Loading...
PC 05-11-81 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue~ Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 l'C-j,)6 Page 1 MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7 :30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Com. Adams Com. Binneweg Com. Blaine Chr. Claudy Absent: Com. Koenitzer APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 27, 1981 were approved after the following corrections: Page 1, Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman, the motions to close both nominations to read: PASSED 4-1 abstention. POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS The applicant in Item #10 had requested that it be removed from the calendar. MOTION: Com. Blaine to withdraw Item #10, Application 6-U-8l of West Valley Montessori School, Inc. from the calendar. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) wRITTEN CO~,ICATIONS CHR. CLAUDY advised that two written communications had been received, and would be read into the record in the appropriate Hearings. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM #1, Application 28-U-8l of VALL CO PARK, LTD.: PUBLIC HEARING to amend Condition 22 of Use Permit to alter the site exhibit by shifting allowable building space to alternative locations on the site and by modifying the internal Parking and Circulation Plan and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessedt hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the south side of Pruneridge Avenue approximately 500 ft. westerly of Tantau Avenue in an MP (Planned Industrial Park) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - May 18, 1981. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reminded the Commission that in January they had approved the construction of 495,000 s.f. of industrial space in Vallco Park by Grosvenor International, setting a ceiling on each of four parcels. Staff was now recommending that Condition 22 be modified to allow greater square footage on parcel 3, as the applicant was now in the PC-356 Page 2 MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING process of leasing it, and needed to expand beyond the space approved, but with the understanding that the ctlrr"ntly ¡lppro.ved square footag" ¡;m the entire propert¥ would not change. He listed other minor changes, such as traffic circulation and the shifting of parking structures, and advised that they reflected the intent of the original site plan, and mentioned that a new Condition, number 23, had been proposed so that the Planning Director could make deviations. COM. ADAMS assumed that traffic and parking had been considered in the expansion. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that nothing had changed from the traffic point of view, this being a reallocation of space only. COM. BLAINE inquired , as parcel 4 was now considerably larger than planned, how the buildings and parking spaces would fit on each parcel. Assistant Planning Director Cowan indicated that square footage ceilings would be altered, but that no parcel would be intensified to the point that others were unbuildable. Mr. Frank Juszczyk, representing Grosvenor International, enlarged that the tenant for parcel 3, Trilogy, Inc., wanted to make it their World headquarters and required a larger building than planned. CHR. CLAUDY wondered, IDecause of shifting lot lines, whether parking require- ments still computed. Mr. Juszczyk advised that Trilogy, Inc. had been in negotiation with the City for some time, that everything complied and that they were on the Agendas for H. Control and Planning Commission Hearings. Mr. Don Beck, Vice-President of Trilogy, confirmed that they had elected to make their World headquarters in Cupertino and said they had been working with Grosvenor International for three months. They intended to put money into the company image by having beautiful buildings, and would bring to the community a corporation to compete with IBM and Amdahl. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) OTION: Com. Adams, to approve Application 28-U-80, subject to Conditions 15, 22 and 24 as modified in the Staff Report. ECOND: Com. Blaine OTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) ITEM #2, Applications s-Z-8l and 8-U-8l of CANADA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: REZONING pproximately .99 gross acre from AI-43 (Agricultural-Residential, 43,000 sq. t. minimum lot size) zone and Rl-7.s (Single-family Residential, 7,500 sq.ft. inimum lot size) zone to P (Planned Development with Residential Cluster Intent) one or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; MINUTES, MAY II, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION HEETING PC-356 Page 3 USE PERMIT to construct nine attached residential dwelling units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located at the northeast quadrant of Blaney Avenue and Beekman Place. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 1, 1981. Assistant Planning Director Cowan indicated on an aerial photograph the property of almost one acre, including land currently in the public right of way, and made it clear that the application uould only be approved subject to the abandonment of the right of way. He described the situation of the property as being in a single-family neighborhood with a single-famil home to the north master-planned for the same density, i.e., 5/10 per acre, with an existing apartment complex to the northeast, having a density of 16 per acre, and Beekman Place, a planned unit development with a density of 7/8 units per acre, on a private street to the south and east. COM. BINNEWEG wondered how road closure would be effected. Assistant Planning Director Cowan replied that it was presently closed, and it would be the responsibility of the applicant to initiate the abandonment of the right of way with City Council, should he obtain approval. COM ADAMS inquired if there was an existing sidewalk. Assistant City Enginner Whitten advised that one had been installed recentl Assistant Planning Director Cowan went on to explain that the application was a joint one for zoning and a Use Permit, and though Staff recommended approval of the zoning, a two-week continuance was suggested for the Use Permit because of concerns about the tightness of the plan, conformation of set-backs and some of the two-storey structures, and also that there should maybe be a focal point, such as a square. To prevent privacy intrusion, Staff was suggesting that the homes be designed to provide for obscure windows and sidelights. He indicated, Qn..an.architectural sketch, elevations proposed by the applicant and remarked that because they were partly one-storey with cathedral ceilings in the living rooms and half the length wás taken up with a single storey garage, the units did not appear too massive. COM. ADAMS remarked that three rear elevations would be facing Beekman Place, and that there would be a fence along the curb without a sidewalk. CHR. CLAUDY asked that slides be shown, there being no further questions of Staff. Assistant Planning Director Cowan showed seven slides of the area, includin units to be removed and replaced by the project and the typical homes on Beekman Place. There was a discussion on setbacks and the visual impacts of the two-storey units. Roger Griffin, representing Canada Development, explained that by combining the two separate parcels in the proj.ect they were avoiding the southerly parcel having direct access onto Blaney Avenue. Only one home would have PC-356 Page 4 MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING to be removed, and the utilities situated in the right of way would not have to be moved. He stated that they had tried to maintain privacy by providing windowless walls where necessary, especially near Beekman Place and had ensured that upper level living area windows would not have direct vision to the rear; also, each of the units would have a two-car garage attached. In conclusion, Mr. Griffin said his company realized some guidelines had changed because of acquisition of the second parcel, that they would cooperate with Staff and only wanted zoning approval at this time. CRR. CLADDY read an anonymous communication from the neighborhood, questioning the quality of the units and asking for information on comparable units in the area, and said he would call for the applicant's answer later in the Hearing. Mr. Frank Lawrence, representing Mrs. Geraci, said she owned the property directly to the north of the site, and asked the Commission to consider that this was a fairly well used traffic area, and that maybe access should be on Blaney; this being so, the property that had been owned by Mrs. Geraci, which had been given to the City of Cupertino by right of trespass to use, would revert to her, enabling her to develop her property. If the Planning Commission was considering giving the right of way to the new developer, he felt they should also consider giving it back to the original owner. CHR. CLAUDY pointed out that this was not a matter for the Planning Commission, being a legal abandonment procedure on which the City Council should be approached. Jean Grant, Beekman Place, Cupertino was concerned that she would be looking out on high-rise buildings. COM. ADAMS asked Assistant City Engineer Whitten whether the potential for access on Blaney had been examined. Assistant City Engineer Whitten replied that it had, and another opening there would result in three access points within 300 ft., with traffic conflicts also. He was not aware of particular problems at the intersection, but volunteered to check accident maps. COM. ADAMS thought that Mr. Lawrence's suggested also did not like the idea of another curb cut. had been given to an entrance off Beekman. access was in a bad place, and He wondered if consideration Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that Beekman was a private street, so that there was no automatic right of access. CHR. CLAUDY then addressed Mr. Griffin on the question of whether there were any similar developments constructed by Canada Development in the area. Mr. Griffin stated there were none in Cupertino, though some had been constructed in San Jose and Campbell. He went on to describe the quality of the homes as being large, energy-efficient, selling in the $200/220,000 range, with no FHA financing anticipated, as loan amounts would be too high. COM. ADAMS commented that units 6A and 9A on the plan were too massive to be so close to the intersection and Beekman Place. Mr. Griffin explained that tpey had other elevations, but. he ?ad not presented them as he knew the Use Permlt would not be pursued at thlS tlme. MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGUlAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING l'C-356 Page 5 MOTION: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED (Com. Koenitzer absent) 4-0 The Connnission felt the zoning range was reasonable for the area. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) MOTION: Com. Blaine, to approve application s-Z-8l, subject to Standard Conditions 1-14, Conditions 15 and 16 as in the Staff Report, with findings and subeonclusions as in the Staff Report. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) MOTION: Com. Blaine, to continue application 8-U-8l to the Meeting of May 26, 1981. SECOND: Com. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) ITEM #3, Applications 6-Z-8l, 3-TM-8l and ll-U-8l of B & C CONSTRUCTION (BARRE BARNES): REZONING approximately .66 gross acre (.38 net acre) from Rl-7.5 (Single-family Residential, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to P (Planned Development with Single-family Residential Cluster Intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide one parcel consisting of approximately .38 acre into three lots ranging in size from approximately 5,200 sq. ft. to 6,100 sq. ft.; USE PERMIT to construct two single-family detached homes and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the north- west corner of Price Avenue and Mello Place. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 1, 1981. Associate Planner Piasecki indicated the location and explained the applican 's request was to subdivide approximately 2/3 of a gross acre, 4/10 of a net acre into three parcels and change the zoning to PD. Staff was concerned, as the lot sizes in the area were between 7,500 and 10,000 sq. ft., these being between 5,200 and 6,300 sq. ft., and felt they would not be within the character of the neighborhood. Barre Barnes, the applicant, felt he met the requirements of the General Plan, and said that Staff was changing the City ruling to measure to the center of the street, in this case. He stated that he was meeting all R.l setbacks and was building two houses away on approved 4,200 ft. lots. He submitted a petition from neighbors in favor of the development. CRR. CLAUDY described the petition as being signed by 15 people, 10 from Mello Place, 2 from Price Avenue and 3 from surrounding streets, and that it requested the City of Cupertino to approve the two new residences mentioned. He called for input from the audience. There was none. PC-356 P·~e 6 MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: COID. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED (Com. Koenitzer absent) 4-0 COM. BLAINE felt that even though the development would meet setbacks it would change the tone and feeling of the neighborhood, and that lots should be 7,500 sq. ft. at least. COM. BINNEWEG agreed with this point. COM. ADAMS wanted to know the zoning for the vacant area to the south of Price. Associate Planner Piasecki said it was master planned for Rl.lO, but that the General Plan was in the 5/10 range. COM. ADAMS appreciated the need for housing, but favored Staff's recommen- dation, on the basis that if the land had been part of prior development it would have been split into two lots only. CHR. CLAUDY, commenting on the petition, said he felt it was a desire of the neighbors to get rid of an existing warehouse rather than to approve three houses on the lot, and he also agreed with Staff. MOTION: Com. Adams, to accept the Negative Declaration of the Environmen- tal Review Committee. SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE:: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Keonitzer absent) MOTION: Com. Adams, to deny Application 6-Z-81 on the grounds that technical compliance with the density designation of the General Plan did not of itself warrant approval of the Application. SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) CHR. CLAUDY advised Mr. Barnes that he could appeal the decision, if he wished, at the City Council Meeting of June 1st. ITEM #4, Applications 7-Z-8l, 4-TM-8l and l-V-8l of TERRY BROWN (LOUIS & DIEDRICH): PREZONING approximately .46 acre from Santa Clara County Rl-8 (Single-family Residential, 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino Rl-7.5 (Single-family Residential, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commis- sion; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide one parcel into two equal lots of approxi- mately 9,900 sq. ft. each; VARIANCE from Section 7.2 of the Rl (Single- family Residential) Zoning Ordinance to permit a 50 ft. width for each proposed lot in lieu of 60 ft. as required by Ordinance; and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the north side of Alcazar Avenue approximately 300 ft. westerly of Orange Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 1, 1981. MINUTES, MAY 11, 1%1 REGìJLl>.R PLÅNNING COw-rrSSION ME.E'1'lN~ l'C- 356 Page 7 Associate Planner Piasecki described the location, 300 ft. from Orange on the north side of Alcazar, and explained that the applicant's request was to subdivide into two 50 ft. wide properties of 9,900 sq. ft. each approxi- mately with a depth of about 200 ft. As the City standard lot width was 60 ft., the Application included a variance to permit the 50 ft. width proposed. Staff had rationalized that because surrounding parcels were similarly divided, and Manta Vista was a unique neighborhood, the variance was warranted, and further felt that two parcels was a reasonable use, and that this was the best solution, as they wished to discourage flag lots. COM. BLAINE observed that though the lots in the area were similar, she did not think the homes were as large as those being proposed. Associate Planner Piasecki acknowledged this, but thought it should be borne in mind that the amount of building frontage would have to fit setbacks, so that the public's view would be minimized. COM. BINNHWEG pointed out that the side setbacks would probably be paved. Associate Planner Piasecki thought, especially in the event of a detached garage, that they would be. Joseph Louis, of Louis and Dietrich, San Jose, representing the applicant, said they intended to stay within the character of the Manta Vista area, and pointed out that the lots were a little larger than those to the east. COM. BLAINE wondered if the home designs and sizes had been decided. Mr. Louis stated that it was planned to build 2,000 square foot two-storey homes on each, and that the 200 ft. depth of the lots provided room for building these larger homes. A discussion followed, which established that the property was probably a double lot when subdivided in 1917. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED (Com. Koenitzer absent) 4-0 COM. ADAMS supported the request. COM. BLAINE Observed that though the lot sizes would be in keeping, the size of the homes would contribute to a change of character for Manta Vista but said she would not vote to deny the Application. COM. ADAMS thought the new two-storey homes in the area were in good taste. COM. BINNEWEG saw Manta Vista as an area that could allow much flexibility and would support the Application, though she was in favor of flag lots. caR. CLAUDYapprec-Í<lted any effort to avoid flag lots, and was favorably disposed to the Application. PC-3s6 Pç...ße 8 MINDTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: Com. Adams, to accept ~he Negative Declaration of the Environ- mental Review Committee. SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) MOTION: Com. Adams, for approval of Application 7-Z-8l. SECOND: Com. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED (Com. Koenitzer absent) 4-0 CHR. CLAUDY called for the Variance l-V-8l to be discussed, so that the Commission could make the specific findings uequired and list them. In regard to the first finding necessary, that there were exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use, the Commission surmised that in 1917 a lot line had been deleted, and further thought that on this land a flag lot would be out of character. On the subject of the second finding, that the granting of the application was necessary to preserve the property rights of the petitioner, the Commission agreed that the applicant was not going beyond the rights he had and could obtain in another fasnion. CHR. CLAUDY, referring to the third finding necessary, that it would not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood, felt this had been demonstrated. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to recommend approval of l-v-8l with findings as stated in the prior discussion. SECOND: Com. Binneweg. VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) MOTION: Com. Blaine, to recommend approval of Application 4-TM-8l Standard Conditions 1-14, Condition 15, with Findings and clusions as set forth in the Staff Report. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED (Com. Koenitzer absent) with Subcon- 4-0 ITEM 115, Application s-TM-8l of LEONARD C. MOLANDER: TENTATIIJE MAP to sub- divide one parcel consisting of approximately 1.30 acres into six parcels ranging in size from approximately 6,030 sq. ft. to 14,400 sq. ft. and ENVIRON- MENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said prpperty is located on the east side of Stelling Road approximately 350 ft. north of the Highway 85 right of way in an Rl-6 (Single-family Residential, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - May 18, 1981. Asst..l'~anning..nir. ~Ca"'1ir outlined the puoperty on the view graph, contiguous to Stelling Road and Jollyman Park, with Jollyman School sAd a church to the north, bordered by existing single-family development. MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-356 Page 9 COM. BINNEWEG wanted to know whether Stelling was to be widened. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said it would be; that this was an area to be widened. COM. ADAMS wondered where the creek ran. Assistant Planning Director Cowan was not sure, as it was in conduit here. Resuming the Staff Report, he said there were some flag lots involved in the southern half, but that Staff was requiring the applicant to have a common driveway serving 4 lots, to provide a fairly wide visual corridor leading to the two flags. He explained that the lot line configuration reflécted the 'concept of retaining two existIng homes. He informed the Commission that negotiations were proceeeding between Mr. Mollander and the City to explore the possibility of acquiring the southern half of the project site for a park, but that the Commission was required to continue as if no park acquisition was imminent. COM. ADAMS asked City Attorney Killian whether the Commission should procee , as a judgement would affect the appraisal value. City Attorney Killian replied that as the Application was presented by the property owner, they should go ahead with a review in terms of planning principals and should ignore the acquisition issue. Mr. Warren Whaley, WTW Engineering, Cupertino, representing Mr. Mollander, said they were in concurrence with the Staff Report. There was a discussion on setbacks and lot lines for lots 1 and 2, and Assistant Planning Director Cowan felt confident that Mr. Whaley's map submitted at the Meeting would be adequate. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED (Com. Koenitzer absent) 4-0 COM. BLAINE thought there were no problems. MOTION: Com. Adams, to support the Negative Declaration of the Environmen- tal Review Committee. SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) MOTION: Com. Adams, for approval of s-TM-8l, subject to Standard Condition 1-17, with Condition 18 modified so that the property line between lots 1 and 2 could be moved to meet legal setbacks on lot 1. SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) PC-356 Pa2e 10 MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM #6, Application 6-TM-8l of DIRK REED (SILVER OAKS WEST): TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide one parcel consisting of approximately 1.74 acres into 17 air-space office condominium units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. Said prç¡perty is located at the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard in a P (Planned Development with Single-family Cluster, Multiple Residential and General Commercial Intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - May 18, 1981. Associate Planner Piasecki clarified that in this Application the applicant was asking to subdivide the building into condominium offices, and that it did not involve any building activity or question of land use in the Silver Oaks shopping center. CHR. CLAUDY inquired whether a commercial district could consist of office use only. Associate Planner Piasecki confirmed that office was a permitted use within a commercial zone, and explained that the applicant thought the market place was not ready for the commercial use visualized when the development commenced. He showed an illustration of the requested subdivision into 16 condominium units, with the 17th being a common area, and observed that selling off the units for office use would not pre-empt the possibility of commercial uses in the future. He advised that the Conditions of Approval suggested by Staff included a requirement that landscaping be completed prior to sale of the units. COM. ADAMS established that the common area would consist of a walkway and pool area, probably with a storage closet, but no parking. COM. BLAINE inquired about the position in regard to the condominiums which were an indirect part of the development, and observed that in the present situation, the commercial center provided leverage for the City in having problems corrected in the condominium development, and that this would be lost in the event of the proposed sale. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said though deficiencies were not completely corrected yet, repairs were well underway, and advised that action could be taken against the performance and maintenance bonds still in force if improve- ments were not completed within a reasonable time. COM. ADAMS wondered if additional requirements should be added to the original resolution, as the Condominiums would require common maintenance. City Attorney Killian ad¥ised that Condition 16 resolved this matter. CHR. CLAUDY's understanding was that at least three of the units had been tentatively leased as shops, and he felt the problems had arisen partially because the developer had been tardy, the lessees having gone elsewhere, which he saw as a relevant aspect of the Application. He called on the applicant to address the Commission on some of the issues, but the applicant was not in the audience. MINUTES, MAY II, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-356 Page 11 Catharine Graham, resident of Westridge, a townhouse complex to the north- west of the area, wanted to express her own and her neighbors' disappoint- ment, it being particularly disappointing for the senior citizen project in the vicinity. CHR. CLAUDY felt the case might be prejudiced without hearing the applican City Attorney Killian advised that the Commission had the right to proceed continue, deny or remove the Application from the calendar. COM. ADAMS presumed that the applicant did not have the funds to develop a viable operation and was trying to get one off the ground in this fashio Commercial uses were not impossible, as two units could be combined, and the applicant had not changed the character, except to make the units smaller. He felt that this solution gave a chance for the units to be occupied in the near future. COM. BLAINE felt Com. Adams had made a good point, but her concern was that the space might all go to office, and therefore would not be serving the purpose for which it was built, as a commercial area to serve the surrounding neighborhood. At this point, City Attorney Killian announced that Assistant City Enginee Whitten had just given him some information to support a continuance, in that he had had conversations with the developer when he had questioned whether the developer would underwrite the improvements to the residential area, the developer indicating that he could not make that decision at this time. COM. ADAMS highly recommended a continuance on the basis of that informatio COM. BLAINE and COM. BINNEWEG wanted to be able to talk to the developer. COM. CLAUDY observed that the development had been approved as a neighbor- hood commercial center and he would not be inclined to vote for it being changed to a regional office center, unless there was a stipulation that half would be retained for commercial. He suggested that the Use Permit might be changed, and recommended a continuance for two weeks, and if the applicant did not appear at that time, to continue again. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to continue Application 6-TM-8l to the Meeting of May 26, 1981. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) ITEM #7, Applications 7-TM-8l and 3-V-8l of PAT-WHALE, INC. (WTW): TENTATIVE MAP to resubdivide ~hree parcels consisting of .90 acre into three lots ranging in size from approximately 7,850 sq. ft. to 20,900 sq.ft VARIANCE from Section 8.2 of the Rl (Single-family Residential) Zoning Ordinance to permit a reduction in the required front yard setback distance for Parcel F of the subject map and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmen- tal Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located at the southerly terminus of San Felipe Road approximately 300 ft. south of Alcalde Road in an Rl-lO zoning d i.strict. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - May 18, 1981. PC-3s6 P-~e 12 MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out the site at the southerly terminus of San Felipe Road, consisting of Mr. Nolan's 4omesite, a lot next to the dry creek bed and another, relatively flat, lot, the application being to adjust the lot lines to make the creek lot more buildable, to correct ~he historical survey discrepancies in the area, and to try and reach a conclusion regarding the position of the cul-de-sac at the terminus of San Felipe Road. COM. BLAINE wondered how this could correct the discrepancies on the Pisano property. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that each map straightened a part of the problem, there being a 13 ft. discrepancy on the eastern boundary of the entire subdivision. He pointed out the 13 ft. discrepancy between the lands of Garcia and the applicant on the map, and said an incorrect fence line had been in operation for a number of years. He advised that the applicant proposed to reconfigure the lot line 1 ft. inward from the existing fence line, as an existing house was built over what was thought to be the original boundary approved in 1917. CHR. CLAUDY established that the change to be made would be in favor of the lands of Garcia. Assistant Planning Director Cowan thought the Garcias probably had adverse possession rights, as they had used the land historically. He continued that the Application was basically to reconfigure parcels,and that the creek parcel, because of the aforementioned, had been reduced to 7,800 sq. ft. However, as the creek environment would be preserved with only one tree being removed, Staff approved this, even though the zoning was for 10,000 sq. ft. minimum. He went on to explain the variance, that Staff had worked with Mr. Whaley, the applicant and the engineer on shifting the cul-de-sac bulb considerably to the west, Mr. Whaley having prepared a two-storey house plan for lot C, but that the Public Works Department had determined the alignment shown on the map was poor street planning, thereby creating problems for parcel C. He indicated on the map where the cul-de-sac was to be moved to, and stated that as the house plan as drawn with the cul-de-sac shift would make the buil- ding illegal, and because of the reduced lot, Staff felt the best solution was to find extenuating circumstances to justify a variance of the front yard setback for parcel C. CHR. CLAUDY observed that Parcel A showed an existing garage with a floor remaining and wondered if anything would be built on it. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that it would not be allowed. COM. ADAMS thought new problems would surface in relation to the cul-de-sac with the 13 ft. strip of land given to Garcia. Mr. Whaley advised that when the parcel map was filed and recorded they would be quit-claiming the 13 ft. in favor öf the Garcias. City Attorney Killian inq~ired whether he was planning to file an actual quit- claim deed. MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-3s6 Page 13 Mr. Whaley had not considered this to be necessary, but said he would discuss it with his partner. City Attorney Killian recommended that it be made a Condition to do so. Mr. D.W. Larson, 22070 Mercedes Road, confirmed that lot lines were erroneo in the area. In regard to Mercedes Road, he told the Commission that it was not the standard width of 40 ft., and was highly dangerous for traffic going in opposite directions. He wondered if it would be finished, and als whether the proposed development would have access onto Mercedes Road and if Dr. Mayerle's propert" would also, if developed. Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that even though the developer was not using Mercedes he would be resonsible for improvements, but as far as h knew, there would not be an access to Mercedes. He did not have information in regard to the Mayerle property, but advised that there would be an acces from San Felipe. Assistant Planning Director Cowan, observing that the Commission in the past had felt that upper Mercedes and Cordova Roads should be rural in character, with no curbs or gutters, was not sure of Mr. Larsonts requireme ts. Mr. Larson was concerned mainly with brush, which made the curve area particularly very dangerous. He stated that he would cooperate in any improvements, but felt that if the brush was cleaned out it would aid great y. Mr. Mike Pisano, 10201 Hillcrest Road, Cupertino, establishing that the property to the north of parcel C was lands of Pisano, and not Gilbert, said he had a question on the southeast corner of his property, as the cul-de-sac bulb would encroach. He had not been in receipt of the map, so did not know how many feet would be annexed, he said. Having already put the improvements for San Felipe Road in, he did not want to be financially responsible for changes. The map was referred to, and it was shown that roughly 12 ft. of Mr. Pisano s property would be taken, which he said was a problem, and was more than had been discussed previously. COM. CLAUDY observed that Mr. Pisano would get back a piece of property he had currently paved if the street was shifted east. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said a short section of the new curb and gutter would have to be removed to start the curvature for the cul-de-sac, should the plan be approved. City Attorney Killian advised that the cul-de-sac location had not been finally established, as it was under litigation between Mayerle, Pisano and the City. Mr. Whaley felt the litigation to be irrelevant, as it was regarding the Mayerle access only. COM. ADAMS asked Mr. Pisano if the cul-de-sac cutting off the corner of his land was acceptable to him. PC-356 Pa!!e 14 MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGUlAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Pisano replied that he had been in partial agreement, but that he might have problems with setbacks for the structure he would be building, and reiterated that he did not want any financial responsibility to replace the street.. However, he felt that he would have time to look at the figures before the City Council Meeting, and could then present his feelings on the problems with his corner. CHK. CLAUDY felt that if the cul-de-sac was put in the suggested position, Mr. Pisano should be allowed to continue with his structure as if it were not there, lesser setbacks being allowed if a road was constructed, and he did not see why Mr. Pisano should have to pay again for road paving. City Attorney Killian believed that one of the issues of the litigation was who should pay for the cul-de-sac, and it had not been resolved. Assistant City Engineer Whitten wanted to try to resolve the Pisano corner matter before the Application went to Council, as it only needed some fine tuning, he believed. Mr. Whaley explained that the cul-de-sac came in at an angle and had been somewhat of a hardship, as if it extended further south, or up the hill, there would be grading problems. He advised that Public Works Director Viskovitch had been working with the owners to adjust it so that it was more equitable, and to make access easier for Mr. Mayerle. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED (Com. Koenitzer absent) 4-0 COM. BLAINE was sure that the City and the owners could solve the minor problems, and could see grounds for granting a variance. In regard to Mercedes, she felt Public Works Department could remove some brush and so make it safe, and her inclination was to approve the Applications. COM. ADAMS observed there were a couple of points that needed cleaning up, but otherwise he had no problems. He reminded the Commission that there should be another Condition, number 19, to require the applicant to file a quit-claim deed for the 13 ft. portion on the easterly area of the Tentative Map's line to account for a shift from the previous records. MOTION: Com. Adams, to accept the Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review Committee. SECOND: Com. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams, for approval of Application 7-TM-8l with Standard Con- ditions 1-14, Condition 15 modified to reflect the finalization of the San Felipe Road cul-de-sac location, Conditions 16, 17, 18 and Condition 19, to require the applicant to file a quit-claim deed on the 13 ft. segment to the east of the subject property, subject to Findings and Sub conclusions as presented in the Staff Report. Com. Binneweg PASSED 4-0 MOTION: (Com. Koenitzer absent) MINUTES, MI\,{ 11, 1981 REGUL¡\R 1'L1\NNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-356 Page 15 MOTION: Com. Adams, to approve Application 3-V-8l, subject to Standard Conditions 1-16. SECOND: Com. Blaine DISCUSSION: Com. Adams wondered whether the 13 ft. should be considered again tn the variance. Com. Claudy, reading the Resolution, said it mentioned a maximum deviation of 13 ft., and he felt it should read a maximum distance of 13 ft. and a maximum deviation of 7 ft. Com. adams noted that all three requirements to approve a variance application were satisfied. VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) CHR. CLAUDY trusted that all issues would be resolved before it went to City Counc il. ITEM #8, APPLICATION 2-V-8l of RONALD JONES: VARIANCE from Sections 8.3lb and 9.1 of the Rl (Single-family Residential) Zoning Ordinance to permit a reduced side yard setback and a one-car garage, in lieu of the minimum 10 ft. setback and two enclosed garage parking spaces as required by Ordinance and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. Said property is located on the north side of Scenic Boulevard approximately 100 ft. easterly of Carmen Road in an Rl-lO zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - May 18, 1981. Assistant Planning Director Cowan established that Mr. Jones' lot was located on Scenic Boulevard and taèt the variance concerned two aspects of the zoning code; setbacks and the construction of a single, instead of a double, garage. He explained that the applicant had purchased the property and a pre- packaged factory built home, on the assumption that he could build in the County, but in the meantime the property had been annexed to Cupertino. The home, however, had been tailored to County, not City, setbacks, so that a variance certainly seemed justifiable in this case. On the second aspect of a one car instead of a two car garage, if Mr. Jones had built in the County no garage at all would have been required. Mr. Jones wanted to preserve a tree, he advised, and Staff was leaving the decision up to the Commission, realizing that both the Planning Commission and the City Council were interested in tree preservation, as from Staff's point of view , being purely technical, there was not enough hardship involved. Mr. Ron Jones, the applicant, confirmed the circumstances and advised that the closest another home could be built on the easterly side of the house was 33 ft., as there was a driveway to a flag lot there. Though the tree did not qualify under the City Specimen Tree Ordinance, he felt a section in that ordinance pertained to all trees, that those of any stature contri- buting to the value of a home should be preserved. He presented a petition signed by neighbors on Scenic who had shared in the fruit harvest over the years, and who were concerned about possibly losing the tree. COM. ADAMß inquired about the age and_character of the tree. PC-356 l'.age 16 MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGUlAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The applicant described the tree as being approximately 20 ft. high with a circumference of more than forty inches, being thirty years old or more. He s~;id it was the only shade tree on the property and was deciduous, and that it could live another sixty to eighty years, based on his horticultural knowledge. He pointed out that there were three other homes on the street with one-car garages. COM. ADAMS felt the tree should be kept. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED (Com. Koenitzer absent) 4-0 COM. ADAMS supported the 8 ft. sideyard setback and the one-car garage. COM. BINNEWEG agreed with Com. Adams, and said there were plenty of examples of one-car garages in the area. also, she preferred a tree to a garage. COM. ADAMS felt the extenuating and extraordinary circumstances necessary to grant the Application were present, as the house was purchased before the City annexed the property, and if the land was still in the County the applicant would not have either problem. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to approve Application 2-V-8l with Finding l,approval of a téduced 'sideyàrd setback is jùstified, Finding 2" that approval of a one-car garage is justified, subject to Conditions 1-16. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) ITEM #9, 'Application 10-U-8l of DE ANZA PINES PRE-SCHOOL: RENEWAL OF USE PERMIT for an existing pre-school facility for 36 children and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence, no action is required. Said property is located on the east side of Stelling Road approximately 50 ft. south of the 85 right of way, in a BQ (Quasi-Public) zoning district. First Hearing. Associate Planner Piasecki established the location and explained that the pre-school had been in operation for a number of years in the County. He confirmed that Staff was in favor of renewing the Use Permit but recommended Condition 24 for dedication and improvement of Stelling Road as a matter of course, as in all Use Permit applications there were standard conditions to require street improvements, and in the conditions imposed by the County, Condition 23 covered possible additional conditions being considered at renewal. He advised that exception procedure information had been included, however, should the Commission feel it appropriate. City Attorney Killian thought Condition 24 was the same as one of the Standard Conditions of a Use Permit. Assistant City Engineer Whitten observed that the Use Permit would normally have the Standard Conditions 1-14. City Attorney Killian surmized that Condition 24 would be superfluous under a normal Use Permit application, and that the Unimproved Street Ordinance and the exceptions did not apply here, because it was a Standard Condition. ~INUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-3s6 Page 17 What the applicant was requesting was a waiver of one of the Standard Conditions, he observed. Associate Planner Piasecki concurred, what procedure should be followed for and asked City Attorney Killian excepting from the Standard Conditions. City Attorney Killian advised the procedure would not require a variance, but as the Commission would be setting a preBedent he believed something should be put on record. II.ssociate Planner Piasecki suggested that Condition 24 of the CóuntjkUSe Permit only should be eliminated. Mr. Bob McNaughton, a co-owner, asked that they not be subject to the improve- ~ent requirements as he felt they did not qualify. City Attorney Killian agreed they did not, but advised Mr. McNaughton that there was a Standard Condition in the Use Permit that the Planning Commission could waive, as then they would not have to make specific findings. CHR. CLAUDY pointed out to the applicant that he still had to convince the Commission taht he needed the Condition to be waived, but would not have to work as hard as in the case of an exception from the Unimproved Street Ordinance. The applicant described the situation that the school was run by a small, family-owned enterprise, and was a small operation with a moderate income. The huge section of road to be improved was something they could not afford, he explained. COM. ADAMS established there was just one building on the site, and no residence. He was of the opinion that a waiver of the street improvement requirement was acceptable, and felt that in this case a precedent would not be set, as the City had exercised an option to incorporate the area. City Attorney Killian gave another basis; that none of the fourteen Standard Conditions applied here. CHR. CLADDY made it clear that if the school was expanded or the land developed, conditions for improvement would be applied. Assistant City Engineer Whitten suggested that if the applicant was to be relieved of the standard condition, any additional rights of way required for Stelling Road be dedicated. Mrs. Margaret McNaughton, current director of the school said the school could not afford to make the improvement, and would be f~rced into the jaws of developers. As the school ranked as one of the top pre-schools in the County, this would be unfortunate, she felt. MOTION~ Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED (Com. Koenitzer absent) 4-0 PC-356 Page 18 MINUTES, MAY 11, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMIS$!ON MEETING ,- ,COM. BLAINE felt there were enough differences in the subject Use Permit to use the County Conditions. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to approve Application 10-U-8l, subject to Conditions 1-22, deleting Condition 23 and modifying Condition 24 to pertain to roadway dedication only, of the County Use Permit. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com, Koenitzer absent) ITEM #lO,Application 6-U-Bl of WEST VALLEY MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. Witndrawn from the calendar. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM #11, Application 3l-U-79 - MCKNIGHT/CARMEN: Request for extension of time for use permit, The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Pasadena Avenue and Granada Avenue. There being nobody in the audience, it was decided that the Staff Report was self-explanatory, and there was no discussion. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to extend Use Permit 3l-U-79 for one year. SECOND: Com. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED 4-0 (Com. Koenitzer absent) NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR ADJOVRNMENT 11:15 P.~. APPROVED: ~ ~. /1 . / /John Claudy, Cha' n ATTEST: L1 City Clf¡¡,:1 a. ,d. '