Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 01-14-1974CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telenhone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 14, 1974 , IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chairman O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Adams, Buthenuth, Gatto, Nellis, Chairman O'Keefe Comm. absent: None Staff present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Assistant City Attorney Kilian Associate Planner Cowan Assistant City Engineer Witten APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of. Regular Meeting of December 10, 1973: Page 3, next to the last paragraph should read: "Comm. Nellis observed that all through this document there are items for which the Architectural and Site Approval Committee could give guidance. Page 4, third paragraph, last line, insert the word "only" between the words "density" and "if". Page 2, last motion, just before POSTPONEMENTS: Add "Motion carried, 5-0" Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to approve the Minutes of December 10, 1973, as corrected.. Motion carried, 5-0 PC -137 Page 1 PC -137 Page 2 Dec. 27th Minutes approved 15-Z-73 and 18 -TM -73 postponed to Jan. 28th OF THE JANUARY 14, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING utes of Regular Meeting of December 27, 1973: age 2, last, paragraph, delete "Buthenuth" and replace with "O'Keefe". oved by Comm. Nellis, seconded by Comm. Gatto to approve the Minutes of ecember 27, 1973, as corrected. Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Adams abstained POSTPONEMENTS Application 15-Z-73 and 18 -TM -73 of DAVID & THELMA B. CAMPBELL. Postponed to January 28th meeting, per applicants request. Moved by Comm. Buthenuth, seconded by Comm. Adams to postpone applications 15-Z-73 and 18 -TM -73 to January 28, 1974. AYES: Comm.,Adams, Buthenuth, Gatto, Nellis, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 4-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There were none. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were 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(o) to Establish Procedures for the City of Cupertino to Initiate a Planned Development Zoning District: (1) Town Center Plan MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING C. Neighborhood Commercial Ordinance to Regulate Convenience Neighborhood Commercial Uses. First Hearing. Chairman O'Keefe asked the Commissioners if there were any addi- tions or corrections to the fourth draft of the ordinance regard Planned Development Zone. Section 7.1 was discussed and reworded for clarity. The Planning Director wanted to discuss with the Commissioners the term "architectural theme", listed on Page 2, Item B 1. It was generally felt that the Commission wants to see enough of the plan; to understand the general scheme and scale of the project. Mrs. Patti Briscoe, Monta Vista, wanted to refer to Item 7. When a landowner develops a portion of their land and later would like to add to it, she would like to have the requirement that they submit pictures of the existing structures along with their new plans to make sure they are compatible. She would also like to sei some protection of the wide setbacks presently in Monta Vista area Comm. Buthenuth noted that Mrs. Briscoe was speaking about single family residences and the item under discussion at this time was the Planned Development Ordinance. On Page 5, Comm. Buthenuth wanted to ask the City Attorney's opinion on whether or not we can condition zoning in the case of the PD Zone, recognizing the legal opinion that you cannot condi- tion zoning. The Assistant City Attorney answered that if the applicant does not meet the conceptual plan they do not get the permit to build. Comm. Buthenuth felt that in Section 6.2, subitems D, E and F appear to go beyond conceptual development plans. They are more definitive than conceptual. The Assistant City Attorney refer- enced Section 5, with Section 6.3 A through F for the specific requirement such as other information as described in Section 6.2 A through G, or as desired by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Discussion followed. Chairman O'Keefe asked if there were any comments from the audience in regard to the joining of Sections 4 and 6. There wer( none. PC -137 Page 3 PC -137 Page 4 Amended Ord. 002(o) recom- mended to Council Gen'l Plan Public Hearing continued to Jan. 17th NUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING he changes to the fourth. draft were reviewed once again with the ssociate Planner and Planning Director. Moved by Comm. Buthenuth, seconded by Comm. Gatto that Amended Ordinance 002(o) be recommended to -the City Council as amended at this meeting. Reference draft 4, dated January 11, 1974, as amended January 14, 1974. AYES: Comm.. Adams, Buthenuth, Gatto, Nellis, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 The Planning Commission next discussed a schedule for future meetings. It was decided the Town Center Plan would be discussed on January 17, 1974. Time permitting, there will also be discussions on Neighborhood Commercial and on Goals. Moved by Comm. Nellis, seconded by Comm. Adams to continue the Public Hearing on the General Plan to Thursday, January 17, 1974. Motion carried, 5-0 2. Application 16-Z-73 of THOMAS G. TRAEL'MER: PREZONING 0.388 acres from Santa Clara County R1-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) to City of Cupertino Rl-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cupertino Road and Crescent Road. First Hearing. The property was located on the Neighborhood Map by the Associate Planner. He called attention to Mr. Traeumer's letter of January 10th in which he requested his application be modified from R1-7.5 to R1-10. This would be consistent with the neighborhood. He noted that the applicant needs to prezone in order to obtain water service. The road pattern at this time is somewhat academic, since the applicant will have to dedicate when he applies for a building permit. This application was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and was given a negative declaration. Chairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the audience. A MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Linda Baratz, 22314 Cupertino Road, Monta Vista, asked if this action tonight would mean the property would be rezoned and ready to be built. She added that there are other prospective buyers interested who do not intend to develop the property. The Planni. Director said the owner would have to petition for annexation before he is allowed to build. The prezoning would remain on the property until it is annexed. Arline Moore, 2237 Cupertino Road, Monta Vista asked if the appli- cant wishes to put just one, single family dwelling on this property. The Planning Director said this is correct. Moved by Comm. Nellis, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried, 5--0 Moved by Comm. Nellis, seconded by Comm. Adams to recommend to the City Council approval of application 16-Z-73 to R1-10. AYES: Comm. Adams, Buthenuth, Gatto, Nellis, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 3. Application 15-Z-73 and 18 -TM -73 of DAVID & THELMA B. CAMPBELL PREZONING 0.66 acres from Santa Clara County Rl-10 (Residentia single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) to City of Cupertino Rl-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appro- priate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to divide 0.66 acre into two parcels. Said property is located at 22701 San Juan Road. First Hearing. POSTPONED TO JANUARY 28, 1974. 4. Application 20 -TM -73 of F. E. ROBLES (Juanita Williams): TENTATIVE KNP to legalize an existing .305 acre parcel in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 568. Said property is within a R1-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone and is located adjacent to Mount Crest Drive, approximately ].00 feet from the intersection of Linda Vista Drive and Mount Crest Drive. First Hearing... PC -137 Page 5 16-Z-73 approved 15-Z-73 & 18 -TM -73 postponed to Jan. 28th PC -137 Page 6 .1INUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4oved by Comm. Buthenuth, seconded by Comm. Nellis to combine the Public Hearings on items 4 and 5. Motion carried, 5-0 5. Application 21 -TM -73 of F. E. ROBLES (Juanita Williams): TENTATIVE MAP to remove lot line between two parcels to consolidate said parcels into one building site. Said property consists of .694 acres and is located within a Rl-10 (Resi- dential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone, located northwest of Mount Crest Drive and south of Linda Vista Drive. First Hearing. The Planning Director referred to staff reports of January 11, 1974 and April 19, 1973 on this matter. He said it was his understanding the property owners are involved in court action relative to access to this property. The present, improved driveway is not entirely on Parcel A. The Planning Staff recommended the map be approved and the existing roadway provide access to the property since moving the roadway would involve extensive earth movement. The Planning Director answered Comm. Nellis that Condition 15, as recommended in the January 11th staff report, would clear the way for the property owner. It does nothing to the parcel size. Generally speaking, we are getting away from flag lots, however. The Assistant City Attorney advised that this is an illegal situation, partly the City's fault and partly the applicant's. There is an existing driveway. The real question is whether or not the City can condition the tentative map to clear up this illegal lot split. The City Attorney feels that it can. This is a matter of dedication, not to the City but rather to the other property owner. He feels an easement would solve this illegal lot split problem. lChairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the audience. Attorney Melvin Hawley, P.O. Box A K, Los Altos, said he represented the applicant. He disagrees with the opinion of the City Attorney. He then went to the map on the bulletin board and explained his version of the situation. He said that if Mr. Marquese is given his easement, then Mrs. Williams might as well forget her law suit. I The Planning Director said that granting of the easement would not make the small lot illegal. Comm. Gatto asked Mr. Hawley if it is his client's desire to combine these lots to make a more desirable, buildable lot. Mr. Hawley said the matter has gone on so long now that his client is running out of money. She does not want to give up her law suit because she has been injured. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Attorney Dan Donovan, 20440 Town Center Lane, Cupertino, said he was representing the Marquese family. He stated that Mr. Hawley had inadvertently omitted some facts. All three parcels belonged at one time to the same owner. This previous owner, Mr. Chase, indicated to Mr. Marquese that he would be able to build on one pad. Furthermore, Mrs. Robles purchased her property with the driveway where it is. It is his understanding that she purchased the two lots in order to make a larger, buildable. lot. He con- tends that Mrs. Robles has no need for this roadway but rather is using it to prevent Mr. Marquese from building on his lot. He asked why she should be concerned about a roadway that is off from two to ten feet. He believes this could be resolved rather simply. Mr. Hawley said he believes Mr. Chase is the real culprit here. He asked that this matter be put over for two weeks to see if something can be worked out. Ms. Juanita McLaren, 22101 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, said she lives just above this property. She said this is not the only time Mr. Chase has hurt innocent people. She, too, was hurt, It seemed to her that since there is such a scarcity of homesites, that if it is possible to create three instead of two lots here, that it would be the logical way to go. Mr. Donovan answered Chairman O'Keefe that he would be agreeable to putting this matter over for two weeks. Comm. Gatto said he would not object to three building sites here as long as there is no disturbance of the contours of the land. Comm. Adams would be in favor of having the parties work out the details among themselves. Comm. Nellis would prefer to see 1 lot here because this is in a hilly area. However, she would like to see the problems re- solved. She would like to see some additional staff reports on this, including one from Engineering, before the next regular meeting. Moved by Comm. Buthenuth, seconded by Comm. Nellis to continue applications 20 -TM -73 and 21 -TM -73 for two weeks. Motion carried, 5-0 PC -137 Page 7 20 -TM -7 3 21 -TM -7 3 postponed 2 weeks and for PC -137 Page 8 2-U-7 0 1 yr extension granted NUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 1974 PLANNING C0?tIISSION MEETING UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. Extension of Application 2-U---70 of MARIANISTS PROVINCE OF THE PACIFIC The Associate Planner referred to details in the January 11, 1974 staff report on this matter. The plans have been -in Plan Check in the Building Department for some time. Moved by Chairman O'Keefe, seconded by Comm. Catto to extend for an additional one-year period application 2-U-70 for the archives building of the Narianist Province of the Pacific, subject to the conditions of approval specified by Planning Commission Resolution No. 737. AYES: Comm. Adams, Buthenuth, Gatto, Nellis, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Comm. Nellis would like the staff to write a letter to Sears, coumiending them for conserving energy by turning off.excess interior and exterior lights. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Conflict of Interest packets have been given to the Commissioners. The Director asked the Commission if they might be in favor of using one of their three available amendments to the General Plan for a small acreage at McClellan and Orange Avenue, owned by MacKay Homes. After discussion, it was generally felt that until we have an amended General Plan we should not consider small parcels. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Comm. Nellis, seconded by Comm. Gatto to adjourn the meeting at 9:23 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, January 17, 1974. Motion carried, 5-0 ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Win. E. Ryder /s/ Daniel P. O'Keefe City Clerk Chairman