Loading...
PC 07-15-81 CITY OF CUPERTINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC-360 PAGE lA MINUTES, JULY 15, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Adams Commissioner Binneweg Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Koenitzer Chairman Claudy PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #5 Application 13-Z-8l of HUGH F. JACKSON: REZONING approximately 1 gross acre from RI-lO (Residential Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to RI-7.s (Residential Single-family, 7,500 sq. f minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subjec property is located on the south side of Cupertino Road approximately 100 ft. east of Foothill Boulevard. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 17, 1981. Associate Planner Piasecki indicated the location on the City Zoning Map and explained that the request was to permit four lots instead of three on the 1 acre parcel. He described the development pattern of the surrounding area and stated Staff's position, that as there was apparently no public benefit in this case, the Application not be approv d. COM. BLAINE questioned the size of the two adjoining parcels. Associate Planner Piasecki informed her that all surrounding parcels were 10,000 sq.ft. or more, and compared these to the 7,500 sq. ft. Dietz-Crane lots to the south. COM. BINNEWEG pointed out that the 10,000 sq. ft. lots generally had older, smaller houses on them, which made the lots seem even larger. COM. KOENITZER wanted to know if the applicant owned to the middle of the street' on the proposed Janice Avenue extension. Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that he ,did not, and that it was held for all lots on the subdivision for ingress and egress. He explained that the applicant would have to get title if he wanted to use it, and as the legal owners were unknown, this would require court action. He added that the City had no rights, and could not give any- thing up. There was a discussion in which examples of street acquisition in the same area through Title Companies were brought up. ~-, PC-360 PAGE 2A MINUTES, JULY 15, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CIIR. CLAUDY summarized that the City had no intention of developing the street further, and would have no objection to the adjacent property owners acquiring title. Associate Planner Piasecki acknowledged that the matter had been discussed at the time of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Plan Line studies, and the presumption was that the City did not want an access through. Mr. Hugh Jackson, 22608 San Juan Road, the applicant, clarified that half the abandoned road had been deeded over to his son and himself. He pointed out that all four lots would be over 7,500 sq. ft., and explained that his sons wanted to build homes there, so that they could live in Cupertino. He referred to COM. BLAINE's remarks of July 13, that housing and land should be available affordably to parents and children of residents. The land in question was too valuable not to be utilized, he said, and emphasized the wish of his sons to live there. COM. ADAMS examined some of the surrounding pieces of land to see if Mr. Jackson could possibly acquire any of them. They were either unavailable or too small to be useful.He wondered if there was any chance of Mr. Jackson acquiring the other half of Palo Vista Road, which was abandoned,to create lots nearer to 10,000 sq. ft. each. Mr. Jackson was quite sure this land had been deeded over to another party. CHR. CLAUDY determined that discrepancies between the appl icant' s map and Staff's map were just in drafting, and that the square footage included the Palo Vista abandonment. The other Commissioners having nothing to add, CHR. CLAUDY called for public input. Hugh Jackson, Jr., 22450 Cupertino Road, son of the applicant, saw the public benefit as being increased housing for the community, and felt the use was reasonable, given the complexity of the surrounding area, which included a retirement community with apartments, more apartment buildings further up Cupertino Road and a number of rental units, duplexes and apart- ments on Foothill Boulevard. He saw another benefit, in that the sewer hook-ups for the four lots would go directly into Cupertino Road, whereas his presently hooked up to the "Janice Avenue" sewer with which there had been problems. On the subject of land acquisition, he explained that the property to the right was owned by the Gaviglio family, and would remain as orchards and vineyards. He felt that with the layout of the land in the area, and because the adjustment was minor, the additional benefit of an extra home was not an unreasonable use of the land, especiA.lly when the public would benefit from the corner being cleaned up, the sewer problem being resolved and a contribution to a better jobs/housing balance in Cupertino. COM. ADAMS asked if adjacent owners had been approached regarding increasing the size of the property. Mr. Hugh Jackson, Jr. advised that as the neighbor on one side had been recently widowed they had avoided the subject, and that the other home had been on the market and vacant for six months, so that they had not. MINUTES, JULY 15, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-360 Page 3A Mr. Lou De Lu, 22273 Cupertino Road, mentioned that the development woulQ make an "island" accessible and provide a street to Cupertino Road. He pointed out that in doing this, the applicant would lose several hundred feet. He saw a benefit in making smaller lots when it did not hu~t anybody; and this did not, he felt. MOTI ON : SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. Com. Koenitzer Passed 5-0 Associate Planner Piasecki clarified that the street dedication reduced the net lot sizes to an average of 8,300 sq. ft. each, but that if the other half of the abandoned roadway was added, the lots would average very close to 10,000 sq. ft. each. CHR. CLAUDY pointed out that the applicant did not own the roadway in questio COM. BLAINE observed that the property was general-planned for 1-5 units p r acre, and that as the Zoning Map had only to conform with this, 7,500 sq. ft. per lot met requirements. In the light of what had been done in the rest of the City, she did not see why this could not be approved. COM. KOENITZER disagreed,oD the grounds that an o,<ner on the same block had been asked to stay within 10,000 sq. ft. zoning, and also the area on both sides of Hillcrest had Dever been divided into less than 10,000 sq. ft. lots. He acknowledged that Sunnyview Manor was an exception in the area, but in this case, he did not see any benefit for the neighborhood or the City in having smaller lots. COM. BLAINE discussed the terrain with COM. KOENITZER, and established that Hillcrest and Crescent were in a hillside area, whereas the subject area waS flat, so that parcels in the latter might not need to be as large. COM. BINNEWEG added that further down on Crescent a 10,000 sq. ft. lot might only have 4/5,000 sq. ft. of usable terrain. COM. ADAMS wondered if there was enough justification for extending the rules here, and suggested that the applicant might explore the possibility that other deeds than his own went to the middle of the abadoned street, and that he might try to acquire more land that way. CHR. CLAUDY had realized during the discussion that the area was a mixed one, and as 7,500 sq. ft. lots were not small by today's standards, though he had at first been inclined to oppose, he was now inclined to approve . There was a discussion on the possibility that a portion of the property adjacent to Foothill Boulevard might have been included in the General Plan for office use, but Associate Planner Piasecki advised the Commission that the boundaries in the General Plan were somewhat flexible. SECOND : VOTE :' Com. Blaine, to recommend the Negative Declaration of the Environ- mental Review Committee. Com. Binneweg. PASSED 5-0 MOTION: PC-360 PAGE 4A MINUTES, JULY 15, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: Com. Blaine, to recommend approval of Application l3-Z-8l. SECOND: Com. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED 4-1 (Com. Koenitzer voting against the motion). COM. ADAMS recommended equalizing the lot sizes if possible. COM. KOENITZER thought the flag lot would create a problem, as it needed "more space for access. Staff suggested that Mr. Jackson might help by working with the surrounding neighbors to try to acquire more land. ITEM 116, Application ll-TM-8l of CLEAR LAKE DEVELOPMENT: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a recently approved office building into office condominium units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence, no action is required. The subject property consists of 1.8 acres located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 100 ft. east of Randy Lane in a P (Planned Development with commercial and professional office use intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 20, 1981. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported that in reviewing the Application, it had been found that two Conditions of Approval, 16 and 17, had been left off. He described these, and informed the Commission that the appli- cant felt there was a need for an additional number of units, not more than twenty altogether. There would also be an atrium and parking lot ·held in common, he advised. There was general discussion on how the units would be divided, and whether the parking lot would be large enough for the extra number of units, since more units meant more cars. COM. ADAMS wanted a definition of the unit boundaries, since they were air-space condominiums. Mr. Ken Iwagaki, 3170 Williams Road, Engineer representing the applicant, indicated that the boundaries were the face of the' sheet rock and the floor and ceiling surfaces. MOTI ON : SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Koenitzer, to recommend approval of Application ll-TM-8l, with Standard Conditions 1-14, Condition 15 and Condition 16 per Staff Memo, and Condition 17 revised to read: "Property may be divided into 20 or fewer condominium units at the applicant's discretion. There shall be one lot held in common. Exact placement of interior walls can be subject to Staff review." Com. Binneweg PASSED 5-0 MINUTES, JULY 15, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM #7, Application l3-TM-8l of A.T. COCCIARDI: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately .6 of an acre into three parcels ranging in size from 7,500 sq. ft. to 10,500 sq. ft. and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categoricall exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of McClellan Road and John Way in a Rl-7.5 (Residential Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 20, 1981. PC-360 Page SA Assistant Planning Director Cowan had no comments to add to the written Staff Report, advising the Commission that the application was straight~orwa MOTION: SECOND : VOTE: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. Com. Binneweg PASSED 5-0 MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend with Standard Conditions as in the Staff Report. Com Binneweg PASSED approval of Application l3-TM-8l, 1-16 and findings and subconclusions . SECOND: VOTE: 5-0 ITEM #8, Application 4-V-8l of LEROY J. DUDDY: VARIANCE exception from Section 16.28.040 of the Fence Ordinance (No. 686) to permit a four ft. high fence within the front yard area and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located at 11092 Clarkston Avenue on the east side of Clarkston Avenue approximately 150 ft. south of Columbus Avenue in a RI-7.5 (Residential Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 20, 1981. Associate Planner Piasecki advised that Staff had discussed the variance request in the light of the reasons it was being sought, which were covered in the written Staff Report, and felt that it was certainly valid. Though there were many options for solving the problem, the applicant felt it could be accomplished this way with only a minor change to the City rules. COM. BLAINE established that the placement was 16 ft. back from the sidewalk and was not near the street front. Ms. Denise Marie Duddy, daughter of the applicant, explained that there had been numerous auto accidents involving the house, and that on two occasions vehicles had come to rest near the bedroom windows, at one time in the middle of the night, causing much anxiety to family members., They were requesting the wall for protection, she said, and also hoped that it would prevent headlight beams entering the bedroom windows. She advised that ther had been no objections from neighbors. COM. BLAINE wondered if the wall would be high and strong enough. Ms. Duddy personally felt it shoHld be 6 ft. high, but thought that 4 ft. would serve the purpose, as the grass area rose from the street, and there was also a brick planter box in front of the windows. She added that they planned to set boulders in front of the new wall. COM. KOENITZER questioned the need for a 4 ft. fence, when a 3 ft. one could be installed without question. He found it hard to justify an extra foot, whereas if there had not been an allowance for any type of fence, he could have StlPportPn A v;n-iAnrp. PC-360 Page 6A MINUTES, JULY 15, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Associate Planner Piasecki advised that Staff had debated this, and, as pointed out, there were many solutions to stop a car, but this solution did also cut down on the possibility of headlights flashing in the bedrooms. COM. ADAMS felt the situation described was very bad, and was willing to approve a wall no higher than 6 ft. He wanted to see a guard rail by the curb for a barrier. Mrs. Pam King, 11062 Clarkston agreed that it was a very dangerous situation and said that the channelling bars previously installed by the City had been broken down in a couple of places already. She felt that extra height on the wall would protect the house better than a guard rail by the curb. Assistant City Engineer Whitten felt that, while there were a number of ways to protect the house, a guard rail was ugly, and he would not like to see one in a residential area. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. Com. Binneweg. PASSED 5-0 COM. KOENITZER reiterated his previous position. COM. ADAMS vehemently disagreed with him, and felt that in this situation a car might clear a 3 ft. structure. He repeated his previous position, and felt that extraordinary circums'tances had been demonstrated satisfac- torily, so that a variance was justified. COM. BLAINE observed that usually she felt the same way as COM. KOENITZER on the subject of variances, but in this case she felt as COM. ADAMS did, and certainly felt that 4 ft. at least would be that much more to hit, and would' also be a more visible barrier. COM. BINNEWEG felt the applicant should be allowed to do anything they felt would make the property safer. CHR. CLAUDY was sympathetic to the problem, and would agree to a 4 ft. fence, he said. COM. BLAINE and COM. BINNEWEG agreed to a 4 ft. height. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to recommend approval of 4-V-8l, Variance to the Fence Ordinance, with the findings and subconclusions as set forth in the Staff Report, and with the findings that the literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this ordinance; that the granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; that the exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose; that the proposed exception will not result in a haz'8Ldous condition for pedestrian and vehi- cular traffic; and that the design of the structure is to be per exhibit A, 4 ft. high. MINUTES, JULY 15, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-360 Page 7A SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED (Com. Koenitzer voting against the motion). 4-1 In discussion, it was advised that boulders could not go in the parking strip. The Commission suggested some other safety measures, but Staff discouraged them as being unsafe or unsatisfactory. ITEM #9, Application l5-U-8l of V.C. WONG (TANDEM COMPUTERS) - WITHDRAWN. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ITEM #10, AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE 2l4(a) pertaining to excavations,grading and retaining walls - Consideration of Environmental Review Committee's recommendation of a Negative Declaration. The Commission had no objections to the amendment and felt it could improve the environment. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Binneweg, to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaratio Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION The Commission requested Staff to provide copies of the fourteen Standard Conditions for the next Meeting. COM. BLAINE noted the Planning Commission Minutes Item in the City Council Minutes of June 15,1981. She commented that she did not want shortened versions of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. COM. ADAMS felt that Planning Commission Meetings needed more detailed records because of possible legal actions. The Secretary pointed out that quite often her notes constituted the sole record, as there were blank spaces on tapes, or sometimes whole blank tape Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that a special committee had been formed to study the matter, and suggested that Chairman Claudy might bring up the matter at the Mayor's luncheon. COM. KOENITZER thought some funds could be saved if the Commissioners received only one copy of the Council Minutes through the mail, instead of three. He reported that there had been that a fence had been erected. been done inside the structure. an improvement at the tank house site, in However, it was obvious that nothing had Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that a permit had been issued for the electrical work, and also that there was a time limit on the proj ct. PC-360 Page 8A MINU!ES, JULY 15, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CHR. CLAUDY reported on the Mayor's luncheon, and said that he had suggested a joint working session with the City Council on the subject of office applications, but that no action had been taken at that time. He observed that the Commission might have to hear more applications before a Meeting could be arranged, and suggested that a moratorium on such applications might be needed until the Consultant's Report was in. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that the Report would be in by the end of August. COM. BLAINE wondered if there were any more large office building applications for the near future. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said there had been rumors only. CHR. CLAUDY, continuing his report on the Mayor's luncheon, had heard there that Los Altos homeowners had opposed annexation of Creston to Los Altos, but said there was no other significant news. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported that a letter had been received from the State regarding the City's Housing Element, and that as the State was unhappy with some sections of the Plan, the City Attorney and City Manager felt it might be prudent for the Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing on the sections the State was unhappy with. It was agreed that it seemed a relatively straightfon,ard matter to meet the State's further requirements, and that a Public Hearing should be scheduled as soon as possible~ It was suggested that the Hearing be advertised in the Cupertino Scene, so that citizens concerned about the Planning Commission's efforts to meet State guidelines and those concerned with densities, etc., would attend. Assistant Planning Director Cowan promised a status report when he had talked to the Planning Director. On another matter, he advised the Commission that the Woodspring Develop- ment was closed to children, which had not been anticipated. COM. KOENITZER commented that the developers had not mentioned this at the Hearing. COM. BLAINE added that non-discrimination against children had not been made a Condition, though the Commission had discussed it. She suggested that the matter of discriminating against families be addressed by the Commission. ADJOURNMENT 9:20 P.M. ATTEST: APPROVED: +-- ~/( CÞ-?// ohn Claudy, Chairma~/