103-B. Planning Commission Minutes for 10/12/10.pdfCupertino Planning Commission 2;
October 12, 2010
om. Giefer:
• aid that if a permit expired in two years, she could pull her permit and then not have to hav
fu ing for the project; and then in 24 months after that notification period, she could s a
prof t that is so far in the future by the time that it is executed on the ground and co leted,
they ar ushing that out; it is not just a three month notification.
• Said she trying to understand what could be the worst case project on the gr nd after this
is submitted\permitbeco
ree months, that is actually 3 months plus 24 mo s or 6 months
plus 24 mont
Aarti Shrivastav
• Once a builapplied for, it needs to be kept ac ' e; if the inactive time is
exceeded, thes expired and re -application fo he permit is necessary. The
inactivity pers a one extension is allowed.
Com. Miller:
• Relative to the industry side, people ma a decision o do a development well in advance. It is
appropriate to give lead time, if they deci tha s the straw that broke the camel's back and
they don't want to go ahead with the develop nt, they are not caught. For that reason alone, it
is reasonable to give a lead time. He said su orted 6 months, for larger projects a year or
two. As Com. Giefer said earlier, peo know th* discussion is happening, so for the larger
projects, they are more aware and ar going to be co 'ng in and staff will inform them. There
is concern about the smaller proj ts, where 1:hey are p bably not aware and you don't want
them to get caught.
Chair Brophy:
• There aren't people ing to do building plans on larger projects ow. There are individual
homes and those uld be the issue, but they have a shorter lead ti in terms of preparing
design docume .
Aarti Shrivas va:
• Said s would follow up with the City Manager on the availability of funds to ve Walker
We attend the next meeting the application was continued to.
Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to continue Application MCA-2010-04 to the October 26, 2010 meeting.
4. MCA-2010-05 Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.100 (Parking Ordinance)
City of Cupertino with associated amendments to Chapter 19.08 (Definitions) related to
Citywide Location clarifying language regarding storage and parking of heavy
equipment, aircraft and planned non -operational vehicles in residential
zones. Postponed from the September 28, 2010 Planning Commission
meeting; Tentative City Council date: November 16, 2010.
Pin Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.100 (Parking
Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal Code with associated amendments regarding storage
and parking of heavy equipment and planned non -operational vehicles in residential zones, as
outlined in the staff report.
• The purpose of the Parking Ordinance is to regulate the parking of vehicles which are
unsightly, oversized or detrimental to property values, or to the peace and enjoyment of
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 October 12, 2010
neighboring property owners or residents. She reviewed the proposed amendments to the
ordinance, including parking on impervious and semi -pervious surface, storage of heavy
equipment, storage of airplanes, planned non -operational vehicles, and farm equipment, as
outlined in the staff report.
Com. Giefer:
• Questioned if the small tractor on Regnart Road would have to be removed, noting that it was
likely originally agricultural or RHS but now being rezoned to residential. She said she would
not want to see it removed as it has been on the property longer than many people have been in
Cupertino.
Pin Ghosh:
• Said that it would have to be covered up behind a fence.
Code Enforcement staff:
• Said that the tractor had been there for many years and was probably originally a decorative
statuary at some point in time; although the property is in disrepair and the owners are no
longer there. He said it could be an unattractive nuisance and should be removed at some
point; as there was no reason to preserve it although it may have some historical significance to
the residents who have been around many years.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she understood the ordinance, but said there is a certain charm to some of the artifacts that
have been in Cupertino a lot longer than many people; and she did not want the Ballards to
have to remove the tractor from their property or that the bi-plane would have to be removed
from Regnart.
Staff:
• It does not have to be removed, but has to meet the requirements of screening which has to be
behind a conforming fence. Said it would be difficult to separate the historical equipment.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
• Larry Goe, 10279 Brett Avenue: (Mr. Goe left the meeting earlier and his opinion was
conveyed by Gary Chao):
• Expressed concern about Section 19.100.030 specifically regarding the number of vehicles that
the current ordinance restricts in front and side yard areas. His concern is that there seems to be
a need for additional vehicles allowed to be stored; in discussion with his neighbors instead of
the maximum of 4 vehicles permitted on residential lots of 10,000 sq. ft. or less, and 6 vehicles
permitted in other residential zones; he recommended that those two numbers be increased
from 4 to 6 and 6 to 8.
• He felt if somebody has a fairly large lot, and has the need, there should be a way for the city
to allow for storage of vehicles, specifically if it is behind a fence.
Gary Chao:
• Said they were not proposing to change the section; it is not within the scope of being changed,
that is the existing ordinance. Section Al prescribes that those requirements only come up
when you are seeking to park in the front yard area or side yard area visible to the public. The
one instance where it talked about rear.yard area, is also a situation where you have a corner
lot and have a portion of your rear lot potentially visible.
Cupertino Planning Commission 29 October 12, 2010
The current ordinance allows for additional vehicles to be parked on any residential property as
long as it is not visible to the public, on the front or the side setback requirements.
Gary Chao explained that if a person has a fairly large lot and wants to put something in the
back yard, no one can see since it is fenced in, the current ordinance allows for additional
vehicles in addition to the number of cars being prescribed here; or if they have a large lot and
can build a sizable house with many garages enclosed and the cars would not be visible, those
cars won't be counted toward that.
• Gary Chao said that in essence, the ordinance does address Mr. Goe's concern.
Staff:
• Said that vehicles over 10,000 pounds are not permitted to be parked in driveways, such as
tractors, semi -trucks that tow, big rig tractor; some tow trucks are over 10,000 trucks.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he supported it in its current form.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Supports Option B; said that if it is farm equipment, it could be under the heading as heavy
equipment and was acceptable if it is not seen by the residents and screened behind a fence.
Farm equipment should be allowed on residential properties subject to screening like other
heavy equipment.
Chair Brophy:
• Said it made sense to him; and he was not sure there was a big difference between farm
equipment and any other heavy equipment.
Com. Miller:
• Supported Option B.
Gary Chao:
• Said that usually code enforcement cases are processed based on complaints received. Given
that the farm equipment has been there for more than 15 years, it was doubtful that anyone
would raise a concern. In the event that the; property owner comes in for development, or
permit required for modification, that is when staff would move forward on it.
Chair Brophy:
• Said there was consensus for Option B, with the statement all heavy equipment can apply to all
properties as long as it is screened. Staff will make the change accordingly.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0-0
to approve Application MCA-2010-05 with the alternative Option to allow farm
equipment to be classified as heavy equipment, and that it would be allowed on
residential properties including Rl, RZ, RHS and Al zones, but subject to screening
like other heavy equipment.
Friendly amendment by Com. Kaneda: That it apply to non-residential properties as well.
Vice Chair Lee and Com. Miller accepted the friendly amendment. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0-0.
Cupertino Planning Commission 30
October 12, 2010
Com. Giefer:
• Commented that when PG&E and the Water Company are doing tree and line work with heavy
equipment, they stage their equipment on the road where the horse corral use to be; and it is by
agreement with the property owners that they are allowed to park their heavy equipment there
for whatever period of time it takes to make repairs; and none of that is screened. She said to
her knowledge no one complains about it because they are glad to have the work done, but it
flies in the fact of that type of staging. Will PG&E and the water company park their cars,
their heavy equipment some place else and bring it back every day.
Aarti Shrivastava:
The last sentence in the paragraph on heavy equipment, says that heavy equipment may
temporarily be kept for construction or installation of improvements; if there is construction
going on, we do consider that. There is nothing happening on this site, we have the ability to
say move it or screen it.
OLD BUSINESS: None
UZOM
• No meeting. meeting is scheduled for Thursday October 14`h, Ch ' Brophy will attend in
Com. Kaneda" p e.
Mayor's MonthlyMeetingith Commissioners:
• Meeting may be scheduled Wed. October 13`h.
No
• Aarti Shrivastava reviewed the Council' iision on The Metropolitan. They moved forward
with getting 40% of the frontage s non-r il, working within the rules the Planning
Commission set, restricting it to ilding B and o said that if the non -retail is going to be
medical, they should work wiKlanning
ff to deterrr�ine ho any spaces can be in the garage.
• The Council also upheld th Commission reco endation to deny the map to create
the five condos; and ask staff to work with 1:he applicant t ectify the DRE issue where they
actually went forwar d recorded the five condos.
• The cell tower on esults Way has been appealed and will go to th ouncil shortly.
Adiournment: The In
was adjourned to the next regular Planning ommission meeting
scheduled for ctober 26, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.
Res fully Submitted: tea,
Elizabeth i , Recording Secretary
Approved as presented. October 26, 2010