Loading...
PC 02-23-81 CITY OF CUPE.RTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC-351 Page 1 MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Adams Commissioner Binneweg Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Claudy Chairman Koenitzer APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 9, 1981 were approved after the following corrections: Page 3, tenth paragraph was to read: "COM. ADAMS observed that he did not want to see it come back for a variance request because this one had passed tonigh t ." Page 8, fifth paragraph, second sentence was to read: "It was his feeling that high density residential at this particular location was not favored by citizens, and ne felt residents did not want to look at multi-storey resiúential buildings, but if offices were placed near the present residential, graduating to residential the other way, it would probably be more acceptable." Page 8, sixth paragraph was to read: been in contact with the owners, and mation on the subject." "COM. ADAMS asked Mr. Boone if he had whether he could divulge any infor- Page 8, eighth paragraph, "filling" was to be replaced with IIfulfilling". Page 10, fourtn paragraph was to read: "COM. ADAMS commented that he would rather hold on any decision until the environmental impact report was completed and make an assessment at that time .11 Page 11, seventn paragraph was to read: "COM. ADAMS felt that Mr. Boone had obviously surveyed tne office and commercial type needs and densities and this data, if available, would be useful to Staff and the Commission in the future.1I Page 16, fourth paragraph, seventh sentence, an IIf" to be added in the word Itbenefits". Page 17, between the fifth and sixth paragraphs were to be added the remark of Mr. Modine, who mentioned that a neighbor of his had an approximate 10ft dish for satellite televis~on reception in his backyard, and also that he himself had a legal 50 ft. tower for his ham antenna on his property. Page 17, last paragraph, first sentence, IIwest" should be substituted with "east" . PC-3sl J?-""'-'7e 2 MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGULAR PLfu~ING COMMISSION MEETING Page 18, fifth paragraph, first sentence, was to refer to the northern border, rather than the southern border. Page 20, first paragraph, second sentence, was to read: "He suggested that the citizens take their complaints to the City Council, as the Commission was only a recommending body to the Council on planning items." Page 20, second motion, the words "the motion was not carried" were to be replaced with "the motion died for lack of a second". Page 22, last paragraph, second sentence, was to read: "For instance, at Homestead there was a connnercial site down the street." MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy that the Minutes of February 9, 1981 be accepted as corrected. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS CHR. KOENITZER read a letter from Mrs. Robert Krier addressed to the Commission. It referred to the closing of Hoover School and hoped that the surrounding land would be preserved for recreational purposes. He suggested that the City send Mrs. Krier a letter and commented that the problem would be better addressed to the Parks and Recreation Commission, though he felt that a petition from the residents might help the Council decide a park site for the Seven Springs Ranch area, as one was proposed to be put there to serve the entire neighborhood. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that a letter had been sent to Mrs. Krier explaining the park policy, and suggesting that she contact Mr. Paul Sonnenblick of the Area Homeowner Association, so that they might work together. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Victor Clevers, 10380 Mann Drive, Cupertino, said that in the latter part of 1980 he had received a letter stating that his area was going to be annexed into Cupertino. It had further stated that everything would be "status quo". In the meantime he had applied for a permit from Santa Clara County to build a garage in his backyard. He had not got the final permit until January, and was then informed by the Planning Department that it was null and void and that he had to build a 7 ft. high garage to conform to City regulations. He could not buy any lumber for that size of garage, and materials he had accumulated for the purpose were now useless. He had also been told he must stay 6 ft. away from the boundary line, and if he built his garage in accordance with this regulation, he would be encroaching upon his future septic tank feeder lines. He had made two sets of plans for the garage, but the Planning Department had recommended that instead of building in the back corner of the lot he build where his trailer now stood on the side of the house. This would interfere- with the parking of his trailer which would then have to be parked on the front. Mr. Clevers demanded a good reason why his permit from Santa Clara County was not good when it had been applied for a year ago and finalized last August. MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-351 Page 3 Assistant Planning Director Cowan elaborated on the matter. Mr. Clevers had discussed his problem with Staff, he said, and they had come to an impass. The County had issued a permit when the property was in the City's jursidiction, which was unacceptable. Mr. Clevers had two options, to build to City requirements or to apply for a variance. His septic tank drainfield narrowed options for the location of the garage, but staff was working with Mr. Clevers. He did not feel that the Commission tonight could take any action. COM, BLAINE suggested to Mr. Clevers that he apply for a variance, as the City could not accept a permit that the County had given when the property was outside their jurisdiction. Mr. Clevers pointed out that the permit was made out in August, 1980, and that he was not notified that it was ready and that he was to pick it up. Neither the City nor the County had notified him on this matter. Planning Director Sisk explained the permit had not been picked up, and thereby finalized, until January, 1981, at which time the property was under City jurisdiction. It was determined in the ensuing discussion that the City could not legally accept the permit, and Mr. Clevers should apply for a variance. Mr. Clevers requested a copy of the letter mailed out to the residents of Manta Vista in the latter part of 1980 that stated everything would remain "status quo". COM. CLAUDY while not familiar with the letter to the residents of Monta Vista, felt it probably meant that the residents would not be required to put in sidewalks, etc., if they were not there, and anything existing would stay toe way it was. However, it did not mean that from now on improvements, etc., would not have to comply with City standards. Mr. Clevers wondered why the City had not told residents that building permits would be null and void. COM. BINNEWEG advised that the problem was City setbacks, variances, etc. were very different from those of the County. Mr. Clevers noted that at Stevens Creek and Foothill there was a house 3 ft. from the boundary line with an 8 ft. fence on top of a 4 ft. bank; was not that also Cupertino? He also referred to the 8 ft. walls along Foothill Boulevard. COM. CLAUDY pointed out to Mr. Clevers that the walls along Foothill were entirely out of Cupertino's control and had been erected by Caltrans and the County . CHR. KOENITZER concluded by suggesting that Mr. Clevers work with Staff, and that way, hopefully,a satisfactory agreement would be reached. PC-351 Page 4 INUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Scott Epperson, 11411 Bubb Road, Cupertino, wanted to know why the pavement on Bubb Road had been dug up twice in a short period. There seemed to be bad coordination. COM. BLAINE acknowledged the coordination problem, and asked Assistant City Engineer Whitten if there was more work to be done. Assistant City Engineer Whitten replied that it was dependent upon how well the Telephone Company did the repaving. Unfortunately, there had been no choice to them cutting the new street; all alternatives had been explored. COM. CLAUDY questioned the Assistant City Engineer on what was happening along Foothill Boulevard near Alpine Road. Assistant City Engineer Whitten explained that the Telephone Company was installing new facilities allover the City, as old ones were inadequate. COM. BLAINE wondered if Cable television installations were going in at the same time, and would they be on one side or both sides of the street. Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that the Cable television installations would be separate, and every street that had underground utilities would be cut. It was not yet known whether both sides or one side of the street would be cut, or even every second house. The City was trying to tie it into the annual seal program, and on streets such as Bubb and Stelling which had been recently resurfaced cutting would be prohibited. The City was asking the Cable Company to give additional monies so that the city could move streets up in timing, putting a new seal on them after they were cut. He noted that prior to overlay work every year, all utilities were notified of streets that were to be resurfaced, so that they could do any work require beforehand, but somehow every year new streets were cut. Dorothy Wright, 22303 Regnart Road,.Cupertino, hád some information-questions, as their-section of Regnart Road had recently been annexed. Would cable television be supplied to Regnart Canyon, would garbage service be supplied to individual houses, and would postal boxes be available to individual houses? Assistant City Engineer Whitten suggested that Mrs. Wright call him for answers to all questions posed. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1, CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider amendment of Ordinance 2l4(a) pertaining to excavations, grading and retaining walls. First Hearing. CHR. KOENITZER stated that the Commission was not intending to take any specific action at this time, other than to set guidelines for Staff to work on a draft ordinance. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported that the Commission had discussed this matter last in 1967 when the present ordinance was adopted. In 1967 there was little concern about water quality, and the ordinance was geared to "safeguarding life, limb, property and public welfare". In 1978, after a -very long process,*ABAG -developed a surface run-off plan. Assistant City * ABAG _ Association of Bay Area Governments MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGUlAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-351 Page 5 Enginner Whitten and the Engineering Department had been working with *ABAG and County officials to incorporate some new requirements into the ordinance designed to control erosion. If the Commission wished to get involved, Staff could prepare a rough draft ordinance. Referring to page 2 of the Staff Report, he said the only issue Staff could find involved the prohibition of grading entirely during the rainy seaSOD. In some developments there had been some controls and there had been a condition applied to the majority that they could not grade in the rainy season, unless a financial guarantee was posted. *ABAG and the County Task Force on Erosion Control was suggesting that the City go a step further and prohibit grading between mid-November and mid-April, or at least have some stringent interim improvements intalled to catch run-off. The question was, should the City become involved in rainy season prohibition? COM. BLAINE asked what had been the effect of conditions placed on specific developments. Assistant City Engineer Whitten reported that to date they had not been very effective, and there had been problems on several tracts, even though bonds were posted. COM. CLAUDY inquired as to the nature of the conditions. He observed that requiring a bond to be posted was effective only to the extent that the developer lost some money if he did not stop erosion, it waS not a physical means to stop it. COM. BLAINE said there had been conditions that grading should not proceed during a certain time. COM. CLAUDY observed that no matter when the grading was done, if the site was bare dirt when the rai~ started there would be erosion. Assistant City Engineer Whitten acknowledged that this was the problem, and that developers had not taken any real steps to prevent erosion taking place as there were insufficient penalties in the present ordinance. It was almost impossible to shut down a grading operation costing $2,000 per day for a fine of $50 per day. In the new ordinance the erosion control section was to be quite stringent in regard to erosion control plans and methods. He felt the Commission might consider not issuing any permits during the winter months, so that new grading would not start in the rain. COM. CLAUDY observed that all problems were not with new grading. He had known problems years after the grading was done. COMM. BINNEWEG wondered how such things could be prevented. If there was an inadequate drainage system, it should have been installed properly in the first place. COM. BLAINE observed ordinance should try not all problems could be prevented, but the to address everYone that could be preventable. COMM. BINNEWEG asked for details of Staff's erosion control plans. *ABAG - Association of Hay Area Governments PC-35l e 6 MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Assistant City Engineer Whitten said there were very specific requirements, separate from the actual technical part of the grading, and there were many checkpoints going into the winter for projects underway. He thought when the Commission saw the draft ordinance they would have a better idea how they wanted to approach the matter, though he thought it would be difficult to say there would be no grading between November and April. COM. ADAMS suggested requirements could be put on the applicant to ensure that connections were made first to gutters and drains to allow the erosion that could take place to be alleviated, thereby ensuring it would not run on yards and City streets. COM. BINNEWEG said this would be difficult logistically. COM. CLAUDY felt the storm sewers should not be filled with the dirt, and suggested diking. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said they had tried sediment holding ponds which had achieved some measure of success, but expertise that the City did not have right now was going to be required for review of the plans and their adequacy. CHR. KOENITZER wondered if it was reasonable financially to prevent erosion, and whether there was a practicable way of controlling it by design means. Assistant City Engineer Whitten felt it could be done, but if the penalties were not severe enough, it would be a waste of time. Assistant Planning Director Cowan, adding to the Assistant City Engineer's comments, gave the erosion control costs in 1979 dollars from one of the *ABAG technical memoranda, ranging from $234 per unit to $1,000 per unit. He said that City Manager Quinlan was very much concerned in terms of costs of new ordinances, so that Staff would be giving the Commission an idea of costs. CHR. KOENITZER said it seemed that the only way to get developers to move quickly was to tell them that if they did not comply by a certain date, the City would charge them the cost of completing the task for them. COM. BINNEWEG suggested that a site could be required to be properly graded before building commenced, and that it could be tied in to a building inspection. Assistant City Engineer Whitten thought Rainbow's End subdivision was a good example f this, as grading had been completed by the primary developer before building started. ssistant Planning Director Cowan observed that in the case of the subdivisions that had been reviewed there had been a common condition, for the developer to employ a landscape architect to help prevent erosion. A discussion ensued on whether planting should be required before or during construction and what should constitute an adequate fine system so that there would be enough requirements on the developer to be sure he was complying. t was felt that, with adequate controls, grading could commence in the winter nd still withstand the rains. MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-3sl Page 7 COM. ADAMS, remembering that Staff had made a comment regarding the burden on staff time, thought maybe the Commission should have the matter assessed. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that this would be done as part of the City Manager's request for assessment of costs of new ordinances. CHR. KOENITZER initiated discussion on the next issue in the Staff Report, dealing with the permit procedure for vegetation removal. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that apart from the aesthetic issue of removing hillside vegetation there was an erosion issue, as denuded slopes could not retain water. This had been stressed heavily in the County and *ABAG work, and Staff was suggesting some degree of control. It was felt that a plan to stabilize the slope be submitted in these cases. Staff wanted to know if the Commission would agree to working on this issue in conjunction with the ordinance. COM. BLAINE said she would like Staff to look into it, but removal of vegetation because of fire danger should be remembered. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said that Staff's primary interest was that a permit be taken out, so that some conditions could be enforced. It was not the intent that people should not be able to clear their property, but problems could be caused in removing vegetation and stripping soil in the process. COM. CLAUDY observed that there was another, better, way to remove vegetatio , by discing,which left the soil porous to absorb rainfall and seeds remair~d in the ground. CHR.!(!OENITZER thought that often a permit was an "after the fact" occurrence and often people feigned ignorance. Assistant City Engineer Whitten felt that if penalties were severe enough, there would be less violations. COM. ADA}lli asked City Attorney Kilian how much fines could reasonably be increased. City Attorney Kilian advised that at present all violations of City ordinan s constituted infractions, the stiffest penalty being a $50 fine for the first offence, with subsequent violations being punishable by more fines. When violations had been treated as misdemeanors, which carried $500 fines plus six months in jail, violators had been entitled to a jury trial, which had been costly to the City, and often judges had exacted very small fines anyway. However, the Commission could certainly recommend to the City Counc"l that violations of the grading ordinance be changed to misdemeanors. COM. ADAMS wondered about the legality of issuing a grading permit for a year, but stipulating that the grading could only be done during a certain time frame. City Attorney Kilian felt this was acceptable, so long as the appropriate time for grading was typed on the permit. *ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments PC-3sl ~-- ~e 8 MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGUlAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COM. CLADDY supposed if there was illegal run-off from a property after grading, caused by a day of rain, and the run-off went onto neighboring property and into the street, it would constitute one occurrence of a fineable event. City Attorney Kilian said that he would suggest a civil action in such a situation ordering the offender to make the necessary improvements, in addition to fining. The appropriate remedy in the case of a private owner was to bring a private action. COM. CLAUDY wondered what the time-frame would be to make an offender clean up, as if it rained for an extended period this could be a problem. City Attorney Kilian estimated that proceedings would take a minimum of 30 days, but that at the time of a decision, the offender would have to post a bond to protect the City before going on with any appeal. COM. BLAINE wondered whether the City could step in to take action and charge the developer if a permit had been given for a certain period and certain things stipulated in the permit to be done had not been done. Weed abatement was treated in this way. ity Attorney Kilian thought this could be treated as a public nuisance, and the terms of the ordinance could include the right of the City to abate public nuisance. OM. BLAINE questioned whether a prospective nuisance could be abated, on the rounds that the developer had been required under the terms of the ordinance o take measures by a certain date, which had not been taken,and there was herefore the chance of tremendous damage being caused. ity Attorney Kilian advised that just because the time limit had not been obeyed ould not give the City the right to go onto the premises, and it would be hard o prove the probability of harm in this case. HR. KOENITZER wondered what powers a water quality act would give. ity Attorney Kilian said he had yet to see any water quality acts, and any he ew of were State acts empowering Regional Boards to act against big dischargers. e had never seen one enforced against a single property owner. ssistant Planning Director Cowan observed that, so far, the *ABAG Environmental anagement Plan had only asked that Cities cooperate and develop measures to antral erosion. OM. BLAINE felt the ordinance went beyond the Bay, and could help stop the in- onvenience and aggravation to neighbors and people downhill. If something auld be done within reasonable limits, she thought the Commission should study it. he concern for the hillsides was a neighborhood as well as a regional problem. OM. BINNEWEG noted that it was an indirect problem to many people, as the houses p in Regnart Canyon and on Lindy could be seen from allover the Valley. ssistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that there were indirect costs o everybody in water bills, etc., as the Santa Clara Valley Water District spent ny thousands of dollars every year to take silt out of their percolation ponds. *ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-3sl Page 9 He presumed that the Commission wanted Staff to look at both the issue of rainy season prohibition and vegetation removal. In terms of private property rights, the rule nowadays seemed to be not to become to heavily involved in the affairs of others, but some functional concerns had to be resolved. COM. CLAUDY observed that when the private property rights began infringin on the public rights, then the line should be drawn. Assistant Planning Director Cowan went on to the next issue of aesthetics in grading. The question that Staff had was should there be some aesthetic standards added that were precise enough for Staff to implement and yet general enough to allow individuals to design their'homes in the hillsides. He was referring to such things as slope rounding and contouring and cuts.T e only control' Staff had right now was in regard to subdivision activity. COM. CLAUDY suggested that slope rounding and step cuts, or terracing, shQuld be included in the ordinance for Staff implementation. COM. BLAINE wanted Staff to come up with some alternatives on the aesthetic and their practicality. She thought maybe Staff could go through the hill- side applications to look at the conditions that the Commission had placed on them. Those conditions should be in the ordinance, she felt, because they had been of concern to the, Commission and the neighbors. Assistant City Engineer Whitten suggested that if the Commission did get into this area, they should either be very precise or very general, so that Staff did not have to argue with people on interpretation. CHR. KOENTIZER introduced the last issue of the elevation differences between sidewalks and buildings. Assistant Planning Director Cowan noted that this issue primarily related to commercial, office and multi-family projects. Assistant City Engineer Whitten reported that the City had been rece~v~ng many complaints in the past few years regarding the height of the first floor of buildings above the sidewalks. If control was desired, a maximum slope from sidewalk to building would have to be set, or the height of the building above the curb. It was stipulated in City ordinances that a cut slope could be 1 ft. vertical for 1.1(2 ft. horizontal and a fill slope 1 ft. vertical to 2 ft. horizontal or less, on the recommendation of a soil engineer. However there was no restriction on how many feet of slope there could be, so that the building could be 15 ft. above the sidewalk if it were far enough back. CHR. KOENITZER, using the example of the office building at the corner of Stevens Creek and Bubb Road, said to him it certainly seemed to be a lot higher above the sidewalk that the original intent. COM. BLAINE wondered how this sort of thing could happen when the Commi- ssion approved the plans at a certain height. PC-3sl ~ge 10 INUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ssistant Planning Director Cowan explained that sometimes it happened ecause the catch basin was at a certain elevation, and it was a require- ent that all downgrade water flow into the catch basins. If the project ngineer had not realized that the catch basin inlet was at a certain height the building sometimes had to be raised a foot or two. ssistant City Engineer Whitten said that when the first plans came in, all information was not always shown. In the case of the building at Bubb and tevens Creek, Bubb Road dropped off quite sharply there, so that whereas the building was below the curb on Stevens Creek, around the corner on Bubb it as several feet up. COM. BLAINE'S feeling was that she liked different elevations and did not want over-control. Perhaps the issue could be discussed in the Staff Reports and aybe added to the ordinance. COM. CLAUDY said many people were concerned with the appearânce of the Four-Phase building, but the problem was that the site sloped up towards the next street COM. BLAINE felt therefore that maybe the issue should be discussed when the development plans came in, rather than being added to the ordinance. COM. BINNEWEG thought there was a problem with lay people looking at plans and not seeing them in three dimensions. She felt maybe Staff could help the Commission with more input and discussion on the matter in their Staff Report. COM. BLAINE added that if examples of slopes of the types proposed could be shown in the Staff Report it would help. Even if flexibility and variables were desirable, it should be something that was discussed. Dorothy Wright, 22303 Regnart Road, Cupertino, said she agreed that the fine system for viólating ordinances was not workable in its present form. She further agreed that violations often took place at weekends, and pointed out that the "hit man" that could be called to deal with such matters was difficult to get in touch with. She thought violations should perhaps be made misdemeanors. One solution that had occurred to her was that grading should be limited to some extent, and 20% or over grading, which would cause much erosion, should be considered before a permit was given. The removal of vegetation was a major factor here, and some types of native vegetation were very fire retardant. The Native Plan Society of California encouraged people in the hills to plant them. There was a problem when large acreages were cleared off at one time, and perhaps one solution was to begin immediate planting before building could commence, not only with grass but also more soil retaining plants. Eventually, the plantings could be cleared 30 ft. back from the house for fire protection. CHR: KOENITZER pointed out that it would be difficult to get a judge to put someone in jail for a grading violation. COM. CLAUDY felt that if the Commission did not take this ordinance out of order, there would be no point in continuing. The fact that there were several ordinances and the General Plan ahead of this was discussed. MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-351 Page 11 Assistant City Engineer Whitten suggested that he could finish the techni- cal part on which he was receiving free legal counsel from *ABAG, and could stay away from aesthetic issues which would heavily involve the Commission. They could then continue at a later date. It was generally felt that it would be better to finish up quickly, and have the ordinance ready for the next rainy season. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said he could have a draft ready for the next Meeting. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy to continue the Hearing for one month, recommend to Council that the Grading Ordinance be of the Planning Department sequence. Com. Adams PASSED and to taken out MOTION: 5-0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM #2. Discussion of new State legislation concerning Mobile Homes. (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 1981). Assistant Planning Director Cowan recapped briefly, explaining that in December, 1980 Staff had mentioned a new law, SB.1960, which essentially prohibited the City from controlling the construction and installation of mobile homes within the community, and stipulating that they should be treated as R.I homes. There were several regulatory approaches that could be taken, but Staff felt the City could probably live with the law without further controls. If the City did wish to regulate, there would have to be equal treatment for all single family homes. It was felt if someone was to install a stereotype "trailer" there would be immediate pressure to consider the problem, but this event was highly unlikely, since an owner probably would not put one on a $60/80,000 lot. It was entirely possible, however, to have a flat-roofed, stereotyped struc- ture with aluminum siding, as any mobile home certified under the Nationa Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act, 1974 could be installe There were some ambiguities in the law, for instance, the bill was intended for outright prohibition of City control, and yet one section said that cities could exercise some control. Yet another section said the City had the ability to designate certain lots as suitable and com- patible. In a homogeneous community, it was difficult to make such a differentiation. COM. BINNEWEG thought that any pressure should be initiated by the neigh- borhood, which could complain to the Council. COM. BLAINE said the Council could do nothing unless it was in the ordinances. CHR. KOENITZER, observing that the structure certification procedure, thought that anyone would not want to put an old-type trailer on know if many of the certified type resembled would have to meet the 1976 buying even a $40,000 lot it, though he wanted to the old type. PC-35l "-"ge 12 MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Assistant Planning Director Cowan said they did in some cases. COM. BLAINE reasoned that someone might want to put one on a lot for a couple of years, intending to put a house there later. In that case, they would not want a costly model. COM. CLAUDY thought the situation would be unlikely, as a foundation would have to be built, with plumbing connections, and set-backs would have to be met and a 2-car garage installed. After that, there would not be room for a house. Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that a foundation could be a piered system only. CHR. KOENITZER observed that this was something that had not been brought out, that a permanent foundation did not mean a typical cast perimeter founda- tion, as would be found under a traditional house. COM. CLAUDY thought the standard of concrete perimeter foundations could be applied to all homes if the Commission desired, but he felt foundations could be piers, especially in the hills. CHR. KOENITZER observed that most piers under houses were just sitting on the ground. They should be required to go into the ground. COM. BLAINE in the City. enough. thought she had seen a mobile home used She questioned if this was acceptable as an addition to a house if the lot was large Assistant Planning Director Cowan said it was COM. BLAINE said she would prefer not to have any regulations at this time, dealing with problems if they came up. The two examples of mobile homes she had seen in the City were perfectly acceptable, she felt. COM. BINNEWEG said she could see where some cities had problems with trailers and wanted to be rid of them, but this City was at a more sophisticated level, and people felt controls were getting too tight. COM. ADAMS questioned whether anything had come of a plan a few years back to situate a mobile home park on the west side of Cupertino. Planning Director Sisk confirmed that nothing had, but that there would be no room now anyway. He said that what the Planning Department wanted to do was to advise City Council that the Planning Commission had read the law, and come to a consensus. It was really not a Hearing. COM. BLAINE said that even though it was not a Public Hearing, if anyone had comments she would like to hear them. There was no response. MOTION: Com. Claudy, to send a Minute Order to Council recommending that no action be taken concerning the manufactured housing in the City of Cupertino. SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED 5-0 MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-351 Page 13 NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHR. KOENITZRR reported that tne foundations for the tank house were still 16 ft. from the property line instead of the required 20 ft. Planning Director Sisk said there was no real requirement of how far it had to be. Staff was placing it on the property in the flattest area possible, requiring the least amount of grading. CHR. KOENITZER stated that the drawing approved by City Council showed a measurement of 20 ft. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said he would check into the matter, as th tank house would be moved any day now, COM. CLAUDY thought that it was now in a reasonable spot, where it would be visible. He did not think it mattered if it was 16 ft. or 20 ft. from the property line. COM. BINNEWEG also saw no reason for moving it, necessitating construction of retaining walls, and so forth. Planning Director Sisk said he would check the plans. REPORT OF THE PLfu~NING DIRECTOR Planning Director Sisk asked the Commission to review their copies of the Hayward information, if possible. MEETING ADJOUfu~ED 9.39 P.M. APPROVED: ATTEST: ~0: Cit Clerk