Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 01-09-1974CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC --136 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 y Page 1 Telephone; 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MELTING OF THE PLANNING COIF,EIISSION HELD ON JANUARY 9, 1974 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMFER, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLA.G Chairman O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. with the Salute to the Flag. POLL CALL Comm. present: Adams, Buthenuth, Gatto, Nellis, Chairman O'Keefe Comm. absent: None Staff present: Director. of Planning and Development Sisk Associate Planner Cowan Assistant City Attorney Kilian COMi�UNICATIONS Written: Letter from Dr. Joseph Brown regarding EIR's. Oral: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider 1973 Comprehensive General Plan. (a) Recreational/Entertainment Zoning Ordinance Regulating Commercial Recreation Uses; (b) Amendment to Planned Development Zoning, Ordinance 002 (c) to Establish Procedures for the City of Cupertino to initiate a Planning Development Zoning District: (1) Town Center Plan PC -136 I MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1974 ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 The Planning Commissioners went over the third draft of the Planned Development Zone Ordinance dated January 7, 1974. There followed a discussion on the pros and cons of which body should have the power to grant or reject a use permit under a PD ordinance. It was felt to be important that the use permits have public hearings. It was also felt that it should be necessary for the findings and conditions to be referred back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should make findings in support of their approval or denial of an appli- cation. If an application is denied by the Planning Commission it would have to go to the City Council only by appeal. It would be required that the City Council send it back to the Planning Commission if they did not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Ms. Ann Anger, Monta Vista, said she was very much concerned that appeals to the City Council are not open to the public. She cited the "lumber yard" on Stevens Creek Boulevard that was denied recently by the Planning Commission but subsequently approved by the City Council. She said the County now charges $25.00 for an appeal. But she added she hopes the City of Cupertino does not decide to make this charge. Comm. Nellis wanted included in the Ordinance that all uses in a PD zone shall be defined at the time of the conceptual plan. Ms. Patti Briscoe, Monta Vista, asked for definition of Section 5.1. She is concerned about protecting the undeveloped land in Monte Vista so that it won't develop as downtown Cupertino has. Mr. Walter Ward, Vallco Park General Manager, wanted to discuss Sec— tion 4 on page 3, in regard to traffic generation. He said it would be rather difficult to be specific on Spec buildings. He suggested having a range instead. As to item 7 on page 3, he said that many times these projections would be tentative and not necessarily realistic. On page 4, Section 4, he recommended that appertenances on the roof should not project above the parapet of the building. Section 5 on page 4, Mr. Ward felt this would be difficult in the case of Spec buildings. On page 9, Mr. Ward said it would be difficult for the applicant to prepare a precise plan for a development as large as Vallco Park is. Section 9, Permitted Uses, Mr. Ward said these should allow for flexibility for things in the future that have not been thought of today; e.g., a transit station. He said from a marketing aspect it is necessary to be allowed some trade offs. An amendment procedure for conceptual plans should be worked out. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1974 ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Dr. Joseph Brown, 20985 Peppertree Lane, Cupertino, was answered that the requirement on page 3 was for total square footage of the buildings, not the square footage of each freestanding building. He was referred to Section 7.1 for clarification. Comm. Buthenuth said zoning requires conceptual plan, a use permit requires a definitive plan, Architecture and Site Control requires a precise plan. The Planning Director suggested something be added to Section 7.1 to speak to magnitude. Comm. Nellis believes there has to be flexibility for the Commission to consider a part of a planned development. After further discussion it was decided the staff would rework Section 7.1 before the January 14 meeting. Chairman O'Keefe called a recess at 9:30 p.m., the meeting reconvened at 9:47 p.m. Comm. Nellis stated that Section 9, Permitted Uses, should include the following statement. "All uses in a PD zone shall be defined at the time of the conceptual plan and shall be consistent with the adopted Genera]. Plan relative to the property (s) involved in this application". The Planning Director asked for the Commissioners' thoughts regarding the second draft of the Town Center plan. There was a short discussion as to what constitutes quasi public residential use. On page 4, there is reference to an Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 doesn't appear to be included in the second draft. On page 10, the second paragraph will be changed with the new Ordinance. Comm. Gatto submitted some written comments on the second draft for the staff to study. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams, to continue the Public Hearing on the 1973 Comprehensive General Plan to Monday, January 14th meeting. PC -136 Page 3 Motion carried, 5-0 PC -136 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1974 ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 2. Environmental Review Committee - Recommendation for Negative Declaration: (a) Application No. 26 -EA -73 Project Name - Vista West Duplex Applicant: James H. Thomas & Maurice M. Davis Location: 10191 Vista Drive, Cupertino Present Zoning: R1-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) Discretionary Action Requested: Applications for rezoning and tentative map The Planning Director said this application involves approximately five acres on Vista Drive. The Committee recommended a negative declaration be filed, which would allow the applicant to file for rezoning and tentative map without an EIR. This property is north of, out contiguous to, the moratorium area. Comm. Adams noted the environmental review did not address itself to any land locking of other properties. The Planning Director said this would be addressed at the time of Public Hearings. Moved by Comm. Buthenuth, seconded by Comm. Gatto, that a negative declaration be filed on Application 26 -EA -73. AYES: Comm. Adams, Buthenuth, Gatto, Nellis, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 MISCELLANEOUS The Planning Director introduced a tentative schedule of tasks that must be accomplished within a certain time frame. Comm. Gatto would like to see a program derived wherein at some point in time we can put all the pieces together and arrive at a total plan. For instance, he feels that what happens to the foothills will have some effect on the core area. He feels the general philosophy of this General Plan needs to be defined. Comm. Nellis said she believes this has been done to some extent with the consideration of the goals. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1974 ADJOURNED PLANNING CO1NISSION MEETING Comm. Gatto would like to see the goals and objectives set down in writing so that we can see the main thrust of the document. He would like to see a set of goals put at the top of the list of tasks to be done. The Planning Director said the infilling of the valley floor and the foothills will be studied seperately. The next recomm- endation to the City Council will be at least the infilling of the valley floor. Comm. Gatto suggested that since there is an existing General Plan with a set of objectives that the Commission take a look at them and accept, reject or amend them. The Planning Director would like to set up a schedule of forth- coming meetings. The Commission generally felt there should be weekly meetings for some time. The Planning Director would like the information as soon as possible as to who will be attending the League of California Cities Planning Institute in Palm Springs on February 6, 7 and 8. The Planning Director asked the Commissioners to begin thinking about the role of the small car in our parking ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Comm. Buthenuth, seconded by Comm. Gatto, to adjourn the meeting at 10:27 p.m. Motion carried, 5-0 APPROVED: /s/ Daniel P. 0°Keefe Chairman ATTEST: /s/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk PC -136 Page 5