stated that in view of the fact that there is no plan for this property, nor is it being considered under the Hillside Eleme t of the General Plan, it was his opinion that this property should not be downzoned. He asked that this matter be continued until after completion of the Hillside Plan. Chairman Gatto suggested Mr. Barnett take this up with the City Council. The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Nick Szabo, l0235 Creston Drive, President of the Creston Improvement Association, urged a minimum density on this property because of the possibility of the County purchasing a certain portion of this property for park purposes and also, in case of a construction boom in this area, there is the possibility of 3000 trucks using Foothill Blvd. because of the 3 quarries in the hills above. As high as 75 db has been measured alongside this road at the present rate of traffic. He does not believe that road can handle any more traffic than it does today. Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Woodward to close the public hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Woodward said the recommended density, according to the formula, should be 0 to 2.65 rather than 2.5. Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Cooper to approve applica- tion l-Z-76 as recommended by the staff, with a minor modification to upper level of density as noted above. 1-Z-75 recommen, for approval AYES; NOES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Woodward, Chairman Gatto None Motion carried, 4-0 It was noted this will go to the City Council May 3, 1976. PC-224 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2. Application 4-U-76 of VALl. ASSOCIATE (Bruce Edwards); USE PERMIT to allow construction of a mini-storage facility on 4.80 acres. Said property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Mary Avenue and Freeway Route 280. First Hearing. The Assistant Planning Director stated this application was approved by the City during the summer of 1974 but was allowed to expire. This use permit request is identical with it. The staff recommended it with the conditions as noted in the April 9, 1976 staff report. He noted that the staff recommended a 30-day extension be granted if the removal of the existing structure is delayed by a governmental agency. Since there were no comments from the applicant nor the audience, it was moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Cooper to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried, 4-0 4-U-76 rec. for approval w/conditions Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Cooper to recommend to the City Council approval of application 4-U-76, subject to the conditions in the April 9, 1976 staff report, with the further condition to #22 that an additional 30 day extension may be approved by the Planning and Development Director if the removal is delayed by a governmental agency. AYES: NOES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Woodward, Chairman Gatto None Motion carried, 4-0 3. Application 7-TM-76 of EDMUND F. SCHNIEDERS, JR.: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately 8.S acres into 106 single-family residential cluster units with 1 lot to be held in common ownership. Said property is located at the northwest corner of the intersec- tion of N. De Anza Blvd. and Homestead Road. First Hearing. he Assistant Planning Director noted that thé'Planning Commission approved a plan for this property for l06 units. Exhibit A reflects the changes recommended by the City Council, which they returned to the Planning Commission for further review. They are recommending the 20' setback at the northeast corner be maintained, as well as the 2S' setback from the area along the Sunnyvale border. The applicant is requesting a further change: shifting of about lS unit's slightly to the north to allow individual driveways for 5 units. The City Council has had one public hearing on this application and has continued it to allow individual Council Members to visit the site of other construction by this developer and to allow time for investigation of potential low/moderate income housing opportunities within this project. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Schnieders, the developer, offered to answer any questions. There were none at this point. Mr. L. Richey, 546 LaConnor, Sunnyvale, said he understood the new structures were to be designed to inhibit privacy intrusion of these two-story units to the single story units in Sunnyvale. His home is 40' from the fence line. Chairman Gatto said this was not made a Planning Commission condition of approval but rather they elected to leave this responsibility to the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. Mr. Richy asked that they consider allowing duplexes in back of the duplexes in Sunnyvale. The Planning Commissioners' consensus was that the privacy intrusion problem can be solved with proper landscaping. Comm. Cooper felt that the Architectural and Site Approval Committee should also be allowed the flexibility of changing the placement of the windows on the second floor of these new structures. Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Woodward to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Adams, to recommend to the City Council approval of application 7-TM-76 with the l6 c0nditions enumerated in the April 9, 1976, staff report, since it was determined that this is consistent with the General Plan. AYES: NOES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Woodward, Chairman Gatto None Motion carried, 4-0 4. Application 8-Z-76 and 8-TM-76. CONTINUED TO APRIL 26, 1976. 5. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Sign Ordinance No. 353 establishing new regulations for signs. First Hearing continued. The Planning Commissioners reviewed with the Planning and Develop- ment Director Sections 8, 9, 10, II and 12 - making a few minor changes. Comm. Cooper would like to add a section regarding signs installed prior to 1967 and never did conform to the Sign Ordinanc She would like to see a 3-year amortization placed on these signs. She did not believe this was unreasonable since these signs have been allowed to remain for l4 years. PC-224 Page 5 7-TM-76 recommended for approval wI conditions 8-Z-76 and 8-TM-76 cant' d to April 26th PC-224 Page 6 MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm. Cooper went on to say, in regard to equal treatment, that the City has gotten away from trying to upgrade some of the older, nonconforming signs. She does not think the City should be rewarding those signs that have been nonconforming for a number of years. The Assistant City Attorney reconfirmed that any sign erected without a permit is illegal. Mr. Dale F. Applegate, 1089 Avondale, San Jose, said he was representing property at 20940 Stevens Creek Blvd. He wanted to add: "(4) change óf ownership of real property" to Section 10.03 on page 38. He said. this is the time when the capital expense would be the least painful. I~ regard to (3) of the same subsection, he asked at what point does the staff say you have to change the structure. Chairman Gatto said a reader board with interchangeable slots would be construed as not a change of copy. It was decided it should read: ". . .except for change of copy on reader boards." Mr. Frank Mulkern, 2800 Homestead Road, Cupertino, and Manager of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said he feels a sign erected under a valid permit has the right to remain. If a sign was erected prior to 1967 and came under an amortization period and the City did not enforce the amortization period is a different matter. It was his opinion that the language of that ordinance did not treat the signs equitably. Comm. Woodward, Adams and Chairman Gatto were in favor of a simple Grandfather Clause. Comm. Adams would like the staff to inform the City Council how many nonconforming signs we are talking about. As to Section 6.04.3 on page 19, the Planning Commission decided (b) ~as better than (a). Chairman Gatto called a recess at 9:35 PM. The meeting reconvened t 9;48 PM. ttorney Carl Heymann, of Sign Users Counsel, referred to his statements t previous hearings on the new Sign Ordinance. He said he wanted to ompliment the Planning Commission as the first City in this State that s a Sign Review Committee with lOO% jurisdiction, placing it in the nds of the Planning Director. He said it is the first reversal in the tate. He said the key question is whether or not the Planning Director as the full authority of granting such a permit. omm. Woodward stated that Section 4.04 should read the same as the new ection 6.02.1. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Adams to continue the review of the Sign Ordinance to April 26, 1976. Motion carried, 4-0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS 6. Amendment of Procedural Ordinance No. 652 regarding use permit expiration period. As recommended by the Planning Director ~ k was moved by Connn. Ad seconded by Comm. Woodward to recommend to the City Council the expansion' of the expiration period of use permits from one year to 18 months from date of approval. Motion carried, 4-0 7. Request for one-year extension of time for use permit 27-U-74 for De Anza Racquet Club (Don O.Bandley). Attorney Keith Pritchard, 525 W. Remington Drive, Sunnyvale, explained that after his client had received issuance of the permi they required completion of certain plans by the architect. In the meantime, the finance company reneged on the partnership and they had to seek other financing. In addition, they had a problem with the P. G. & E. easement release. The off-site improvements have been accomplished. The architect's fees have been considerab e and the legal fees nominal. Moved by Connn. Adams, seconded by Comm. Woodward to extend Use Permit 27-U-74 for one year, contingent upon conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1405, modified by the City Clerk's letter of March 19, 1975. Motion carried, 4-0 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION: None. REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR: None, PC-224 Page 7 Sign Ord. revie. cont'd to 4/26 s 18 months instead of 1 yr expir. per iod for USe permits 27-U-74 extended one year.