Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 10-28-1974I CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1.0300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 1974 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chairman O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Adams, Cooper, Gatto (7:40), Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe Comm. absent: None Staff present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Associate Planner Laurin Associate Planner Cowan Assistant City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Engineer Whitten APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 14, 1974: Page 9, middle of the page, just above motion regarding 10-V-74: strike the sentence: "Comm. Woodward said . . . . .kind of problem. Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Cooper to approve the Minutes of October 14, 1974, as amended. Motion carried, 4-0 Minutes of Regular Adjourned Meeting of October 16, 1974: Page 5, paragraph 6, second line: Strike "solid waste" and replace with "crank case oil". Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Woodward to approve the Minutes of October 16, 1974, as amended. PC -170 Page 1 Motion carried, 4-0 PC --170 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (POSTPONEMENTS Item 7 - Applications 30-Z-74 and 28-U-74: Staff requested postponement. Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Cooper to postpone applications 130-Z-74 and 28-U-74 to November 13, 1974. Motion carried, 4-0 !WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. (ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Chairman O'Keefe noted that this is the first meeting, in years that Ms. Ann Anger has missed. Our "Citizen At Large" had too heavy a schedule at this time and was unable to attend. ;Chairman O'Keefe stated that in order to decrease the length of the meet-ing,-no-itee-wcul-he-in-itiated---fter--midn-ightr- Comm. Cooper was in favor of not initiating any public hearing after (midnight; however, there may be some other brief items that could be [handled after midnight. (Comm. Adams would prefer not to initiate any item after midnight. He (would rather go to a second meeting that same week in order to complete ,the agenda, if necessary. ;Comm. Gatto felt that it might be appropriate at midnight to make an assessment of the balance of the agenda and decide at that time whether to complete it, have another meeting that week, or to postpone the ,balance of the agenda to the next regular meeting. Comm. Woodward said an assessment should be made of the items of business other than public hearings and then decide how to dispense with them. (Chairman O'Keefe said that to involve the public is the purpose of these imeetings. A second meeting might be in the best interest of the community. He suggested the Commissioners reserve their comments until after closing of the public hearings and only ask questions during the public hearings. This might expedite the public hearings. The Planning Director said the only problem with that is the applicant and audience then do not have a chance for rebuttal. Chairman O'Keefe said the Commissioners could make comments after completion of the input from the public and then there could be more input from the public. [Comm. Cooper said that at times, the making of a decision requires some [dialogue. We wouldn't want to restrict that. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I PC-170 Page 3 Moved by Comm. Cooper, seconded by Comm. Gatto that no public hearing shall be initiated after midnight, but at that point the Planning Commission will consider the remainder of the agenda itemE and make comments when they will be reviewed. If there are any other items on the agenda that the Planning Commission feels shoulc be discussed after midnight, then they will do this. Motion carried, 3-2 Comm. Adams and Chairman O'Keefe dissented Comm. Woodward said he would rather meet two nights a week than restrict any of the comments. Chairman O'Keefe said he was not asking that comments be restric but that the Commissioners reserve their comments to the end of the discussion, just prior to closing of the public hearing to avoid repetition or redundancy, and then allow rebuttal from the audience. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. City of Cupertino: Public Hearing to consider 1973 Comprehensive General Plan. a. Hillsides Associate Planner Laurin recapped the previous discussions on the slope density formula, dated October 25, 1974. He suggested a mor( precise geological map might be in order. He then reviewed the "Proposed Dividing Line Between Valley Zoning and Foothill Zoning". report. He noted that at this time it is inadvisable to construct some of the paper streets in the area just south of the City water tank. The Church property, the Bayshore property and the Kestor property are set up somewhat different from the rest. He noted that we don't seem to get into difficulties as far as utilities, schools, etc., are concerned with the densities discussed here. There followed a discussion of how to achieve the transition between the hillsides and the flat lands. Stability is a factor to be considered. Chairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the audience. PC -1 70 Page 4 Hillsides public hearing cont'd to Nov. 6th MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. H. H. Ashton, Kaiser Cement, Oakland, asked if other factors are to be considered on their property. Associate Planner Laurin said no credit will be given for the very steep terrain. Mr. Alvin L. Anderson, 1023 Woodline Way, San Jose, representing the Seventh Day Adventist Church, explained that their property straddles the line between the hillside and the valley. He advised that each property is unique and should be reviewed individually. He hoped the Planning Commission would allow some other factors to play a part in their decision. Comm. Woodward described two situations: The quarry with steep slopes and one of step variation. Specific properties should be studied individually. Mr. 3. W. Rossetti, Eureka Federal Savings and Loan, 4610 Mission Street, San Francisco, said their interest is in the 8-10 acres at the end of Voss Avenue. They object to any change in present zoning and object to any objections of the staff to their present proposal for development of their property. The Planning Director answered the Chairman that this property is presently zoned 16 units per acre, which is inconsistent- with the- -present -ener- al - Plan-.- -------- Mr. Anderson suggested the Planning Commission should look at both maximum and minimum density and perhaps then consider averages. Comm. Woodward said the Planning Commission can put down guidelines but he did not think he would be in favor of allowing the applicant to control the density. He further felt that, landslide areas and' unstable areas should be so certified. It was decided that a special meeting on this subject was in order. It was scheduled for 7:30 P.M. on November 6, 1974. Some direction was given to the Planners to prepare for this meeting. Moved by Comm. Cooper, seconded by Comm. Gatto to continue the public hearing on hillsides to 7:30 P.M., November 6, 1974. Motion carried, 5-0 Chairman O'Keefe called a recess at 9:30. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 P.M. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2. City of Cupertino: Amendment to Ordinance 220(e), Cluster Ordinance, establishing new regulations affecting residential cluster developments, First Hearing continued. Associate Planner Cowan reviewed the changes made to the Ordinance as reflected in the October 28, 1974, memo entitled: "Amendments to Draft 4, Cluster Ordinance". Associate Planner Cowan said the Tri County Apartment Association and the Manager of the Fountainbleu Apartments were informed of the review of this ordinance taking place at this meeting. Chairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Moved by Comm. Cooper, seconded by Comm. Woodward to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Cooper to recommend to the City Council the 5th draft of the Cluster Ordinance, to be prepared by the staff and incorporating changes made at this meet- ing. Motion carried, 5-0 3. Application 29-Z-74 of DITZ-CRANE: REZONING 0.25 acres from Santa Clara County R1-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) and City of Cupertino R1-7.5 (Resi dential, single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) to R2-4.25 (Residential, duplex, 4,250 sq. ft. per dwelling unit), or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said property is located easterly of and adjacent to Foothill Blvd. approximately 130 feet northerly of the intersection of Rancho Ventura Street and Foothill Blvd. First Hearing continued. -Assistant Planner Cowan said the tentative map adjusting the property lines on subject property was approved at the last meetin It was then forwarded to the City Council. The applicant wishes to rezone for duplex and has been informed the only recourse is to apply for an amendment to the General Plan in order to do this. Chairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the audience. There were none. PC -170 Page 5 Cluster Ord. sent to City Council PC -170 Page 6 29--Z-74 denial recommended MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Woodward to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 5--0 Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to recommend to the City Council that this property be zoned consistent with the General Plan; i.e., 7,500 sq. ft. lot size. Motion carried, 5-0 4. Application 11-V-74 of CARL E. STOREY: VARIANCE from Section 16.28.010 of the Fence Ordinance to increase the height of a proposea fence from a maximum oi_ tutee feet to six feet i4itcilu the front setback line. Said property is located at 22266 DeAnza Circle. First Hearing. Associate Planner Cowan reviewed aerial photographs of the area, explaining the backgr-ound_concerning thissubdivision, contained in the October 23, 1974 staff report. The staff recommended denial of this application based on: 1) The placement of a 6' fence within the front setback of the property on DeAnza Circle affects the general appearance of the area and the interests of the surrounding property owners, which is contrary to the intent of the original development plans for DeAnza Circle. 2) There are alternative solutions for the placement of the fence on the lot which could achieve the desired results for the applicant's concern for privacy. 3) The applicant was unable to meet the criteria specified in Ordinance 002(a) Section 4.2 required for a variance. Colored slides of the property in question were shown. Attorney John Vasil, 1901 South Bascom, Campbell, representing Mr. Storey., said he was unaware there was a design criteria involved here. He referred to details in his September 24th letter to the Planning Commission. He felt his client should be afforded the right to security and privacy. The applicant next showed his colored slides of the property. Mr. Storey said he was not aware of the restrictions in his subdivision. He said none of the other property owners have the problems he has been experiencing. There has been trespassing across his property to get golf balls and to get to the open space beyond. Also, he has had some unpleasant experiences with "hippy —type" people at his residence. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Sharon Blaine, 22840 DeAnza Circle, showed colored slides of the homes in DeAnza Circle, demonstrating the openness of the area. She said he did not build the home; he bought it already built. She was speaking for 13 of the 15 residents who want to protect the openness of the area. Mr. Storey then said he was born and raised in San Francisco and never had any problems. This has changed. He has been robbed twice this year. He has a $16,000 swimming pool. A "hippy" came down his driveway and appeared to want to drive his Lincoln Continental Mark IV away. He also has 2 new 900 Kawasaki motor- cycles that he does not want to have stolen, as well as his Pantera sports car. He said he is trying to protect his security and privacy and still please the people in DeAnza Circle. M:.. Storey answered Comm. Cooper that he did not receive a copy of the C C & R's when he purchased the house. He was given a copy by the staff at this meeting. Mr. Storey said there are many homes within Cupertino that have 6' fences within the front setback line. Chairman O'Keefe felt the 6' fence would not necessarily clear up Mr. Storey's problems. Sharon Blaine offered the information that the DeAnza Circle Architectural Control Committee was made up of Mr. and Mrs. Tom Traemer, who have since divorced. Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Cooper to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Chairman O'Keefe, to deny application 11-V-74. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 Reasons for denial are: 1) The placement of a 6' fence within the front setback of the property on DeAnza Circle affects the general appearance of th( area and interests of the surrounding property owners which is contrary to the intent of the original development plans for DeAnza Circle. PC -170 Page 7 11-V-74 denied i'C-170 Page 8 Li -U-73 :.stension approved MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2) There are alternative solutions for the placement of the fence on the lot which could achieve the desired results for the applicantts concern for privacy. 3) The applicant was unable to meet the criteria specified in Ordinance 002(a) Section 4.2, required for a variance. 5. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY: Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Condition 15 of Planning Commission Resolution 1212 approving use permit application 11-U-73. The Planning Director reviewed the October 25th staff report in regard to construction phasing. They are asking now for permission to complete Phase.I. There were no comments from the applicant nor from the audience. Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Gatto to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Cooper to allow the extension lof the use permit for one year, as mentioned in the staff report, amending Condition 15 of Planning Commission Resolution 1212 to allow (construction to proceed within one year. (AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O`Keefe (NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 6. Applications 31-Z-74 and 23 -TM -74 of MATE SABIC: PREZONING 1.11 acres from Santa Clara County Al -(l acre) to City of Cupertino R1-7.5 (Residential, single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide parcel into five lots. Said property is located adjacent to and southerly of McClellan Road and approximately 350 feet westerly of Linda Vista Drive. First Hearing. Associate Planner Cowan identified the property in question on the platte map and the aerial photograph. This proposal for 5 lots fits in with the General Plan and with the general character of the neighborhood. The garage problem for Lot 5 was explored. It was felt the legal aspects of Rae Lane should be explored. The City Engineer said he had spoken with the City Attorney, who advised abandonment of Rae Lane. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Assistant City Engineer said McClellan Road is going to be improved from Linda Vista down to the bridge on the north side of the street. Fairway Seven has already put in more than a half street. Comm. Cooper was concerned with Lot 3, also. There was concern about whether or not there was adequate turn -around space. Mr. Richard Kier, 2378 B Walsh Avenue, Santa Clara, representing the applicant, said they have reviewed the staff report of October 25, 1974 and concur with it. He offered to answer any questions. The Associate City Planner said the rationale for not having a fee ownership for the driveways was one of economic hardship. There is abnormal dedication on the road. Comm. Cooper commented that this is a situation of trying to get the foot to fit the shoe. She is concerned about ingress/egress. Two mature trees must be removed in order to provide access. Lot 5 cannot conform in terms of another garage. Lot 3 building area will be smaller than the others. She feels the plan should be redesigned for 4 lots instead of 3 in order to come up with a better plan. Comm. Adams felt that if the 5 lots were granted here, a variance request would be forthcoming for a garage for Lot 1. Comm. Woodward wondered about the possibility of snaking a road in and preserving the trees. He felt the staff could work on this Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Chairman O'Keefe to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Woodward to recommend to the City Council approval of 31-Z-74, not speaking to the number of lots. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm. Cooper, seconded by Chairman O'Keefe to continue 23 -TM -74 to allow the applicant to restudy his proposal in order to make better use of his property. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: Comm. Gatto, Woodward PC -170 Page 9 31-Z-74 approved 23 -TM -74 continued Motion carried, 3-2 'C-170 Page 10 Ord. 652 amended Vending machines in service stations cont'd 61 -EA -74 �'.eg . decl . MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7. Applications 30-Z-74 and 28-U-74 - Postponed to November 12, 1974. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. Discussion of Procedural Ordinance with amendment. Moved by Comm. Cooper, seconded by Comm. Gatto, to recommend amendment of Procedural Ordinance No. 652 as set forth in the October 25, 1974 memo from the Planning Director. Motion carried, 5-0 9. Discussion of Vending Activities in Service Stations. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Woodward to continue discussion of vending activities in service stations. Motion carried, 5-0 NEW BUSINESS -- None. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: Recommendation for Negative Declaration 10. Application 61 -EA -74 Applicant Mark J. Alexander and Wallie Asquith Location Southwest corner of the intersection of University and Alhambra Avenues Discretionary Prezoning from Santa Clara County R2 (Residential, Action duplex) to City of Cupertino R1-7.5 (Residential, Requested single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) The Planning Director said the Committee found that the project to consider a change of zone for an existing 5,000 sq. ft. lot that is presently within County jurisdiction does not significantly impact the environment. Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Chairman O'Keefe to instruct the Planning Director to file a negative declaration on application 61--EA-74. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Comm. Cooper said she would like to have the Commission discuss the social element of the General Plan at a later date. This factor was included in the Goals Report. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR No report. ADJOURNMENT Chairman O'Keefe adjourned this meeting at 12:10 A.M. to 7:30 PM. on November 6, 1974. APPROVED: Is/ Daniel P. O'Keefe Chairman ATTEST: Is/ Urn. E. Ryder City Clerk PC -170 Page 11