PC Minutes 1970•
•
•
CITY 01•' CUPERTINO, Seate of Cnl.ifornitt
10300 'l'ona Av~nut>, Cupartino, Cnlifornin
1.<!lt.'.l'.l'i?.!!£.l.. • .J 5 ~.::!..:? 0 5
MlNU'rES OF THE IUWULAR MEEl'ING or 'rtIE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD' : '
NOVEMBER 23, 1970 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CI'l'Y HAI.t.
CUJ?ERTINO, CALTF't:'l:NIA
Clrninnan Puetz called the mooting to or.der at 8:03 p.m. und the.
nsscmblngc wafl .led in a flag salu1:~.
Roll Cnll
Commissioners in at tend.t1nce: H:irshon, In1in > Meyers and Chairman
Puetz. Commissioner But:hen.uth wus absent. Also present: Planning
Director Sisk, At1sistant Plaun(-ar Cowan, Publi~"! Works Dircctol~
Yarborough, Assistant City Engii1ee1· VJ.skovich and Recording
Secretary Dolores White .
. '
A resolution,origin-3ted by the Planning Commission, was read by
Chairntan ruetz expressing their thankf\1luess and gratitude to the
former City Manager, Phil Storm, for his past endenvors in the City's
behalf. ~1r. Storm was presented with a commendat.lcm and expressed
his appreciation for this r<~cognition.
Approval of Minutes: Minutes of October 12 and November 9, 1970.
Chairn1nn Puetz introduced a previous discussion in the }-finutes of
October 12th, for the information of City Attorney Adnms, wherein
Attorney Anderson had been requested to reseaTch certain.points
relative to the. footbridge issuet specifically, prior deed restric-
tions and a recorr.mendation made by Commissioner Meyers (Page 5, first
and third paragraphs).
After it was determined that there were no corrections, additions or
further discussion of the .Minutes of October 12th 1 it was n1oved by
Commissioner Irwin 1 secondPd by Connnissioner l-leyers and pa~sed ·unan-
imously th3t the Minutes of the meeting of October 12, 1970 be
approved as submitted.
Subsequc:lt to nn addition oi vcrbage which was pointed out by C11ainnan
Puetz on Page 9, fifth parngr.:iph, it was moved by Commissioner Hirshon,
seconded by Commi.ssioner Irwin and passed unanimcusly t:hat the ~linutcs
of the meettng of November 9) 1970 be approved as amended.
Postponemer~~:s
It was indicated by Planning D.irector S.isk thal: two requests had been
received for postponement::. of Item Nos. 1 and 5 on the pending agenda.
PC-23
roll call
}!r. Stor1n
COirunended
·minutes of
October 12th
.approved
minutes of
November 9th
approved .ns
amended
i
·' .,
<;
Page 2
llo-n!-6 7
continu(~d
Item 1
continued
18--TM-70 o
21-U-70
postponed
MinutM of tho l:'laru11ng Commission, Nov~mbllr 23, 1970
Pos tponcmant11 (continued) .. ·,
In rMp0'.1se to an inquiry from Con1missioner Irwin as to the presence
of Xtem 5 on the ns.endn, l'ubl:f.t: Works lliractor Yarborough llxplainod
thnt the extension r'oquented wno t110 Hrat renewal ilnd the appli~t,
due to the high cost of property improvomentll and uncertainty -as to
future development of tho area, hnd put off rocordation of 11 parcel.
map.
I11 the absence of the appli.cant, Mi:. Robert H. Zimmer, Mr. Yarborough
continuc<1 by adding the <ippl:lcnnt 1 a deaireo to keep his map active;·
Conmd.ssioner llirshon commented that the applicant should be notified
thnt tho next meeting would be the last opportunity he would have
to be present for discussfon on this matter.
It wa. moved by Commissioner Irwin and seconded by Cownissioner Meyers
that Tentative Map 14-TN-67 be continued to the next regularly-scheduled,
Planning Commission Meeting with the stipulation that the applicant· be
notified that, except under special circumstances, this will be the final
continuance of this n1atter.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Commissioners Hirshon, Irwin, Meyers and Chai.rman Puetz
None
Commissioner Buthenuth
After a brief discussion~ it w·as moved hy Couunissio\1er Meyers and
seconded by Commissioner Irwin that Item l 011 the agenda be postponed
to the-meeting of Dece.mber 14~ 1970.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Conunissioners Hir.shon, Itivin, Meyers ·and Chairn1an Puetz
None
Commissioner Buthenuth
Tv.•o letters were recognized by Chuirman PU(:.\tZ as being received pertain-
ing to the footbridge :issue 1 t..rhich v.•as to be tnken up later in the
meeting.
There were no oral corninunications presented.
l. Applications 18-TH-70 and 21-U-70 of G. L. Gurley for
Tentntivc !'fap to divide 3.23 ncres i.nto t\~·o parcels, and
Use Permit to allow n gasoline sales/car washing facility
on Parcel A. Said property is located oascerlv of and
adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, epproxim;tcly 125
feet south of Silvcr.:ido Avenue, in u CG (General Conunel."-
cfol) zone. First Hearing.
i;\::
PC-23
,
•
i'
•
•
•
•
•
Public Hearings (cont:i.11uad) : '
Thill llppHcaeion hn<I bo~n proviousty pootpon!'ld to the n1oating acheduled 0
for nocombor 14, 197(1. ·.
;l'C-23
:Page 3
I
'
2. Applicati.on 6··V-70 of Robert C. Dobbins for Variance to
allow the reduction of tho roqul.rod aetbnck of a 6-foot ,, 6-V":"70
fenco :!.n the front yard from 20 f~et. to 0 faet. Resid~nco pres<intntion
locat~d at 21398 Krzich Place (Lot 8, '£ruck 4708, Wooda
East) in an lU-7, 5 (Reaidantial Singlo-fomily) zone.
First Hearing continued.
Whon quescfoncd "" to whether or not he WllS familiar enough with tha
application to offar his vote, Commission ln<in indicated h(l hod in-
vestigated the bnckground of th1" '1pplicution and was aware of the
infonnntion re4uired to an extent: that he would be able to vote on
the. n1atte.r without a continuance at this time.
Tlic applicant, Robert Dobbins, came forward saying that he was of the
oplnlon that .ill hardship condl.tions requii:ed for the granting of c;.is
Variance had been satisfied and approval of bis requested Variance would
bo of a benefit to the City !IS well as to the surrounding 11eighborhood,
Mr. !Nin comme.ntcd that, \Vi th the absence of Commissione1· But}lenttth 1 discussion
another tie vote was possible and requested the City Attorneyts feelings
in this regard. City Attorn"y Adams responded by ei<plaining that there
would have to be three votes in agreement on this vote a\1d> if a tie
vote again occurs, the pub He hearing would have to be re-opened.
' , I '
It was moved by Corr.missioner Irwl.n and seconded by Commissioner Hirshon
that the public hearings be closed. This motion was carried by. a unan-.
imous vot:e.
Commissioner Heyers stressed his feeling that, in this instence, there
\Vere extraordinary circumstnnc.es :i.nvolved~ namely, Item C, that .it
would create no detriment to the area but, instead, would be a great
asset to all concerned.
public
hearings
closed·
After CommissiDner Irwin indicated his agreement that a hardship was
in existence, he entertained n motion \>Ihich was seconded by Commissioner 6-V-70
Meyers that Application 6-V-70 for a Variance be granted subject to granted
conditions specified in the Planning Director's memorandum.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Commissioners In1in, Meyer.Ti and Cha:f.rman Puetz
Conun..i.ssioner Hirshon
Cornmiss:l.oncr Buthenuth
3. Amendment of Use Permit 15-U-69 of Vallco Park to allow
the expan•ion of off-street parking facilities for an
exist.ing industrial building Clntersil, I!\c.) located
easterly of and adjacent to Tantau Avonue, bott..recu
Horneflte.:i.d Road and Pruncridg:e Av£nt1e, in a P (Planned
Development) zone. First Hen ring continuod.
Page 4
15-U-69
presc(itcd
15-U-·69
approved
l~-2·· 70
presented
oppositic,11
noted
Minutao of the Planning Con .. ission, Novomb<!r 23, •1!170 ·
Public llcaringa (collt:l.nuod)
l'la1ming Director Sisk ndvioed tho Commission thnt. ho: lmd :nothing.;•.·: ! .: t
nddidonal to pres ant other thim whnt had been previously, presented,' "·"
in his or.i.ginal report,
Mr. Walter Wnrd, General M111rngor of Va.llco Park, 17750 North Wolfe
Road, c11mo forward explaining that t11c parking wn!J :insufficient for
tho numbe~ of employees nt Inters.U, Inc. :md that 10 ncras had reon
acquired onrlier in the yenr for the facilities. He snid 127 addition.11.
spnces w<n~e rnquirod to eliminate 011-atrMt parking by· these employees.
ln the abstlnce of audi.enc~ comments, 'it was n1oved by 'Commissioner !:rwin,
seconded by Commisflioner Meyers and passed by a unanimous vote that the:.
public hearing be closed.
On n 1r.otj.on by Commiirnioncr Irw:ln and a second by Commissioner llirshon
approval was recommended of the proposed amendment to Use Permit 15-U-69
Hubject to the conditioM set forth in the Plann!ng Director's memo-
randum.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Commissioners Hirshon, Irwin, Meyers and Chainnan Puetz
None
Commissioner Buthenuth
·. ;;'
I;, Application 14-Z-70 of Van Roag for Prezon:tng of approrl-c
mately 116. 6 acres from County Al-40 (Single-family · • , ·
Residential-Agricultural) to P (Planned Development) ....
zone with a 457-unit residential cluster use intended.
Said property is located northerly and southerly of
Stevens Creek Boulevard, approximately 1600 feet west·
of Foothill Boulevard. First Hearing.
While showing vJ.sual ai..:s, Mr. Sisk described the .area in question and·
in<licnted some of the concerns of the Planning Department to be as
follo~,rs: puhlJc right·-of-wllys proposed 'Witl1in the project, the re-
nJ ignmcnt of Stevens Creek Boulevard, dentlity in the project .nnd
earth movement required for building. He further described the develop-
ment as consi.sting of: an apartment complex and townhouse units· on the
more level portion of the land with patio homes to be locate.cl ato' 'n
existing knoll.
he continui2d th.::it, as ::l,ndi.cuted in his report, there should be a dedica-
tion of 120 feet to Stpvens Creek Boulevard widening instead of the
60 feet as proposed) a lower density would be more advisahle in foot-
hill planning to preserve the natural state and, ·with the. roadways
being of such .:1 nnrrow \Vi<lth, nn automobile .,.,..ould necessarily extend
,i.nto the traveJwny of the streets loctitod in the development.
In conclu~ion, Mr. Sisk rend four. lot.tcrs whieh had been received from
concerned c.it:izcns indic.:it:i.ng opposition to 3 change of zonin_g. These
rcs.idents 1 ill~ snid, We("'e concL~rncHI pr:imarJ.ly ,.,ith pollution. deteriora-
tion of the nnlurnl stnte of the footh'Llls, additional traffic genera-
tion nnd res:ultant congestion> nncl n suggestion had be.en made that the
plnn be por;tponcd pending adoption of the proposed City Hnster Plan.
• lt
•
•
. '
1'!.lnut<>~ of the Pl.nnn:l.ng Comrniasio11, Novmnb.~r 23, 1970 . ' ' . ': •'
Public HMr:lngs (continued)
Slid~• ware 1.hown of the knoll and tho proposed con11truct:l.on renderings
wen1 prc.tinntod, nfto1· whi.ch Mr, Malcolm Mc'f';ill cnmc forw111:d roprasont.:.
fog t:hc d~v<.•lopcrs of tho project.
Referring to savo·rnl renderings and n Bcllle model vf the nroa, he ex··
pl,,incd thnt his compnny had been formed this year with thu intlmtion
of p1·ov:tding qunlity homos for tho indiv:ldunl carnins a middle-class.
income of approxirnntoly $12 ,000 per yeat·. Uc said the U1:nt two
developments of this t:yp" had been located in Los Gatos nnd Wnlnut
Creek and that both dtics had vclcomcd this ef >rt.
Mr:. Mcl'nl.l went on to say that the homes presently bel.ng offered in
the City of CupcrU.no were very cxpcnsJ.vo, ranging from $35,000 to'
$65,000 in prl.cc, nnd the proposed homes would give the buyer an
nltcrnatl.vc J.nnsmuch ns they were priced <1t approximately $24,000.
llc described the plun :1s incorporating the following: trees pla~ted
in the exist:I.ng ravine; a wandcr:f.ng creek; meandering pathways, ·\.11th
coach lamps fo1• n rustic look; excellent landscaping which is to be
maintained on a year-round basis; n horse route into hills as part of
the road dedication; a nu111bcr of recreational activities such as
swi.nrming pools, u billiard parlo1·, .:i gym, saunas, a teen center as
well as an adult ccnte.r, tennis courts 1 sand volleyball and streets
wh:l.ch would contain electric securi.ty systems for privacy of the
residents • He added the plan had bee.n scheduled to proceed around
the middle of 1971 with the building of 50 townhouses and said
project would be completed in its entirety in about 3 years.
Responding to an inquiry from Chairman Puetz regarding the population
impact and the po&sibJ.lity of the · ?licant compiling a traffic study,
Hr. McFall said the traffic generated from the Permanente trucks was
one of the primary reasons for selecting this area, along with the
multiple d<>nsity uses surrounding it and the County development below.
He. continued that the developer was aware of the problem aren .. and it
had been chosen because' the developer tould handle the· truck traffic
proble1ns and resultant noise produced by 'bringing the noise level down
by the use of an 8-foot acoustical sound tnound on the residential side
of Stevens Creek Boukvard which would consl.st of a masonry fe'nce on
top of said mound with heavy landscaping. lie said the additional
number of residents in the area hnd not appeared to be a problen1 of
any major propcrtion.
After some discuss ion, it was the consensus of the Commit tee that a
traffic study should be undertaken by the opplicent to include traffic
at peak times as well as an in di cation of future traffic to be generated
in the area.
1'he dialogue continuP.d wherein some of the following items were dis-
cussed: density, lay of the land and ingress and egress.
Th(~ applicant wns quest:loned by Commissioner "!-1eyers regarding the pos-
sibilJ.ty of a roa<l being located along the Mstcrly property line
presentation
by applicant
genernl
description
traffic
study
suggested
' .
,.
~'
!
Page 6
dis1~u~·si6n
continu0d
re~ess
c.:i.l led
audience
C0:\'nLL'Il ts
Minutt1s of tile Plaunj.ng Commiesion, November 23, 1970
Public He111:1.t1 gs ( continuod)
1md he llnswclad that thl! cutback l'.'oquired would be enormoun mid wo11ld
involve tho rmnovnl of a tramandoua amount of di;rt, however, it could
probably ba done.
Concern was indicated by Conm1isslo11er X.niin as to thn amount of dirt
that would hava to be ramovod from the top of the knoll in ordor to
build to wh:lch Mr. Mcl'<tll respondad thnt about 200,000 square yard.s or
npprmtimat.,ly 50 feet of dirt would havn to be i:o.movad from the top
of the knoll.
Commi.ss:loncr Irwin then qucstl.oned the differences between this plan
and others in thn past to which Mr. McFall answered the stepping of
the lnn<l, !iCcurity, living al."t'?tts opening out:. to the green ureas-.
bettl~r i·ccrc.:itionnl appronch,. use of a creek and the traffic being
sclf-contal.ncd were the basic differences.
\"hen questioned about the townhouse parking facilJ.ties, the applicant
indicated that g:irugc, piirking :ls provided, driveways could be used and
pcO!'lc were encouraged to use their gari;ges because 0£ the electric
door openers provided with each unit. He said there would be one
p~rking space in front of the dwelling.
Ingress nnd egress was questioned as well as guest parking facilities
and the width of the streets in the discussion th.at followed> aftar
which dinlogue continued on the subject of parking and the aµplicant
indicated, aftc'1· some research had been done, it had been decided that.
2, 3 parking spa ms would be adequate for the size of these units and
the street design had been based on a hillside standard of 28 to 30
feet: in width.
It was suggc~.;ted by Chairman Puetz that the contour be altered closer
to the property line to which Hr. HcFal.l responded that it would be
Jrnpossib1e. due to the P G & E easen1ent in that area.
A recess was called at 9:50 p.n1. and the meeting reconvened at 10:02 p,m.
Audience con1mcnts were re::cor;nized by Chairman Puetz, at this time, and
scver.::-11 opponents indicated their concern ns to the traffic generation.,
density, destruction of the foothills> road planning inadequacies,
home costs, overcrowded schools and the overall indication that the
study of the foothill area in the proposed Master Plan of the City
should be completed prior to any further development in the foothills.
further opposition wos inclicatcd by ?-tr. Bruce 1~enniger, representing the
hu1.~'1 Vista llom("!Owncrs Associntlon, who read H letter stating that lnany
!,~ontn :'is tans did not w:i.sb to have the population density in their area
incro.nscd, they felt the development ~.·.:i.5 incompatible lVith 'i.:he General
Plan and that the zoning, in this instance, should bo ilenied.
PC-23 •
•
•
'
•
•
•
Minutes of tho Planning Commission, Novamboi: .23,: l.?70 t
Public llenringn (continued) : I'
J11ckio Hall (a member of the Cuportino,,Citiion~ Goa;+&. Conlllli~,tll<il),; .,,.".'.,!
10629 lluxter Avenuo, Cupcrt:ino, cn111n £oi:w11rd ~1\.Ucuting hor .own· •r;i!
personal ftlcHngs (and not: thoso of th,\ Committ12u), She aaid:.tl\J.a, :·
nppHnrc.d t:o be n hillsl.dc dovo.lopm1mt wJ.th h:lgh density and cut und
fill, and suggested a mornt:oi:J.um on foothill dBvclopment bu dacl11rad:
unt:ll the new N;ister Plan is adopted and a study ia made of otllor
foothill conm1uni ties.
!n rebuttal, Mr. Mcl'all began the discussion by introdudng Mr,
McAlistcr 1eho presented prl1liminary figures of a traffic study,
Ile said the traffic experts had p1·edicted 4 ,000 as an avernge daily
trafflc count t:o result civar · period of fi~om two to thx-ee years.._.
The Hmount of children J.nject:,d into the schools would be as .follows;
172 into Mont:a Vista Elementary School, 57 into Kennedy Jr, High~Si;:hool
and 116 into Nonta Vista High School foi: a total of :.\5 students.
He continued that the main objection appeared to be the donsity 'nnd , ,
reitm:ated the company's desires to provide high-quality, 'medium pri.ced
homes for the young as well as retired people. The grading, ha.·s'aid,
was designed to maintain contour of the. hill which. had only been .altere
to an extent that w<>uld provide homes and roads. He. concluded tliai:"th:I.
is not spot zoning because of the planned areas surrounding the develop
mont: and their sj_rnilar land uses .
Chairman Puetz had several comments> son1e of 1..rhich were that in footl1j.l
development, in his opinicn, the hillside should not be changed more
than ~1bout 10 per cent, the schoo.ls in the area are ·already increasing.
to their maximum level and that the tri~ffic generated to flow into an
already congested area would be of great impact. He suggested that
in a development of this magnitude and density a traffic-study be
undertaken and that a letter be presented from the School Board in-
dicating that they \..Ould be able to handle the additional 'influx of
ch:i.ldrcn from the development.
Concern \ .... as indicated by Commissioner In...,.in who co1nn1ented that the
price of $22, 000 to $26, 000 would be out of range of the middl.e-class
wage earner, adding that many apnrtment units as well as high-priced
homo.s are presently vacant. !le said the foothills are our last natural
resource and considered the proposed dirt ren1cval to be considerable.
Hr. Irwin indicatcd,primaril)•, that he would like to see the Haster
Pl,'ln before continuing with development in the foothill areas and
emphasized his favor of ;Tnaki.ng 11 .declsipn without coni:~nuance of the
matter.
W11cn questioned as to the possible reduction of density, the a.pplicant.
indicated that there had been no interest in developing this land for
$40,000 hemes. It had been proposed, he said, to build for people
that vanted to live ln a \lest Valley area with a quaLlty atmosphere
and at a reasonable price.
P~-2~
Page 7
opposition
voiced
appl.icant
rebuttal
concern
voiced
Page 8
pt1blic
ht'nri.ng
clos<>d
l!+-Z-70
!'rezoning
d(•nicd
14-T~l-70
11ostponed
service
station
discussion
Minutoa of the Planning Commission, November 23, '1970,
Public Hearing• (continued)
' . ' . ' / Commissioner Meyars indicated his agr.eement with ComtAillilk1\t!!I.· Irwin"·
th11t foothill development ahoulJ be curtail8d until after, the Masteli':
Plan h1<d been providod. ·' · :
It "'"" moved hy Commiirnio1rnr Irwin, seconded by Cotr>missioner llirshon'
nnd passed UMnimously that tho public hearings be closed.
It WM comnumted by Connn.issionor Meyers that the devclopmcvt would be
moi:o favorable if th" density was reduced nnd suggested thnt the appl.i-
c«nt ,«,turn with a pl.an showing this redt>ction in dunsity.
Commist~ioncr lii1·r~hon agreed that: the dc:nsity \<7as too great for the.
nrca, nftcr which 1t was moved by Co;nmissl.oner Trwin and seconded by
Commisd<>ncr HJ.r,o,hon thnt: Application 14-Z··70 for prczoning be denied
on the b.>sis of the fact that we have not established a Master Plnn
to include development of the foothills; the density l.11 too groat
on this pllrt.tculnr proj cct; it would be in nature dest1·oy:Lng the
foothills through cut and f:Ll.l; that the road and street patterns
' are not ude4uate and th.'.lt the impact on schools, fire district, water,
traffic. etcetera, is too high.
Ayes:
Noes:
.. l\bccnt;
CommiBsione.rs ltirshon, Irwin, Meyers and Cha.inn.an Puo.tz
None
Conuniss:toner H\1thcnuth
, .
Chn:l rmnn Puetz informed Mr. McFall of his right to a'ppeal this denial,
in wrl. ting, wi thfo five days to the City Clerk.
5. Request for extcnsl.on of tline on Tentative Map 14->p!-67
of Robert H. Zi~ner.
Chairman Puet?. announced that this item had been previously postponed
to the next regular meeting.
6. Service Station Study.
It ·was r0.portcd by !·fr. Sisk that a quite favorable rosponse had been
received from t11e local dealers and l1e s11ggested that no further
action be taken on this matter until more.•. discussions had been held
witl1 interested dealers.
Don Prince, Union St<:1tion Dealer, corner of Bubb Road and Stevens Creek
lloulcvard came forw.1rd representing sevcr:il of the locnl dealers who
'~·ere in gcner.:il agreement with the intent of the service station study
and h.::id cxprc~ssed their interest in upr,r:ld:f.ng the conununity. He in-
dicated thut: there had been very fC\, cLrnscs in which they were not
in ugrcLimcnt and voiced thclr des:lre to fo1,n a body to police cnch other
to m~1lnt:iin the reHi<lenti.nl status quo of the commun.lty. He concluded
by saying t:h.Jt the dcslers would like to work with the Planning Commission
in forming pol.icier.; nnd procedures nffecttr.g sei·vice stntions~
PC-23 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Millutos of the l'.l11,tll\i1tg Commi.ss:lon, Novombcr 23, ,,19,70
Un( inishcd ll1w.i.11csa (continuad)
\ "'
ln rasponsa to Mr.
a mQt..\ting had bc(!n
1'ri11co 1 s rnquost for n m<~t\ting, Mr.. S:l.ak indi,cated
tuntutivoly schcduled for Wf.\c.lncsd11y evening. ·
' '
Commissio1wr l.rwin offorod appredatfon on behalf of the Commhsion ' '
to nll of the <lc'1lcrs in the. audience who had waited pnticnt:ly through'
the hearings for t:h:ls <liscu!lsion.
7. Oakdcll··Grcs ton Footbd<lgc Study. . .
l'lnnning DJ.rector Sisk• c.01nnwnt:cd that, there were two .items for dis-
cussion: l) n latter from an attorney questioning tha validity of the
proposed foot:briJgc ns re.ln.tc~d to the declaration of covt!nancc condi-
tions 8nd restrict.ions (deed rostricti.ons) pl::tce:d on the trac·t at the·
Un><' of subdiv1.sion, and 2) the Engineering Department 1 s proposed im-
provements to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
City Attorney Adamo informed the Commis:don that he would be. presenting
n report regarding deed restrictions at t11e next meeting.
It was reported by Public Works Director Yarborough that the proposed
l.inprovc.rnc.nts o( Stevens Creek Boulevard had beer. outlined to t:he City
Council at their lnst meeting as a cooperative project betwecn··thc
County stafI and the City staff in dn attempt to follow guidelines as '
indicated. The plnns, he said, included: improved channelization;·
walk area, footbridge ndjacent to existing vehicular area ·and to prO-.
vJ.dc t:his bridge ns an aid to walkers wishing to traverse 'the. hill area
during the intcrl1n prior to the \Vidcning of Stevens Creek Boulevard ..
He said the total .:.ost is estimated nt $22,500 to create improvements
and added that the City Council had made one additional suggestion,
namely, that an extension be included toward Foothill Boulevard. It
was also indicated, he saiJ, that tl1is might provide a solution ul-
timntcly to the problem and the matter was then refer1·ed back to the
staff for furtl1cr study.
It was recommended by ~1r. Yarburough, while slides ,...,ere being shown,
that t.hc. casement be retained and the appi"oval of the footbridge ana
bulkhead approach be recommended to the City Council for approval as
a temporary relief of :·he existing problem with the walkway extending
from the Hontu Vista parkfog lot up the slope to join with the walking
nrcn.
Dlaloguc ,,TaS exchanged nmonr, the Commissioners and it w·as the general
feeling tl1at tl1e footbridge sl1oul<l be carried further than suggested
and t:hnt an indicntion be given by menns of a resolution as to the ·
Commission.' s feelings relative to the recent suggestion as \Vell as
the possibility of .:in assessment: district being formed.
It was indicated by Commiosioner Meyers that the items should be
studied separately and th,1t recommendation should be made to the City
' ' ' Council that the Stevens Creek Boulevard walkway be undertaken
and, rnthcr th-1 n rou ti nu it up Cupertino Road, that the walkway
be continued on Stcveno Creek Boulevard wcstcrJ.y of Cupertinq Road
as well. He snid this walk•my would not allcvfote the problems on
Phar Lap and suggested that if such a footbridge is desited, the
PC-23
Page 9
footbridge
discussion
continued
dialogue
Pnge 10
~:inute Order
i11iti11tcd
i·csolution
indi('atcd
:ncdi.:ins
rl'fJUCStcd
'.
MinutM of tho l'lanni.ng Comml.saion, November 23, 1970
Unfinhhcd llusinasa (cont:hmod)
roddents ahould form nn llllSMSm()lnt dist•ict and that there' alipuld. 'b~
somo typo of joint offort mndo batwoen the naido11te in tho area and·
the Clty.
Commissio1lcr lrw.in suggc..tcd thut thero also be 1111 nccesn to the pnrk
provided and subsequ<mtly cntcrtai11<1d n motion that a }U.nute Order
b" inlt.iuted requesting that the City Council consider u local improve-
m~nt distrl.ct for the construction of tha footbridge which would allow
local resJ.donts to voice their opiilions and, if they app~ovod :i.t, that
th~y be asked to pny for it:. This motlon was seconded by Commissioner
}1oyers.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Conunit'H3ion(!rs Hii;shon, Irwin, }foyers and Chairmnn Puetz
None
Comm.lss.i.onc1: Huthenuth
Agt'ef:ment 'WllS indicated by Com1n:lssione:r Hirshon as tv the local improve-
ment district but he ulso felt, if this wns a vitul necessity, the ·
City shoulcl create tbc nccess and, if not, tho development should be
lcf t up to the t·csidcnts involved. Ile said it wns u wise .suggestion
to have ·-1 vote in this matter..
It t.ras moved by Commission~r It\.;rin a.nd seconded by Commissione1-?-feyers
th<..•t the Planning Con1missian. initiate a resolution indic.at:l.ng its uri.ree-
n1cnt with the Dii·cctor of Public Works' memorandum of Novenlbcr _13, 1970 ..
with the suggcst:I.on that th..:! coverage of this footpath be extended
h"1'.!~terly on Stevens Creek Boulevard until it meets -i;,1ith the shoulder
of the road suitable in width for walking und that it continue up
Cupertino Rond and around the.! corner of Crescent Drive providing
a se.fe access for pedestrians cut of the major traffic patterti,~nd
onto Crescent Dt·ive.
Ayes:
Noes:
.\bs1..:nt;
Commi.ssi0n.ers-H:i.rshon, Ir111 in, Meyers and ,Chairn1at1 Puetz
None
Commissioner Buthenuth
8. Request of Gerson Bakar, Inc. to allot! medians in public
res:i.dont:tul sL:-oets: Lunds of E.:ildassini at the southwest
corner of o!cClellan l\oa<.l and Stelling Road. l\3-2.2 zone
(upon annexation).
Planning llircct:or Sisk showed renderings an<l reported that the medians
would be incorporating lun<lscapcd planters. lie req11ested a response
irom the Plnnning Conuniss.loners as to ''hcther or not lt \.JOuld bC
desirable to hnve these m•~<l:ians .in a public right-of-,\r;,iy, In con.:..,
eluding, he said the rnctl.ians wcro to be m.::.iint.1incd by a homeo,\rners
group.
'
PC-23 •
•
•
..
•
•
•
Mi1niten of tho l'l.Mming .C<•n1111iss:Lon, Novambe1: 23; 1970 L
New Busines!l (co11t:J.n11nd) \ ~' ;, : 1 '
Commia8ioner May~rs j.ndic<1tod his fnvornbl.o c<>n1111ents 11s • to.itho• madiaus .•
prosontcd to which Connnissio1rn:r liirshon ngroud nnd 111ubscq11ontly ·hlOV<.ld
that the CommJ.ssion Mko a ""cmmncndntion t.o thn City Couuo;:il that the:
rcquo«t f"r the modi1111 std.p bo upprovod.
AyM:
Nol'!S:
Abo•~nt:
Commi<Hlionors l!in1hon, ll-win 1md M1iyers
Cha.:i.rman Puetz
Comm:t.ssionar Ilut.hcnuth
9. Request of Henn1m Christenson and Sons to amend approval
of T1rntntive Hep 24-TH-69 (J. Cyril Johnson Investment
Co:-poration) to make the davcJ.opment pl.an approval a
rl!quircment. prior to tho grnntinn of a lluild:lng Permit
rather than prior to the recordit\ll of the parcel mup.
Arca consists of 10.92 acres .loc11ted southerly of and
adjacent to llomestcnd Road, 500 feat west of Barranca
Drive -in an R3-2, 2*da zone.
Mr. Sisk ropot·tcd at. the timH of zoning, the development plan was
approved and, as n condition of said approval, the parcel map ~ould
not be recorded until the plans h,id been ndhe-red to. At a later time,
he said, a Variance was applied for and grunted and now the, original.
developer is no longer interested in the property and is requesting .
that the condition previously imposed be amended for the sale of· ·
the parcel.
It was indicated by Hr. Sisk that the recommendation, in 'this case,
would be to amend Condition No. 14 prior to the issuing of a Building ..
Penuit to enable recordation of a parcel mnp. · · · ·· ·
r
It waB moved by Commmissioner Hirshon and seconded by Commissioner
Meyers that the request be recommended to the Citv Council for approval
of the amendment of conditions of the ·Tentative Maµ and to require
thnt a dcw1loprncnt map be approved before ·a Building Permit is issued.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Cornmissj.oners Hirshon, In..,in, Meyers and Chairman Puetz
None
Commissioner Buthenuth
10. Request of Lacey Realty for extension of tin1e on Use
Permit 24-U-68 allowing conversion of a single-family
residence to cornmcrc:i.nl use. Area loc..a tcd at 20556
Scofield Drive -CG (General Co1muercial) zone.
Mr. Sisk said he had questioned tlle prior approval condit:l.on which
indicated a two-year limitation on the applicant at the City Council
meeting of November J 6 and it was i.ndicntc.d at that time that the
Council interpreted the condition to be thnt the application be
r.eviewed after t1:.Jo yen.xs .
He said, lnnsmuch as no objections had heen :tndic~t:cd by the residents
in the area, it was recommended t:hot the PlaPning Coinnd.s.sion offer
their approval recommendation to the City Council that a two-yeur
extension bu grnntcd.
.pc-,23 ·1 .,
!Pase ll
I
!
medianrk "f prov~d
' .
24-'l'M-69
report
24-'l'H-69
amendmen!:
approved
24-U-68
interpretation
discussed
Pago .l2
cx.tcnsi.on
~pprov<:d
.::or.u:icn ts .-ind
:liscus.sion
adj ournrnen t
,,
'
Minutes of tho l'lannins Comm ha ion, November 23, 1970 · · , ·.J 1 lo ,.,,. J111rl:t
•
Now Business (continued)
It w1s movod by Co,nm11esion•ir Irwl.p nnd socondud by• Comm:i11111ionor <Hirahon
that approvnl be r12co""1ondcd to tha City Council for a· two-year ·BXtOO't•/
uion of Ullo Pt1rm:l.t 24-U··68 with th11 snmo conditions H prnviously rimpoaod
in tho original Use Permit issuance. <"'1
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Commissioucrs llirahon, Irw1n, Moyers nnd Chuirmnn Puetz
Nona
Commissionor lluthcnuth ,i/,
Commissl.oncr l!i~shon re.ported that the A.n.A.G. (Association of Bay Area
Gov<ernmcnts) Dinnor Mc<lting recently held had consfatad of several
intcrcsti.ng Md informative :reports whi.ch indicated progress being
made in the fiold of planning.
It ~"1s requested, at this time, by Co~mdssioner Meyers that Mr. Sisk
;>resent an input to the Planning Commission regarding the planning
workshop to be bold in San Francisco to which Mr. Slskindicated his·
agrecr:icn:. .•
)c)
Inasmuch as the foothill <level opment problem would inevitably come up
ag.1in in the future, Chnirn1an Puetz suggested that an emergency <;>rdfn?nce
mi~;ht bfl :in order and }fr. Sisk indicaterl he 'tvould be .:innP.aring-befol:-e'!
the City Counc.il on Kover.:ber 30th ••ith a request that the present City'
Ordinnncc relative to zoning be amende~.
City Attorney Adams e:-:pr.essed his concern as to the Cor:unissioners in-
dividunlly viewing the properties involved in public hear.tugs and
sur,gestcd that the members go as a group rather than individually
to avoid the possibili cy of certain lcg.il chnllenges being voiced '
as a result. He said nll evidence should be presented at the public
hearing en these matters only, nnd should not be. revie·wed previously.
~t.P~~rt of Planning Director
Plnn'1ing Director Sisk indicated he had nothing further to report •
.6.9.i0urnment
After a brief and v~riccl d.i.scussio~, it was mov~d by Commissioner Inv-in
.J.nd sec,_.r.dccl :iy Commissioner ~fcyers that the meeting be adjourned, and
thi= meeting was .adjourned at 12:35 a.m. -----.... . · AP.PRm~1--1.-.::;----.) /~ . /'.;' ~/ ;/ / ./ J''\ / /--.-~-~'. .
I / .f>-1-~1 .,; --• .. • ~ . ...........----~"';;>:... ~~-~-----/ ... ·' _.,.,.·-~U a:ti'm&fl--....... . . .
. , --~:;~~~~:"'.:.---ATTEST:
•
l'C-23 •
•
:t
•
•
•
Cl1'Y OF CU!'l:RTINO, St11tn of CnHfor:>i<t.
JOJO() Tor1·c Av<muc., Cupcrt:l.rio, 'Californln
.l~ c J<-1~!!.!l!l.~-:-?_2.?_-:-. '0 0 5
! ';
··1 1:-:';'
MINUTES 01' THE REGlll.AR MEETING OF 'f!IE Pl.ANNING COMM'tSSXIJN ,lll!LU .
NOVJ;Ml\ER 9, 1970 IN'Tl!E COUNCIL CHAMBER, Cil'Y llAT.1,,
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNJ'A
The meeting wno called to order nt 8:02 p.m. by Chairman l'uetz .• who
r.ubscqucntly led thn nRs~mblu8c j_n a flag salute ..
Comm.1.s~ionors prc!lc..~nt: Buthcnuth, lii.rshon, Irwin, Meyers and Chair111n.n
Puetz. Also present: PlaC1.11ing Director S:lsk, As~istont Planner Cow.an_,
Assistant City Eng:lnccr Viskovich anJ Recordl.ng Secretary Dolores, Whi.te.
At thJ s time, Chainnan Puetz introduced the newly-appointed City
Attorney, Dnv:i.d H. Adams, who ~ad recently t.-:1ken over th.1..1 position
vacated by Sam J. Anderson .
Inasmuch a.s Chairman ructz lndic'-:1ti:.J thnt lu.~ haJ not reteived a copy
of the n1inutcs of the moet:iug of October 12, 1970 1 a motion was rnade
by Comrnission~r Irwin, with a second by Commissioner li.irshon and a
unan1mous vot(' l:l,at approval of the minutes of the meeting of October 12
19'10 be contin. 'd to the next regubrly scheduled meeting.
yostponements, etc.
Application 19-TM-70 of Herbert W. Rcgnurt, et al:
Withdrawal requested by applicant.
PC-22
. I -•,·i
roll call
approval of
minutes
continued
It was moved by Commiss:i.oner Buthenuth, seconded by Comniissioner Hirshon 19-TI!-70
nnd passed unanin1ously that Item No. 9 on the pending agenda be ·with-withdrawn
drawn~ as requested by the nppli cant.
It was noted at this time thnt Frnnchi~c Realty Interstate Corporation
had requested a continuance of the henr:lng on Applic.stion No. 17-T!-I-·70
(Item No. 2) and, based upon this information, it was -moved by
Commissi.oncr I31.1thcnuth, seconded by Commissioner llirshon and p.:lssed
by a unnr.imous vote of the members present th..'.lt Application 17~TI1-70
be continued until tllc end of the agenda to give the applicant an
opportunity t:o appear for disc.us!>ion .
Chairmnn Puetz rc•cognlzcd n communic:ition recently received concerning
the footbri.dgc is~1ue vhich indicated there W(~re insufficient funds at
this time to <J.Ccommodnle the Stevens Creek lloulcvnrd .i1uprovcmenls ~1t
the Phar Lap Drive locntlon.
17-TM-70
continued
CC\r;1mendnt ton
~~uggc•st0d
1-AB-~70
presentation
Minutas of the Planning Commission, November 9, 1970'
It w,•• r~portc<l by Chairmnn l'untz that thcro w1u1 to be nn A.n.A.G.
meeting on November 19, 1970, commencing <lt 6:30 p.m. in llorkeley·
1111d ha nuked that ll mcmbor attend the maet.ing in his placa. After
n hrfof <linlogue, Commisoion<n: llirshon agreed ta be in nttendance
at said meeting.
A suggc'1tio11 WM made by Clrn.irm1m Puetz thnt the previous City Attorney,
Sam And" rs on, be honored for his servtces to the City with a presa.nta-
tlon of .1 plnque and a letter of commondntion. It was further suggested
that a resolution be initiated relative to a commendation for the en-
deavors 0£ the former City Manager, Philip Storm. Planning Director
Sisk nnd Chnirman Puetz indicated they would work out the details and
pr"scnt their ideas to the Planning Commission in two weeks.
1. Applicati.on 1-AB-70 of Murianist Province of the Pacific.:
Request for abandonment of public right-of-way westerly
portion of Madera Rand from its intersection with Mercedes.·
Roa<l to its westerly terminus -a distance of approximately
533 feet. First HearJ.ng continued,
Planning Director Sisk rnflected that this application had been con-
tinued froru t;he last meeting for additional time: to revie't'1 tho tequested
abandonment. He then presented three maps of the area showiu.g th.e
present zoning, present road system nnd proposed road system. He
snid thilt it had been recommended that no public right-of-way be
relinquished at this time.
After a brief discussion, I .. eo Ruth, Civ·il Engineer, rcprCsent:ing the
applicant, }1.:i.rianist Province of the Pacific, caL1e forward and
presented a description of the area offering to answer any questions
of the Comm is£; ioners.
Chn.irm:::in Puetz inquirc<l as to ow11ership of the property if it was to be
Hbandoncd ;md Mr, Sisk replied that the entire property wns under City
jurisdiction J_n this case.
Mrs. Vo~s cn1;1c fon.'ard from the :iuclience giving additional information
r0.gn::dinr. the property \,·hJ.lc prcsc~nt:i.nr, a m.:lp of lnspirGtion Heights
to thl~ Comi:-~ission. Slie sn:ld tilt:! arcn had been bought by the Permnnentc
or::;nni:~otion in 1939. ·she went on to say that: ~·!aderu Roacl has had its
problems with 111otorcyclists anJ clunc buggy dri.vcrs rncing through the
.1rc.1 anJ requested th~1t i1 gate bL~ instn.l led to Jiscouragc this a.ctivlty.
The road v.1ns clL•scr.tbcd. by ~·lrs. Voss <Js lending nowhere Hnd ranging in
ulcvatJon from appr('X'lmat0ly 500 (L'c•t to 900 feet: In C(.1ncluding, sha
informed tlH~ Connnis~; inner:_; tl1at there ar1J no W.'ltcr or st.:wnge facilities
.1t t.hi::.; local ion adJ:Lng that Bhe f.ln' t ly gave up her land because. it
w;1s impos~;i-1.11.e to liuild on it:. ·
l'C-22 •
~;-
~··
•
•
•
•
Minutes af !'Imming C<,mminsi<m, Novmnl>or ~, 1970
Puhl ic lfoatlnr,ti (c1mtlnuod)
AfL<•t' n d.i11lo1~uo en;;uod bol.wccn tho Comml.saJ.O'~ora, i.t was "10vod by.
Commi11Rion<•r 11.lr,.hol) with n i;ocond by Connnissionor I.rwin. thnt tho
pub He h0,1l:ing be clo~<.><l on Applicntfon No, l-All-70, 1'hc, motion'
passed unnn1mously.
) ,,
!. ,.
HnBcd upnn the prcsc~ntation of the Planning Dircctot· a1:.~\ tho previous
Ji13cusslon, H """ suggt'!itcd by Commir;r;i,oncr llirshon thnr. the riaht-of-
way b~ rct:ain,~cl and ho subsequently moved it ba rocoinrncndod to tho City
Council t:hut: tho roquost for nb1mdonment be denied. The motiOl) had a
uecond by Cor:urdssion.cr Irwj.~' nnd resulted in the fol.J.o\.,ring vo,te.
Ayes: ConmLtssloncrs Buthcnuth, Hirshon. Irwin, ~fe.yers, Chairman Puetz
No£'.£: Non'1'
2. Application 17··TM-70 of Frnnchise Rcnlt; Interstate Corporn-
til)n: Tentative t-fnp t:o divide 4. 7 .ncrcs into two parcels~
loc.lltl~d at south\..1 est corner of Stevens Creek Boulevu1·d 'and
Portal Avenue in n CG (General Comnwrciul) zone. First
Hem·in!\ cm1tinucd.
Thi.s appHcation hnd been previously continued to the end of the pendiµg.
ngenda. but~ on n suggestion thnt the matter he further continued to
Rllow for r.hc lengthy discussions likely to take place in connection
wi.t:h tht' p1.!nding ngcnda) it '\•as moved by Commissioner Duthenuth,
seconded by Ct)mmissioner In..~in and passed unnnimously that Appli_ca.tion
17-TM·-70 be continued to the meeting of Deccmbel'. 14, l.970 for dis-. ·
cuss ion.
3. Tln'ANY BILL):A.'\D PARLOR: U~E PERMIT 5-U-67,: As provided
by SectJ.on 5. 3 of OrdJ.nance 002(a), consideration is to be
given to the possibility of revoking the Use Permit of
Tiffany Billiard P<irlor located at 19655 Stevens Creek
Boulevard in the Portal Plaza Shopping Center, in a CG
(General Commercial) zone. Fl.rst Hearing.
Pl1rnning Director Sisk indicated that he had nothing to add to the in-
formation 3lready pravi.cled to the Corr.n1issioners referring to previous
minutes and other inforn1ntion. He suggested that tentative action be
taken by the Commission n.t this time.
The owner of Tiffa;iy Dilliard Parlor, Hr·. Richard Dorsa, a resident at
555 }iiddlcficld Roo.<l, ~!t. View, Callfornin, presented t\.,.o documents:
JlUb lie
heurl.ng
closed
abandonment
denial
recommended
17-TM-70
continued to
Dec. 1Ath
5-U-70
revocation
presentation
1) a letter from Attorney Neves tendering b.1.ck Use Permit for Tiffany
Billiards and 2) an Agreement; Between the Lessor .::ind Lossee ending the
~clat.ionship with Tiffany Billiards (ln connection with the first
document).
Use Permit
withdr.:i1,•n
City Attorney Ada111s informed thL Cnmmisr:;ionc1·s i after re:'lding the
dot-::ume:nts, that the tender of the Use Perm1-t wns to be cffccti.ve
Novcinbcr 16 and suggested a motion be initiated n.ccepting same.
Page 4
public
hc:1rin~
closed
1'iffany
tender
~lCCCPt(~c)
ft:em No. 3
t,·i thdrnv.•n
8-l!-69
:_·t:~vocntion
prcscntntion
diSC'llSSi.On
Minutes of the Planning Coml\11saion, Novf.'mber 9, 1970
Public llcurings (cont:lnua.d)
It was moved by Commissioner Irwin with· a ao-~;,d "by Comm.iseioner Meyers
that the public Maring be closC'<l on thi.·: plicut::lon. The motion
wa8 carried by a unanimo~s vqto ,'
It .was then moved by Commissioner nuthcnuth and seconded 'by Commissioner
lltrshon thnt the tender of Use Pennie 5-U-67 bo accepted to be eff<lctive
t:ovcmbar 16, 1970.
Ayes: Connnissioncni. Buthnnuth, l!irsiion, ·Irwin, Meyers, Chairman Puetz
Noes: None
On ,II further motion by Commi.ssioner lluth¢nuth which was s'econded 'by
Commissioner Irwin m\d pass~d unanimously, Item No. 3 on tha pending
agcn\ia concerning TH fony ~illiards was removed.
4. STET.LA H •. KF;STER: USE PERl'!IT 8:-U-69: As provided by
Section 5. 3 of Ordinance 002 (a), consideration is to be
given to the possibility o'f i·evoking the Use Pflrmit of
Stella }[. Kester allowii'1g comme.rcial und a riding academy
for a mnximum of 30 horses on 18 acres located at lOll.50
Stevc.ns Canyon Road (cast side) and south· of Riverside
Dr.iv<', in an A-·ua (Agriculturnl-Rccr~ational) ~one.
First liearing • ., ·
Planning Di.rector Sisk referred to the staff report, indicating that
Mrs. lCcs tcr had \Jcen granted a Use Pennit in Nay of 1969 with numerous
conditions having been imposed at r.hat time. Tlrese conditions, he said,
hc.1d not been complied \ ... ·it:h and soriic of the property .owners in .the sur-
rounding area recently voiced their concern ns to the. manure removal
an<l close proxirn:f.ty to thclr homes of horses under :t-irs. Keste1''s care.
He emit inucd that these violations hnd led to the present hearing for
rc:voeation o.f Mrs. Kc.ster's Use Permit nnd it was recorninended by the
staff that ?-frs. Kester be nllov:e<l to keep horses on he.r property pr.o-
v.idcd certain conditions, us revised, were met .:is a protective measure
for both Mrs. Kester .:i.nd the residents.
Clnr:i,.fic:ation iv.:is requested by Commissioner nu·thcnuth as to the use of
an A-un ~oiic ar~a and Assistant Planner Cow~n proceeded to describe the
u~cs as follows: privately-owned recreational facilities, riding
,1c;Jdc:mics, theaters and gol( course~;., sw:tmminp,, boating nnd fishing·.
u~ ad~lcd that thc.r,c \vttre. no rcstr~.ct.il):1S if the h.orses we.i·c. privately
owned.
In po1ntJng out the Rl-7.-5 z.one, Mr. Sisk commented the m.ain prob,lem.
appcnrcd to be the Clo~;e proximity of horses to tllc ~ingle-fnmily
rcs!d0ntial :1rca.
PC-22 ••
•
At th.is Li.111L~, Mrs. Kc~Jlt.'1· ca1ue fo:rh'ard from the audience Rnd ·said four •
hQrscs \~·ere on lH"!r pz·opt:rt:y nt the ttmc the compluints were lodged
rq~ainst her. Sbe eor:~mt~nted that horses that hn<l been pastured on her
•
•
Mlllutes of tho Plnnninu. C:immhwion, Novnmh(!r 9, 1970
property had to ho. fod by . their own ors nnd. the owi111i:s. worq nlso .tu1d.11g
th" hC>rea m1mure off tho property in boxea d11il.y •. At one ,time, aha··
snicl, tlwrn "1ero four horses on hm: prope1·1:y for 11 temporary length·,
t'f time only, whJ.ch "he o.fforad to do bocn11<1n the pe1>pl0 who 11skt1d
her for this tcmporar·y use had no other pluco to take thnir horses.
Af: t:c.r some d inloglle, Hrs. Kos tor ccmtil\lle<l thn t she felt Mrs, llradlyn 1 s
complaints wer-...: unfoundod .and could not und(t:l"st:and how dust or odor
could poasibly roach her home.
Chn:lrmon l'uot:z 01xpln:lned tti Mm. Kaster that uhn hnd been brought befor
the Plnnning Comm.i.flsion m-a:tnly fot· u violation of Condition. No. 5 :and·
she replied that sh.P. wns only keeping those horses temporarily as a
favor, rc:f.tcrlttJng thnt there had been no horses in the vicinity of
Mrs. Brndlyn 's house. Nr. Puetz further cxplal.ned that, by allowing
the horses within 100 feet of the residential nren, she was not only
doing 11 favor but: j copard.izing herself as well.
At this time, Mr. lfarrcn 1'ei.ntraub, a xesident at 22384 Riverside
t
I
I
Mrs. !<ester's f·
comments ,
Drive, advRnced from the audience, commenting t:h3t the manuro is audience
up to the fence nnd the evidence \,•3s readily visibl1.-~. He. said that comments
the tnain quest1.on was the distnnce the horses ·were kept from the back
fences of tho residences indicating· bis feeling that a distance limita-
tion should b(.~ enforced. ·
Mrs. Juanlta McLaren felt that Mrs, Kester did not appear to be under-
stm1ding the position ?he .was in and ~uggested that clarification be
made to her. She added that it \vas nice of .Mrs. Kester to offer the
use ot her property to people in need.
Hr. SJ.sk explained that the origJ.nal Use Permit, issued in Hay of 1969,
indicated as one of the conditions that horses be kept at a distance
of 100 feet from the residential area, which had not been done. Ile
went on to explain this condition J.n further detail to Mrs. Kester.
It \..'as suggested by Ch.:iirman Puetz that, innsmuch as this was a public
hearing, other people in the cittdience te given a chance to speak~
Thomas R. Barker, .2236/-i Riverside Drive, s.aid he had been a resident
Rincc 1964 and h.:_\d found no prob.lcrn ··;xisting because of the horses.
He said he l:f.kcs horses to come rigl1r. up to his fence and had experi-
enced no probl~Jn •·ith Elles, smell or <':irt. He felt the 100-foot
limitation wss good but hastened to add tt1at,during the past six
months, no horses h<1d been within 150 feet of his home. Mrs. Kester
loves animals, he said, and it lind appeared to him that all conditions
had hecn 111ct as well or bi:>:ttcr th.J.n Jn other arc~1.s. Ho concluded that
his reaso~ for coming for1>.1ard wt1s the net:~d for someone to speak in
Mrs. Kestcr 1 s behnlf in this matter .
Pago 6
ndJitionnl
.il\H.lience
cc':~mcnts
Mim1tos of tho Planning Comm!.asl.on, November 9, 1970 '
Public Hanrillgs (continuod)
Snrnh Kopy, 11306 Bubb Road, Cupet·t:Ln<>, infonned tho C011llllbsion that·
she hnd n horso boarded on Mrs. Koatc.r's property stating thnt many··
sprnys hnd been used t<· dMer flioa and tho mnm1r11 had to be carried .
off in boxes by th~ hrrno ownors. She snid, even if the manure had
been left on the prorerty, it would docornposa within four dayn.
Hrs. Bl"adlyn, 22344 l iverside Drive, Cupertino, advanced and wnid ·sho ·
lwd guest" over to h< r home recently who said the small had almost
overwhelmed them 11n,1 was extremely object:ionnblo. Sho continued that'
her home was downw·'.nd from l-tr.s. Kefiter's property, adding that last
summer her backyr rd was not usablo becaus<> of thn flies and odor.
She felt that Mrn. )(ester should be careful that others do not
j <'Opnrdize her ls" Permit privilcgos.
A concern was vc iced by Mr. Tom Tramer, 10900 Drea Road, who said bis
three-ycar-()ld o.~tc:n plays in tho backya1·d area where the fence "1'as
just repaired. He ~ .. i:td, when the fences. ·were do\"11, the horses had
entered his yard and iie had become quite fearful for the safety of
his chi.ld. He questioned Mrs. Kester's renting out stalls in a
building which he thought had been condemned, located approicimately ·
~O feet from his home.
At this time, Planning Director Sisk reviewed the Al:tdes of· the area·
where the shack was located for the Conunission' s infonnation ..
Knn>n Joyce, 807 Raintree Drive, San Jose, irodicated her favor of the
100-·foot setback but felt Mrs. Kester should be allowed to use her
property for horse boarding.
}ir. Parvis Numvnr, 1087 5 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino) commented that
ares~ should be prov"ided for people to kc~~p their horses as long· as. they
arc in conformance to the Ordinllnc.e. He requested consideration bo-
givcn to :Mrs. Kester because she was helping to keep children oat of
trouble in thnt they \Vere kept busy with upkeep of their horses.. Also,
he said the aesthetic value of areas such as this must be preserved
for the benefit of all society.
A sup.:gestlon ·w·as ma.de by I10ll.:1n<l McGee, 222St1 Palm Avenue, Cupertino,
who indicateJ sl1e was rcprcsc11ting tho horse owners of Cupertino.
Sl1c relutcd the de."ires of horse owners to havo n designated urea
nlongside the rn.·1th,1ay to allo\.J them to ride their horses "t.Vithout
hnving to t rc.spnss onto th.G paved ar.Ja.
Chairrn:1n Puetz commented tlh1t it nppca.rcd ~·!rs. Kester was not under-
st,111dln1~. the conditions invoJved :ln thl.'1 t-:?atter, suggL~sting thnt
ft1rthcr clarification be given to }1er. 111 rcs11onse, ~Ir~ Butl1enuth
quc·stinned th.is snyinp; th;1t the quest lon appf'.'lrcd to bo whether or
no l.: :-;rs. KL!S te r i.:ou l d put \Ip :l f L"ncc LI) ac~:c1mmoda t e the 100-foo t
buffer nrcn.
l'C-22 •
..
•·
•
•
•
M.inutos of thr.i Pl,mning Commission, November 9, 1970 ~ ', .-: . ',;
: '
"ubll c llMrinl',A (continued)
After dl.Hcussion c<lntinuod, it wns dcr;mcd desirabfo to c111l a recess
for th~ 1nirpC>so of: further oxplaininl) th" pondinl! .~.l tu,at:ion to
Mrs. J\c~~t:c-l'.
Tho rocc!ls "'"" cnl11•d nt 9:50 p.m. wHh the mooting hoing rcconvanod
llt 1.0:05 l"""
Com1nissit11H•r llirahon quo.ntj,cmod the .fly and odor problems on the
property pnl.ntfo~ out informnt:Jon recently provided which indicated:
the llcnith Dcpnrtmm\t 's pC>sitive comments in thia regard; ·
While sH des wcn·c shown of hm: property, Mm, Kester gnvc• u brief
descrlptlon of the grounds including the corn crib uron, saying that
she hnd not dcliberntely niod to offo.nd anyone and would rather sell
he-r property than go to the cxpc1'\sc of putting up n fe.nc~-
\.Jhcn questioned llS to her fcel:i.ngB nbout.: the 100-foot bu,f.for arCa,
Mrs. Kester requested the arcn bn reduced to 20 feet.
It was then moved by Commissioner Irwin with n second by. Commissioner
Meyers and n unanimou$ vote that the puhli..:. hea~ing. be closed .. , · ·· ·
ConmdssJ.oncr Irwin offered his opini.on that the main business ,as hand
was to decide whether Mrs. Kester would have to abide by the original
Use Permit provisions, the revised provisions, or whether or not the ..
Use Permit should be revoked completely. 1 ,
Commjssioner 1-leyers was in agreement with Cormnissioner Irwin. but adde_~·
that, if the Use Permil was to be revoked, this would not be pr<>hibitive
to Hrs. Kester r:!.ght to keep horses anyway. He suggested that compro-
mise be made for the betterment of all concerned.
Commissi.on~r Iluthenuth indicated his feeling that horse boarding was
needed nnd that this wus good property for this use. He did feel,
however, thot the Rl--7.5 restriction should be upheld in this case.
The Conunissioners disc.u,ssed the .matter,furthcr, after :-1hich it ·was
moved bv Commissioner Buthenuth nnd scConded by Coni.missioner In.,in
that Us~ Permit S-U-69 be rcv:lsed to include tiw first seven conditions
as rccom.TicndcJ by the staff, wt th Condition 2 bCing chunged to. state
.:hnt no horses shall be maintained within the Rl-7. 5 zone and that a
100·-foot Duffer strip n.djaccnt to the residential area shall be main-
t~1incd along the ca.s ~c::"ly property l.tne ..
Ayes: Commissioners Buthcnuth, Hirshon, Irwin, !'!eyers, Chairman Puetz
Noes: None
At 11!00 p.m., Con:niC:rnioncr Irwin requested he be e.xcused from the
meeting .
l'C·22
''l'aga 7
recess
culled
; J.
public
hearing
closed
nos it ions
indicated
8-U-69
.revision
approved
I
~O··ll-70
rrt~sont:lticn
:·uh.lie
ht..~.i.r ing
closed
20-U-70
.1pprc\'tid
J R-T;!-70
.ind 21-L'-70
c:,•ntinut:id
Minut.M of tho Planning Commisuion, Novcmbe:-9, 1970
l'ubli<: lfonrillgo (contimied)
5. ROBERT A. DUNN: llSll l'EllMIT (20-U-70) to allo,..,a Danco and
Drnn\ll Schol)l itl Oakmont Squ.ara Shoppl.ng CentnT loCllted at
southwest corner of llomcstend Rond and Blimey Avenue, in
" CG (General Con'm"rcial) zone. First llenring,
Planning DJ.rector Sisk prescmi:od slides of the area, indicating that
approval had been 1Cecommendcd subj act to tho 14 Standard Conditions.
and the ndd:ltionnl conditlun that, sh<1uld parking become 11 problem
in .he .1rna, the Use Permit would be subject to re-evaluation.
Tho applicant, Robert A. Dunn, 19465 Homestead Road, supplem<>nted
Mr. Sisk' s report by informin8 th<> Commission that parents were pro-
hibited from vie.wing cl.asses, He said the classes were hold one
evening poi-\\1cclt usually for the mothers and the children's classes
generally started aftel' 2:30 p.m. until approximately 5:30 p.m. He
continued that there were usually 11 to 12 children per class, who
walked to the school, rode bicycles or doubled up in cars driven
by various mothers on a rotating basis.
' It was moved by Commissioner Meyers, seconded by Commissioner lliTshon
that the public he,uing be closed.
A motion was then entertained by Commissioner Meyers, with a second by
Commissioner lluthenuth that Use Permit No. 20-U-70 be granted with
the conditions as recommended in the staff report and the additional
condition (No. 15) that parking in the area be re-evaluated should a
problen. occur in the future.
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Hirshon, Irwin, :Meyers, Chairman' Puetz
Noes: None
6. G. L. GURLEY: TENTATIVE HAP (18-TH-70) to divide 3.23 acres
into two parcels, and USE PERHIT (21-U-70) to allow a g11so-
l:lne sulns/ca.r washing facility on ParCt."?1 A. Said property
is located easterly of and .adjacent to Sarutoga-Sunnyvale
Road, approximately 125 feet south of Silverado Avenue, in
a CG (Gm1eral Conuncrcfal) zone. FirstllearJ.ng.
r·1 :1nnlng Dlrcctor Sisk presentud a letter froin the applicant requesting
continuance of tl1cse actions to the next meeting.
H:-isc:d on th.i.s inform,1tion, :it \vu.s r.i0v~d by Co!mnissioner Buthenuth,
seconded by Con1missioncr Meyers und passed unnnimou.!;ly that this
mott<.~r be coutinucd for hearing at the next rcgul.:irly scheduled
mer.ting.
It '~1 as di:c.lari~J Uy Chnirmnr. Puetz that thn !natte".' would be heard at
tl1c rnccti11g scl1c<lulecl for November 23, 1970.
PC-22 •
•
•
•
•
Minutes of the l'lamdng Comminflion, !'lovumhur 9, 1970, 1,;'
Public llt>111·inga (contfoucd)
7. ROllER:C \~. POll~XNS: VARlANCIC (6-V-70) to nllow a 6-foot
fcnc<'I to be co1rntruc.tad w.!.t.hfo 10 foot of" the curb inatond
of th<1 roquit'<.'\cl 20 fo~t, at rcsid<u1ca Ht 21398 Krzich l'laca
(Lot 8, Track .1+708, Woods 1,:ast), ill nn Rl-7.5 (Residential ' ' ' Single·•family) zone. l'.i.l"St lle:>r.ing.
~r..-:i2
l'age'9
6-V-70
Mr. Sisk presented visual aids, commm1t.ing th11t tho applicunt had , resentat1on
requcstc.d a Variance be grnntcd so that he could move his fence. line
to within 10 £<,et from the frot\t property linil instend of thu 20 foet
llB required. He said thnt tha staff had recommended the Vari;ince be
gr:intcd i.n this situation, adding that the Flood Control District lrnd
rc-quircd provis:lon bo mnde for their sccess to the property.
After a roquest had been mo.de by Chairman Puatz for .o.udi.cnce comments,
the npplicant, Mr. Robert Dobbins, ca.n11::~ forward indicating that the
granting of the Varinncc would allow him additional landscaping area
as well an a play yard for his children nnd pets to enjoy.
A d.iscussion followed wherein easements were discussed, and it was the
consensus of the Commission that evidence of hardship had not been,
shown in this case. Co1mnissioncr Meyers indicated his opinion that it "iscussion
would benefit the City to grant at least p.srt of the Variance requested •
In response to an inquiry by Chairman l'uetz as to extraordinary condi-
tions "'rhich had to be met, Mr. Cowan read the Variance provisions
which would allow the grant:inn of a Variance request as an aid to
the Commissioners in making a decision relative to degree of hardship.
It ,.;ras moved by Corrm1issj.oner Hirshon, with a second by Commissioner
l-feyers anci passr...:d unan:l.mously that the public hearings be closed.
Because he was of the opinion that there had not been enough evidence
of h!trdship to allow for the granting of a Variance, Conunissioner
llirsho11 moved that the Variance (6-V-70) be denied and the n1otion
was seconded by Co11unissionc.r Buthenuth.
Before a vote w . .!s taken, Commissioner .!>!evcrs indicated his conC'~rn that
this area could become a no-man's land a~1d his fet.ling that the Varianc
being grantc.d in this instance \,;roul.d be beneficial to tht~ City.
'l'he following vote was then taken:
Ayes:
Noes:
Cc nmissioners fluthcn.uth and Hirshon
Com!Tiissioncr Meyers and Chainncin Puetz
' A brief discussion followed, after will.ch it wns moved by Commissioner
Buthr.nuth and seconded by Commissioner Meyers that the mntter be con-
tinued until the full body was present to provide a determining vote.
It was determined that the hearing would have to be re-opened in order
to be continued, it w.:is so moved by Commissioner Buthcnuth, seconded
by Comntissioner Meyers and passod unnniniously.
earing
losed
tie vote
n 6-V-70
atter
continued
earing re-
pened and
,ontinucd
Pago 10
22·-U-70
riro:•l'ntnt ion
hc:aring
,::losed
Minutes of the Planning Corotn:lsdon, Novomber 9, 1970
Public Hon.rings ( continuod) ,t(
8. P. BRIEN WILSON: USE PERMIT (22-U-70) to allow <:onvor.aion
of oxiating rcsidonca to commorcial uso. Said property i11
located at 201101 Sr.evens Crook lloulovard (north sido) and
11pproximatoly 1100 f:Ct?t onat of Sarntoga-Surmyvalo Road, in
n CG (General Commerc:lnl) zone. Ffrst Hearing.
l'l.annJng Dirocr.or Sisk commented that a Uso Permit was required to
convert a Ringle-family residence into a commercial use. lie continued
tlrnt apprnval had been i-ecommen<led subject to the 11< Standard Conditions,
a& wall as two additional condl.tions imposing a time limitation on this
use and that lnndscaping be provided along with improvements to the
building.
Rcprcs<mting the spplicnnt, Bill Errico, n Realtor, cnme forward in-
dicating that Attorney Wilson hoped to be openin!( his law office at
this address. He s.lid the applicant also owns the adjoining residence
nnd would nt some extend into thnt area.
Commissioner Meyers inqaired :1f Mr. Errico and the applicant understood
thnt thc1·e would be n tima lim:Ltntion on this use. Mr. Errico then
requested th'1t a period of 7 years be considered with a review at the
end of S yc.1rs for the additional 2 years. He said the prcperty was
already zoned commercial and that the nppl:lcant would be cleaning up
the area by placing sidewalks in the a!'ea and patching up the·existing
boles.
l~. Sisk offered slides of the area and some dialogue followed, after
which }fr. Er1:ico i.1\dicated the apl}~icant i.Jould pla.ce side\Yalk for
an additional 50 feet as requested.
Rcspanding to n request for audience comments, }fr. Dean Bennett, 20391
Stevens Creek Boulevard (a resident) offered his comments in favor of
the plan, indJ.cating that it was a very worthwldle project. He did
question, how·evcr, the installation of sidewalks for such a limited
poriod of time.
Cn:nrnissioncr Buthcnuth 2.g¥'ccd \.,iith 1'1r. Bennett but felt that an overall
<lcvclopment should be rn.ide in the ,1rca and th.jt the residences should
not be converted, one by OL1C 1 from residences L,o COTIL'nerci.:i.1 uses.
It v.ras then moved by Con~missioner Meyers • .seconded by Commissioner Ilirshon
and J!.'isscd unnni.mously that the public hearings be closed.
Points of vit1 W of the Com.missioner:> t.:er:c as follo\1•s: Chatrman Puetz
indicat.ed his fcc1..i.1g th.:Lt this \1ould he ."tn .15!iCt to the City;
(ommi~;s:i.oncr Hirshon felt: that :it it '''.13 proporly done, the.
.1d<litinn would be a good '.Jne t:o t·he City 01nd Conun.lss.toncr ~fc~ycrs
rointod out the nccc~sity of n!<lcwulks hui11g installed in the nrea •.
It wus moved by Conn:1i~~;Joner J'-·!eycrn thn.t Us(? Perm.it 22-U-70 h~ approved
the lli Stand;ird Conditions, CondltJons 15 nnd t6 as presented in the
with
···~~"~4(~~1'1?~\t~?Ti;w"i\\\/#~~Jfi1>l~'le)JW"'1;\~\~~:;;;~~1~5f•i~1#~~¥ffef';j~~tll;;/~~~~ ...
' ,_., ' -·-~~L-."~ ''"""~......,:...ii.:..;. __ ,,., _ _;,_.····-----·~--~·~--
PC-22 •
•
•
' '
•
•
•
•
Mlnute>l of the l'lann:ing Comndssion, Novcmb~.r 9, .1970
Public llenrings (contfoued)
PlnnninH Dj.re:ctt)1~1 ~ 1no111orandum, nnd Condition l.7 thnt the side.walk bC ··
:lnstn 11,,.J in front of thtl ndjncnn.t roa:tdonce alNo r-w·ned by tho· Ul\pli~
c:nnt. The mot.ton W.CiR $(.~condud hy Comminuionor lt1.rshon und thn follow...:
i.ng vote \.Joi; tt:kon:
Aycn:
Noes:
Co1nmissionors Hir~;ho1~, }Ieycrs und Ch.n:trmnn Pu et~
Commi.t~sioncr llut:1cnuth
9. HERBERT W. REC.NAJ\'l', ct al: 1'E.:ffA1'JVli MAP (l.9-'l'H-70) to divide
approximntcl.y 23 ncrcs :into three pa.reels. Said propc:rt:'y is
locnto<l wa•tcrly of nnd adjacent to Regnart l\ond, npproxi-
matoly 21100 fo~t: south of tho intersection of !,indy Lane and
Rcgnal't Rond,, in an Al-43 (,\griculturnl-RMidential Sl.ngle-
famIJ.y) zone· First lfol:lrll\g. APPLICANT HAS REOUESTED THAT
APPLICA1'10N BE WI'fHllRA\IN, ·-----------·----·---W·----
Thin itl"m wns previously removed from the agenda.
10. VALLCO PARK: DEflNITION OJ:' IN1'F.NDED USES, PLANNED DEVF.LOP-
HF.NT ZONE: To consider the delineation of the proposed. uses
within the confimos of the P (Planned Development) zone of
Vallee Park. The property contllins 361 acres and is general-
ly locate<l southerly of Homestead Road, easterly of Wolfe
PC;.22
Po.gc 11
19-TM-70
withdrawn
Road and northerly of Stevens Cceek Boulevard, first llearing. l
Planning Dire.ctor Sisk presented visunl nids showing existing area and
proposed U!'CS. Ho indicated that approval of these proposed uses 11 k
\./Ould not change the exi.sting zoning hut would show future intent in a co Pair·
l j resentat on t 1 .s area.
Nr. \falter \lard of Val.lco Park canw forward giving a brief description
of uses proposed, com1ncnting that th1.s \vould .in no \-1ay change the
conditions previously connected with the area.
Tt was moved by Conunissioner Buthcnuth, seconded by Commissioner }feyers
nnd passed unanimously thnc public hearings be closed.
It ,.,.as not0d, at r.his time, t:hnt the audience had been afforded an
opportunity to con1rnent concerning the pending matter.
On a moticn by Commi.ssioncr Iluthenuth_, ~ second by Co111missioner ?-!eyers
and a unanimous vote, the public hearings were re-opened.
Mr. D. ~1enz of 19681 >ferritt Drive, Cupertino, voiced his concern as to
street~• being continued through at a late1· d.:it:e nnd }fr. Siak explained
that the streets i11 the commercial zoninf. area \,?oulcl not be extended,
commenting further that everythlng built \Jould require the approval of
a Use Pcrrnit by the City .
caring
'losed anci
e-opencd
h(',1rlng
cloi:;cd
V:.1llco
us~s
.'lppt"l'l\ICd
15-U-69
.11~1c.•ntlmt'?nt
(:ontinut>cl
Minutes of tho Planning Comml&sion, Nove1nbcr 9, 1970
. '
P<ibli.c Hearings (continued)
Piscunsj,on c:1mt:lnt111d brtofly and it WM moved by Co1mni.sai01ier
lluth1muth, 1rncondod l>y Commisdo1wr M•iyero nnd ;mssod b)• a uni:m-
imoui; vc>tc that tho public hearl.ng be clo11od.
lt '""" then moved by Commiss.lonot· Buthenuth with a second by
Commissioner Hoycra that tha intended uses of the plan11ed dovolop-
rncnt zone be .spprovad 1.1s proposed.
Ayes: Commistlionern Buthenuth, lll:rshon, Meyers, Chnirm1m l'ueti
Noc~l: None
11. VALLCO l'ARK: AMENDMENT 01' USE l'ERHIT 15-U-69 to allow tha
ei<pansion of <>ff-street parking fnci..lities for an existing
industrial building (lntersil, Inc.) located easterly of and
adjacent to Tantau Avenue, between Homestend Rand and
Pr11ncridgc Avenue, .in .a P (Planned Development) zone.
First Hear.ing.
Aft<'r agreement was indicated benrnen th!> Commissioners and Mr. Walter
Ward, representing V.1llco Park, it was moved by Co:nmlssioner Buthenuth,
seconded by Con1mis~1ioncr Hirshon and passed unnnimously-that thi.s
item be continued to the meeting of November 23, 1970 for discussion.
12. llUCK NORRED: ANEl\'D)!ENT OF USE l'ERHIT 7-U-69 to allow the
boarding of horses on property adjacent to an existing ap-
proved commercial riding stable. Said property is located
J.n the Kaber Quarry e"sterly of Stevens Canyon Road,
approximately 1,000 feet southerly of intersection of
Stevens C.'.lnyon Road and Ricardo Road, in an Al-/13 (Agri-
cultural-Residential Single-family) zone. First He"aring-
7-U-69 Pl.iiming Director Sisk commentod that the applicant was requnsting
:i;i:L~nd1ncnt an .:J.r.cncirncnt of his or:i.ginal Use Permit to allow him the use of an
n:-cscntntion .i.b.:lndoned qn~1rry for bo:1rding horses. He said the staff had recom-
nH.?ndcd appruval of the requested nn:(~.n<lment subject to the conditions
enumerated on the memorandum of Nc:.vembcr 5, 1970.
Mr, Mike Enn:i s, r~Pre!:;l!n.tin8 the Buck Norred Stables, cllmc for\..."ard
s,1yi.ng that m:1nure xvotild not be a problem in the quarry area because
it ,,·ould be hauled out: rngul.:1rly ,;,nd dumped elsewhere. He s:.ild tl)c
npplicnHt's only structure to be located :ln the nrea woul<l be a fenco.•which was
c:;:nr~r1cnts to be elcctric.-.11.ly charged. ln l'csponse to <1n inquiry from Mr. Puetz
regardinG tl1c safety of children 111 tl\c 3rea with tl1e electrical fence,
:-ir. Ennis re~:;ponUed that there \Vt"'rc no children in the areu and, if
there "·err, the olcctrJr.al charge would not hL• strong cnoi1gh to harm
anyont'lo. l-le cont:inued by snying thnt dr.J1n:1ge ,,•ould not be a problem
and indicatt~d thnt one-of the m:tin r~nsons for moving the horsas dO\Jl'l
tn the area was tl1c nntt1r;1l dr~ina~e in tl1at location.
•
PC-22 •
•
•
•
•
•
Minutes of tho Planni>\>\ Commisslon, Novamb<•r 9, 1970
l'ublic l!oarJ.ngs (cont i.nueu)
A sl1ort discussion follo\ou~d, wh1~t·oin mo<lificat:ions W1,;ft:J made us
follow1;: Condition No, .5 of th<' ol'iginnl Use l'ormit conditions was
am,~nded c.:o roplaca 1-1/~ St~1ndr~r·<l Condition~• (uhown in mci1norandu~1 from
the Plnnnl.ng Diroct<>r), CondlLion 15 tc, cxclu<lo "with the exception
of Con<lition 5 ••• " ranumbered to Con<lltlcn 6, Condi.ti.on 16 renumber-
ed to Condition 7, Con<l:ltJ.on :17 rcnumhct·cd to Condition 8, with
Condj.tio11 9 stating tliat horscH mny bo l;apt ovcrnigl1t in n cordoned
nr<~a und Cc,nd:l t:·ion 1 O thut rt~rnovul of mnnurc be dona ovary two weeks.
Further cliocuH::.lon fo.l l(1Wt'J, after whtch it Wils moved by Commission.or
Mcye1·s, seconded by ComrnJ.f>s.i.oncr llirshon and pHssed \lnnnimously that
tho public hearing hl~ c.;lor.0d,
It was then mOVl'?d by Commj s::;ion0r Neycrs that Use Permit 7-U-69 be
amcn1led tlS nH.;ntioned ho12ro.i.n. Said motion wns then seconded by
Commissioner llirsl1on, rcsultinc in t\1c following vote.
Ayes: Commissioners l3uth~~nuth, llii:nhon, Mcyt!.~rs and Chairman PUetz
Noes: Noni~
Commissioner Meyers .t~equesti.!d .a studr of the feasibility of· a street
being pbced in the urea of l'hnr I.op Drive in lieu of a footbridge
as previously proposed.
None.
!:_diournmcnt
It was moved by Conunissioner Hirshon with a second of Corrunissioner
Meyers and passed unanimously that the meeting be adjourned •
The meeting was dcclv.red adjourned by Chairman Puetz at 12:40 a.m.
ATTEST:
l'C-22
Page 13
condition
ch11ngcs
discussed
hearing
closed
7-U-69
amend<!d
Study
requested
adjournment
J
'
•
•
CI TY 01' CUPt:RTlNO, Stn t:a af Cdi forn fa
10300 Tonn Avnnuu, Cu1wrtino, , CslHomia
!!lJ_c J"!.!l?ll.'? •. ~.-~~-Z~~~:.:..:!.5 o ~~
MlN\J'l'ES OP Tl!E IUWULAR Mlcl.('l'lNG 01' THI> PLANNING CONMISSION HELD .
OCTOBER 12, 1970 IN '!'HE COUl\CJL Cll/\MllllR, CITY llt\LL •
CUPE!: TINO, CALIFORNIA
Chairman P<wtz cnll<id the mcrntinI' to order at 8:01 p.w. and all in
attcodartcc wara led 111 a salute to tl1a !lag.
Conmlissionars present: lluthcnuth, llirshon, Irwin (9:15 p.m.), Meyers.
PC-21
and Clrnirman Puetz. Albe present: Planning Dirac tor Sisk, Assistant roll call
Plllnnei· Cowan, Assistant City Engine.er Viskovich and Recording Secretax·y
Dc.)lores \..'hi ta. Abs<'nt: Ci.ty Attorney Anderson.
l. Minute.s of t!1e Regular M~eting of September· 28, 1970.
2. Minutes of the Adjourned Regular Meeting of October 1,
1970 .
It was moved by Commissioner Buth'cnuth, seconded by Conunissioner }[eyers,
nnd passed uuunimously that the minutes of the meetings o.f September 28
and October l, 1970 be approved as submitted,
l. Application l-J\ll-70 of Marianist Province of the Pacific:.
l)ostponcmcnt rcquestc.d to meeting of November 9, 1970.
Planning Director Sisk cor:1mente.d that the staff report was not ready at.
mlnutes
approved
this time und indi.cated, further, that the applicant had been contacted' 1-AB-iO
and was in agreement foi.4 a continua.nee of hearing on this application to contj_nucd
the meeting of November 9, 1970.
It w~1s moved by Cornmissionc:!-· Neyers, seconded by Comoissioner Buthcnu.ch
nnd passed by a ununimous vo':~ that J\pplic0tion l-AB-70 b0 continued .to
the meeting of November 9, 1970.
2. Application 17-TM-70 of Franchise R"alty Interst::itc
Corporation: Tentative Map -lot split to divide 4. 7
ncres into two parcels; located at southwest corner of
St.evens G~cck. Boulevard and Portal .Avenue in a CG
(General Ccw:1:nercial) zone!. First Hearing.
Mr. Sisk reported that he recently ho<l a telephone discussion with the
npplicant durlng which .il was mutu;1lly agreed that: a request for contin
uance be made to the 1r.ect.ir.g o( November 9, 1970 for hearing on subj~.ct
application.
17-111-70
discussi0n
I
17-TM-70
continued
14-TN-67
rev if!V.'
d ·1 scussion
l·~-T~!-67
,,.. ont :! nul.!J
Minutes of tha Planning Commission, October 12, 1970
Postpon.,nrnnts (cont:inu~d)
It wns moved b)' Commissioner Hirshon, eoconded by Commiosionor Meyora
nnd paoscd una11imously thnt Application 17-TM-70 bn continued to 'the
rnaoting of November 9, 1970.
1. l\equMt: for extansfon of time on Tentative Mop H-TM-67
of Robnrt !!. Zimm~t·.
Plann.ing D:lrcctor Sisk rcportcic.J that this map h:.:ld been approved by the
City Council in <ktobc.r of 1969 nnd nt that timo the applicant was
g.ivcn a period of one )'C.'lr in wh.tch to prep.are a pnrcel map for
rccordut:ion. lie said the nppl:lcant in this cast'! has roquevtod
rin extension of tima for one yonr in which to complete _this reqJire-
mant. l~e added the rccommnndation of the Planning Department to be
to ~idd three conditions nu submitted by the Public 'htorks Direcr.or.
Mr. Sisk c·ontinued by s,'lying thnt the utilities und access were the
prim.:iry problem::; ut this t.imc and, after contact had b~en made with
the owners, it was suggested that the three additionnl·conditions
be recommended to the Pl.:inning Commission.
It was suggested by Cor.unissionl-'!t' E~thcnuth that the map be held in
abeyance until future development of Rcgnart Road is more defined.
that the City Attorney be consulted relative to t:hc three additional·
conditions Hnd a nt~w Tentative Map be submitted at a later date.
A discussicm followed during which the formation of a Local Improvement
District (LID) wa.13 discussed along with possible future changes in the
alignments of the nrc~~
It ~\'.'.1S th~ consensu~.' of the Commission th.!lt an overall plan should be.
r.1ade becau~'e of future changes certain to occur nnd that the ffiatter .
should be suspend0d pending the formation of a Local Improvement
DJstrict.
Planning Director Sj.sk indicnted tl1nt a study would be uncicrtaken of
the entire Drcn by the E~gino.ering Dnd Planning Departments and presented
to the Pl.'.lnn.ing Commission for thcit~ revic:w.
After offering nn ad<lition~l suggestion th~~ the three additional condi-
tions b~~ c.lir0..:t~d to the City Attorney for his comments, it \./.JS moved by
Corr:missionar J3uth.nnuth, seconded by Commission.er }!eyers and passed by
,1 un,]n:imous vote of the Comrnls!>ion that discussion of Tcnt.'.ltive Map
14-TM-67 be co11ti11ucd to t:10 second regulnrly scheduled meeting in
November (November 23, 1970).
i•lr. Sisk nnnounc~d tCt the Commif:sion that !I course for Planning Commis-
sioners had been sche<lult?.d to begin in either JRnuary or ~ .. e.bruary of
PC-21 •
•
•
•
•
•
Minut<>s of tho l'lnnning Commission, October 12, 1970
'):1.:1!
tlrol Cmnmunic<1tions (continued)
1971 in s.on Ft'/ll>Oi!!CO. lie i.ndicntcd that Comnd.ssiotHlr Irwin had pre,.
viously nttcnd~d thi~ cours" nnd i.ndicated it hnd been ver)"·holpfol'to'
him. Mr. Sl.$k H<ldod that hi.n informnt:lon 1'.olat:tvc to thia cournn was
limited nt the tJmo and he wm.1J.d be introducing thl.s item ngni11 whon
xnorc :tnformnt:ion wns mnde ovnilnblo to hin1. •
Chairman Puetz m11de it known thnt the City of Cupertino would bn having
:lts Pioneer Parndc on Octobor 17th, beginning nt the City llnll off:tcaa
and cnd.ing ,,t Cupertino High Sd1ool, imd invited all in assemblage to
Htt<.~nd •
Mt~. PuL).tz then r<~questcd further. oro.l communic:ntions from the audience
of which the1:c were nlJDO :introduced.
Application l-AD-70 of Mnrianiet Province of the Pacific:
Request for Abandonment of Public Right-of-way westerly
portion of Mndcrn Rood frcm its intcrscction·with Mercedes
Ron<l to its westerly terminus -a distance of approximate-
ly 533 feet. FJrst llcnring continued. POSTPONEMENT .
REQUESTED TO MEETI~G OF NOVEMBER 9, 1970.
Discuss:lon of this application was previously postponed, undei; Postpone-
ments, to t\10 meeting of November 9, 1970.
2. Application 19-U-70 of Soul• Harber Church for Use Permit
to allow use of existing building as a church -1-1/2
acre~: locatl~d southwest corner of Homestead Road llnd
M,qxine in a BQ (Quasi-Public Buildings) zone. First
llearJng.
Plnnning Director Sisk reported thnt this application hnd been before
the Planning Commission. on otbcr occnsions, once relative to lodge use
and once for a proposed child care center. Xr. Sisk added the building
had originally been ero~ted for chu~ch purposes and wcs again being
presented to the Commission ::or npprovnl of church purpose use. The
property, he said, wa.s prcscnLly bc1ng utilized for church services on
a temporary basis witl1 permission of tl1e City Council. The only change
from tl1c previous n11plication would be location of t11e parking spaces
and the applicant h.3.d proposed ta upgr:i.do the existing parking facility
ir1 such a way that it would be quj.tc adequate for t11e building needs.
Mr. Sish. offered slides for the Commission~rs 1 information which were
subsequently deemed unneccsGary.
Reverend Harold Rich.:lrdson, Pastor of Souls H:1rbor Church, residing at
185 Surmont Court, Los Gatos, advcinl'.'.cd froni the audience and indicated
he had nothing to ndd to Mr. Sisk's prescnt3tion .
Chairman Puetz inquired of the npplicnnt H items found to be in need
of rcpnir or urgrnding within the bui.ldlng hacl been brought up to
PC".'21 .
Page' 3'
Planners
course
discussion
parade
announced
. 1-AB.-70
continued
19-U-70
present3.tion
C<'ndit:ion
co::1rncnts
f"U~:ilic
he.; i·i ng
19-l'-70
appr1.."lved
17-To!-70
continued
Minutes of the Planning Commission, October 12, 1970
Publl.c Hearings (continued)
building ata1><.lardH .lfll prcvJ.ously mentioned by Hr. llcncvi.ch at tho
Clty Council mcllting of St>ptct11bct· 28th.
Revarnnd Richnrdson report<'d that most of the problems had been t<tkon
cnrc of~ incll1di11g t11osu indicated by Mr. West, the el~ctrical in-
spector nnd the plumbing inspector. He S3id Che fire. extinguishers
had been :installed, the Sheetrock h'1d been placed bcncath the sta3e
ttrc<.\ nnd <.)n top of the fu.tnncc room} the .landing had been constt·ucted
from tho pltttform with t;teps descending :i.nt:o t:he two side rooms, a fan
hnd been pi.it into opL1t-.1tion in the women's restroom ,3nd all of tho exit
doors h.1d bean made to operate till\Oathly.
1n rcspon;,e to Comm:lssioncr Buthcnuth 1 s Jnqulry ns t1~ a youth program
nt the church, the rcver~nd cam1:n"?nted that the \.Jcdna iduy evening service
wns prirnnrily 11cld (or the youth of his porisl1.
The rev1.~rcnd v:as then .asked if he was in concurrence with all "'1f the
ccnJi.t:ions, spccifical.l.v No. 17 pertaining to outside activities. and
he rcplieJ thul h.1,;: r,~eochcd agHinst such activities us mentioned i.n
thl.s condition.
It wns movl2d by Commissioner llirshon) s~conded by Carruni.ssioner
Buthcnuth and pass<.:~<l un.:.~nimou.sly th.:it tht~ public ·hcarir.g be closed
on Application 19-U-70.
It 'i.VDs further moved by Cow.missioner Hi rs hon nod seconded by Commissioner
Ru t:ht.~nu th that the App lie a tion 19-U-i'O be approved, subject to thu
12 St.:in<l.::rd Conditions and the ndditi.onnl conditions as outlined in
the Planning Director 1 s memornn<lum of October 8, 1970.
Ayes:
N'oes:
Co!!'~r:lissioners Buthcnl\th ~ Hirshon, Meyers and Chairman Puetz
~:enc
3. Appl ic3 t:lon 17 ··'l'M-70 of Franch isc Realty Interstate
Corpor•1tio~: Tentative Map -lot split to divide 4. 7
acres l.nto tl...'o p.:irccls; located at southwest corner of
S tcvcn~> Creek nou levard and Portal Avenue in a CG
(Gene·r~1l Cor.n:iercial) zonr;~. First llca·ri.ng.
As i11dicntcd under tl1e PostponDmcnts J'arttun of the 1noeting, this ap-
pli.cation h:1s b(~cn contlnue<l to the me0t1.11g uf November 9, 1970 for'
con~idcr~tio11 ut tl1~t time.
1. Rcvic'! of Oak<lcll-Crc~ton Footbridge.
Mr. Sisk rem~rk~J tl1~t lie l1ad notlling aJ<lltional to report on tl1is item
at thls tJmc. lh.~ ~3:\id the m.:11..t.er was c.on•:inuod nt thC' ln::lt City Council
meet.Lng to afford n<ltli.tional time•, to the Pl;J1uLing Commission £ot-further
review of altern:lt.ivcs.
PC-21 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Minute~ of. tho l'lnnning Co1rmt•sfon,. Octohot· 12, J 97.?,
Unf:ill!shcd BuslMIW (concinuNI)
. ,. ;
'.1 i ,·.;,!
Comnd s11J,011cr Hirshon stningly racommcindcd th111:, City Attornoy.Anden~on .
p,i,vo n l<>g.11 opinion in conncctlon wit,h tho mi•ttci·. previouiily brought
up l't"gnrdi.ng rtJor rc~trictIOns in tho docd conccf.niug' ~ho. ~4n'd in_-.
vnlvCld :1.n the footbr:i.dgL1 ns pt'l~cluding its conscruct:ion. lie~ continued
by snyJng thnt hLJ pr.tor feelings on !:his mnttor ~ould h" 11ltorcd with
knowl<.•dgt:.~ of ntld:i.t:Jonal fncts :i.n th1A regnr<l.
Foll1..1wing n short dlBClll::H~ion of tho footbridge iat\UC, it \'1US inovod by
Comm:tssione,'r Buthl~l1\\th and snc.on<h~d by Co111m:i.nsion.cr Hc_yai·s t:h~1t: thj.s
discussion b(~ continued to l:hc mcct:lng of November 23 to allow time
fo1· the gnthe1·:i.qg of additional informntion for presentation. Thc.ra
was no vote taken on this tnot:lon.
CownisRio1·er Meyers the11 st1ggostcd thnt furtl1er datn be supplied on
the nltcrnntc prcvio11sly introduced nn<l thnt the City staff study tho
po&sj.bJ.l.ily of riinning Woodbtiry Drive <lircctl.y ncross to Creston to
nt)t only solve the. problem of the footbri.dbe b11t to remove the cul-de-
snc no\1' c:x.isting in that location.
Chni'l:m.nn Puetz ind:Lcatcd hi.s ngrcemcnt with Comn1issioner. }feyers on his
comments.
Reflecting back. to the moLion prcv:i.ously introduced by Cof"lrnissioncr
nut:hcnut:h and 8C'Condccl by Corn:11lssioner Meyers for cont:tnuancc of the
footbridge discussion to, J:'ovc:mber 23rd, \he following vote was t·aken.
Ayes:
Noes:
Conimtssioncrs Buthenuth, Hirshon. }fr~yers and, Chairman Puetz
Ncne
Commissioner 1-lirshon init.i.a tcd .:1 rninutc order reconnnen<lation that
before the f0-.:.ithridge matter \Vas brought back for discussion, a legal
opinion be rendered by City Attorney Anderson relative to limits and
rcstricttons on the deect. This minute order was seconded by Commissioner
Moyers and pnsscd by n unanimous vote of t.:hc Commissioners pi·csent.
2. Revic1,• of the Service Station Study.
Asr>i.stnnt Pla.nn.-:-r Cowan introduced. the second draft to the Commissioners
nnd requested r0com:11Qlld.'ltions and comments :i.n co~n1ection 'i:Vith the
Appendix of tl1c study.
Plnnning Director Sisk rel.1t.Pd that he h.nd v.:i.rious discussions relative
to the Use rcrmj_t rcqui1·c.r1cnt contnincd in. the service st:ction study. He
tl1cn introduceJ t110 rcprcsc11t3tivc of Western Oil and Gas who was in the
audience .1nd rrqucst:ccl his cornmcnts on the study.
Prior to discussion uf <liff0rcnt items contnincd j11 the study by the
reprc•scnt:atlve, Mr. Sisk s~igf:estc<l, sub~:0qucnt to the Pl.n.nn:i.nr, Commis-
Bion1!> r·cv:lew, thP study be fon.r.'.lrdL•d to thP City Council for :i.ts
review nn<l gc11Prnl distribution.
re-~1 1't ,., .
Page S
footbridge
discussion
discussion
continued
to Nov. 23
minute order
for legal
comments
service
statiou
industry's
COnl\l\('l'\t~
di.~3cussion
}.',. StanUard
Conditions
J iscussl.on
Minutes of tho P.1nnning Commission, October 12, 1970
Unfinished Buainoss (continuud)
Mr. VirgH McNabb of Western OU nncl GM Aa1wci11tion described hie . ~ ..
compnny n:; 11 general trndo nuoocint.ion representing the oil industry
in t11a Rix wootcrn St3tes.
Mr. NcNabh ndd<>d thnt ht> folt the study to b~ a good one nnd very oh-
j~ctive for tl10 most pnrt.
A rcpllrte<> followed dllring which sev<n·,.i topics contni1wd in the.study
were c~xplored by both tho Commission(1rs nnd }tr. ~1cNnbb. Some of tho
i.t<1 m .1 <liscuss1~<l wore.: c.lnr:i.ficn.tion of the Ge11<?.rul. Plan, planned
commercial dc'.rt•lopmcnt nnd J.ts effect upon the ind:lvidual landowner,
pl.::1cement of Cl'•'"".r11ncos to lube hnys, ratio8-of stations to various
cit.lcs. time li..1111.tatlons on effcct:i.ve zoning ufter a st.ntion has
been closed or vacnted) hours set aside for automobile repairs,.
planned clustering of st.1ti.ons, cstabl::..shment of n definition of
mlnl)t rcpnir und suggcHtions as to leneth of time necessary before
review of a stntion for upgrnding purposes.
At the conclusion of this discussi.on, Mr. McNahb indicated his desire
that: the Cl.ty Attor11ey examine the entire study prior to any finaliza-
tion .:1nd added his favorable comments, once ngaj_n, relative to ·the
study as a whole.
ChRinnn.n Puetz sugger.tcd further exchange of dialogue with o\vners and
operators of service stations to obtain their interpretations and
comments on th<.~ st:udy. llc asked thut Mr. Sisk contact various people
in the area and request public d!scussion on the study.
Plnnni.ng Director Sisk ;ndicatcd that this item would be added to the
upcom:i.ng agenda for further dl.scussion at that time.
l. Re.vie·w of J.!1 Staadnrci Condi tl.Qns.
Mr. Sisk introduced the conditions sh;'iri.g they, in essence, were a
combination of the Architectural and Site Approval Conunittee's
standards and tl1c Plnnning Dcpllrtmcnt 1s standards.
Ch.3.irman Puetz commented that he ·was concerned with Condition No.
in t11at he felt it should nlso include pollutants such as noise,
light ~1nd air, to which Mr. Hirshon <J.dJ.ed that a study wcs being
unLlertakcn which couJ.<l eliminate tl1e need of this and felt tl1e
conditi~'11 should rcn1ain, ns is, until results arc obtained from
tl1c County Study.
It was recommended by the Plnnnlng Director that these 14 Standard
Conditions be submitted to the Clty Council if approved by tha
Planr:.ing Commir~Bion.
3
!.'C-21
' '·
•
•
•
'(. .-.;
~ ' ;;
t
•:;:
·~:
' '
~:
•
•
Minutes of the Pl11m1i11lJ CommitrnJ.on, October 12, 1970
N<M Bu1Ji nc as (cont inu<'.'d)
l t wirn moved by Co111misaio11c1· Moyers, s~condad by Commissioner l~i~ and)
pllSH<'d un11nimou1Jly t:lwt thtl 1.4 $tnndnrd Condit.ioM be. approved and
l"<'l'01111ncmdcd 1:0 tlw City CouncH for n<loptfon.
2. lntcn·p1·otntfon of Section 95.3 of G<mernl. Commorcial
Ord:l.nnncc n!l rt..~lated to non-l'cst:nur:ul.t dJ:J.vc-in
fllcilit foll (l'otomn t Corporu t:ion J.nqui ry)
Pl nnni.ng Dirnctor Sisk rcmarki'd thnt five different typM of drive-ins
\Jc~rc de-scriheJ under UHe Perm.it pr<.JViHions nnd requested clarification
111~ t.o whct.hc.~r :.1 drive-in photo service should obt.nin u Use Pcr1n·it in
or<l0r to begjn OJ)erutio11.
After <l brief djsc.ttssion, it Wll!~ 1llO'V 1Jd by Commissi.oncr Irwin .and
tl<~COthll~d by Cor.111:i~·;::,iut1cr n•.1thenuth thal iHtcrprct~lti.Oll of Section
9.). 3 of Lhc GPncral Com1.~crc:lnl Ordinnnc.'~ be thnt n non-rcstanri"\nt:
drJvc·~in facility is one which requtros n Ust:! Permit as a control
of parking, iugrcss, egress, access, atcaccrn.
Ayes:
Noes:
Commissioners Buthcnuth, Hi rs hon .. Irwin, Meyers nnd
Ch11irmnn Puetz
None
Comrnissioncn.~ lllrshon commented thnt there w·ns nothing new· to report ~.,,rith
chc exception that the Planning Policy Com1nitteo t;,~1as still studying
l ..
I
I
' tpc-21
:Page 7
I
cond:f.Cio11s
11pprove!l
'
intcrprctD-
t:.ion given
the over.all plan to ndopt standards nn<l n1eans of enforcement for r~ports
pollt:tion problems such as sewage and open space. He said they
are still formulating this report and it is not finalized enough
for proper presentation.
No otl1er reports were presented.
l. Rev.Lc-.J of the Sito Plan of Del Oro Development Company
(30-TM-69).
Co1nmir;si.onc 1' ButhL~nuth requested to nhstnin from the discussion and
v0tc of th0 su~·J~1:t site plan.
Pl.:inning Dir£~ctor Sisk dc!>cri.bed the development as an 8/1-unit compllU<
of apartmcnr.':; 1ocatC'd on Mary Avenue. The pl.::i.n was"""(~pprove'<l by t!tc.
PJnnn.ing Co111:nist>ion more th0n one y~nr ago and it l.YllS subsequently
discovered that Hu.iJ.ding C would Le pro·jpctl;1g over the Sta.tc right-
of-w.'.ly line 11t t\..10 different locations. He said Building B would also
be proj cc ting over tlic lirac.
Del Oro
prcscntntion
•
. .
.
Minut:,)S of tho l'lntmin& Commissfon, October 12, 1970
Report of the l'lnnninB Dirccto1· (continued) .
Throe 11ltci:nntivOt1 oppc:ircd to be open to tho d1ivolope1·, Thollc, wa~1u
lld Oro 1) to nltc•1•,pt: to .~cquiru nddition.11 dght-of-wny froin the St11~0,,J.n,.
.1ltcrnoti.v1•s or<lM to move pt·opcrty lJ.nc, ?) pctiti.on the State fo1· uomo typo of
M>WnHH)t to Hllow tlH1 overhang or 3) try to cut the ovcrhnng off tho
b11ilding entirely.
::1..~~1cr.1l
.:iscuss.ion
}It'. Sisk concluded tlu1t no ;icti.on IMS required from tho Commission nm!
n1ldcJ tl1nt lie would be rcturninp with the £inal outcome of the dovcl-
opnr' a efforts co climinntc tl1e ovcrl1nnn problem. lie snitl the &ubj~ct
h;id been presented to tile ~onunJssion foi: their information only at
this time., ·
::1d co1~1ments According to Mr. S:i.sk., u public he.iring \~·ns found to ba necessary by
. Jj ournmen t
the C:i.ty Councl.l relative to problems at Tiff.:~ny Billinrds and he
in(,)rml.l.d the Cono:ni.ssioncrs that the matter would be introduced nt
t:hC' lH~Xt mrcting of the Plnnni..ng Cor:un:i.ssion.
Ccm~insioner lr~,·in interjected that the '£iff.anv Billiai·ds Use Permit
l1nd nr0uscd more fru~~rncicn and ill~fceling a;o11g tl1c residents ti\~n
nny other item he hns been exposed to for quite some time.
It \.'ns 1r.ov0d by Co1r.missione1~ Trh·:i.n 1 seconded by C.::>rnmissioncr l!irshon ·
thn~ the meeting be .::idjournc:d to November 9, 1970. The motion · .. :as
passc<l by a unan:ir.-:ous vote. of the Commissioners •
The meeting '"'" adjourned at .tO :38 p.m.
ATTEST:
•
•
• ,.
•
•
•
CITY OF CUPERTINO, Stnte of California
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California
I~t~_ .. ?..!il.:.:!.ill
d'
MINUTl!S OF THB ArlJOURNJJD REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION llELD OCTOBER 1, 1970 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER; .
C!Tr !!ALL, CUl'EHTI NO, CALI FOHN IA
The meeting was called to order at 7:3S p.m. by Chairman
Puetz, who subscquc11tly led in the flag salute.
Roll Call ------
Commissioners present: Irwin, Hirshon, Meyers, Chairman
Puetz. Commissioner lfothcnuth 7:40 p.m. Also prcs~nt:
City Attorney Anderson, Director of Public Narks Yarborough,
Parks and Recreation Director Parham, Planning Director Sisk
Senior Planner Laurin, Assistant Planner Cowan and Recording
Secretary Florence Reid.
Chairma11 Puetz announced that the purpose of the meeting was
to hr:ar from each of the two groups of people who will. give
their opinions as to why the footbridge aver Stevens Creek
should or should not go in. He requeste.d that each group
limit their time for stating their views to one half hour
with a five minute rebuttal for each group •
Question was asked as to legality of this public hearing·
and City Attorney replied that it is a public meeting ,
but not a public hearing on which a decision will be m·ade.
that will bind the city. In due course there will be a'
public liearing, which will be noticed in the paper and
the Council will make the decision as to what will be done~
Planning Director Sisk stated that the Council had r,equested
a review of the stuff report and recommendations to the
Council on the staff report. These recommendations would
be sent to the Council the next day.
Commissioner Irwin was concerned as ·.:o the amount of paper
work and hearings that have taken place and stated that the
School Board seems to be not in favor of this footbridge.
116 cited letter from Elaine Rosendahl, member of the School
Board, which sta.tcd .opposition to the bridge. He. inquired
if the School lloar<l would give the right of way to go ahea.d
on this project or could the city go ahead on its own. Also
Commissioner Irwin ivould like to know the percentage of the
people for and against in the area. Chairman Puetz stated
that Planning Director Sisk had figures.and facts concerning
students who will be participating in t'he use of the foot-
bridge and their age group5 .
' ' ;
I
Page 2 .
' i y ·, ~ i Minutes of the Planning Conunlssion, October l, 1970, ,, .. ,, 1 PC·20
Commissioner Buthenuth inquired as to bus sing 'of chiidren · •
following construction of the footbridge. Chairman Puet:t
stated tl1e school board will continue school bussing until
such time as ll:n insCifficicnt number of children would: require
bussing. ·
Cicy Attorney Anderson answered Commissioner Irwin's question
as to refusal of the school board the right to use .tho. foot-
bridge on which they have an easement, stating that tho city
lies the power of eminent domain. Q~estion was asked 'tho
City Attorney if he had seen the letter pertaining to perid-
ing action by Donegan & Logan, attorneys in Palo Alto. Mr.
Anderson said that he would take no position until the Council
has taken its position.
Commissioner Irwin suggested that each group select one
qualified spokesman to speak for them.
Planning Director Sisk explained that the staff was asked
to make a study of the area related to providing pedestrian
access to Stevens Creek School. This study was made by th.e
Planning Director, Parks and Recreation Director and Public
Works Dir~ctor. Their concern was for the proposed'S-acr~
park adjacent to Stevens Creek School, the drainage .facility
and the number of dwelling units, land .use in the. neighhor,-
hood. Mr. Sisk referred to the four basic assumptions in
the staff report. ·
Chairman Puetz inquired as to the actual count of children.
attending Stevens Creek School. This information had been
supplied to the Planning Department by Mr. Norton, princi~
pal of the school.
Public Works Director Yarborougl1 said in regard to the
request for a study of alternate means for providing pede~
strian access both to schools and park facilities, there
had been some possibility of using walkways along Stevens
Creek Blvd. to provide access. It had become obvious that
provision of sidewalk along Stevens Creek Blvd. would be
desirable but would not be a safe means for crossing the
creek. The County has approved the project to provide
sidewalk and this will be done regardless of the outcome
of the discussion of the necessity for a footbridge. In
looking at the existing casements, this was the only public
right of way that can be used. Mr. Yarborough assured the
Comnission that the structure would be enclosed and archi-
tecturally functional and attractive. Also, there would
be baffles to prevent motorcycles using the bridge. Side-
walks along Creston would have to be improved.
Chairman Puetz inquired as to the improving of Stevens
Creek Blvd. since it is quite steep, would there be any
•
•
•
•
Minutes of the Planning Commission, October l,,J9?0
fill. at all. Mr. Yarborough said that it wouli:I be possil>le
to fill that area. Que:;tion arose as to tho 40 stopli·: 11~''; '.
Rivorcrest and on Stevens Creek going to a higher elovat'i1on
There will be separation of pedestrians and traffic and'the
stairs will present no problem. Investigation should be
made to imprcve the lighting a~d the c11trance.
Parks and Recreation Director Parham then made a statemen•
as to the plans for ncighborl1ood parks to be located next
co school playgrounds so that the combination of park and
playground gives additional space for recreation.
Chairman Puetz inquired as to the status of $tonyd~le Park
should the bond issue not pass. Mr. Parham felt that this
was a question for the Council to answer, however, the need
to develop neighborhood parks is now, so that if the bond
issue docs not pass, development will take place one way or
or another. In answer to a further question as to the
length of time it would take to develop a neighborhood park,
Mr. Parham stated about a year from the time this was
authorized by Ccuncil and actual completion.
Commissioner Buthenuth asked Parks and Recreation Director.
about providing sand lot type parks for ball diamonds and
soccer fields each with one leader. Mr. Parham said that
this would be feasible, however, this would only supply
athletic type of recreatfon. Discussion followed as to
various needs for recreation for certain. age groups.
Chairman Puetz inqui12d as to people travelling from Phar
Lap Drive to the H~rse Ranch and Winery if these were
developed for a teen center. The older teenagers would
have no problem getting to that area but the 11, 12, 13-
year olds should be considered. Suggestion of the need
of a traffic light was regarded as a help to these children
crossing Stevens Creek Blvd. 7hese park facilities would
be citywide as the Memorial or Central Park. Neighborhoods
must be SIJplJed with their own facilities even thoµgh many
people will go to the central parks.
Question was then asked Public Works Director Yarborough
if a study had been made to create some sort of structure
across the creek in the vicinity of Rivercrest. Mr.
Yarborough felt that this would not be practical because
structures have been added on each side. He stated that
if a better location could be found, it should be used,
but in his opinion, there is nc better one than the one
being considered siPce the easement had been set aside
originally. Commissioner Hirshon inquired if.it would
be more costly to place the structure in the Rivercrest
area because of the homes that have been constructed ..
PC·20
Pago 3, ·
Page 4
'.
Minutes of the Plnnning Cornmissi.:m, October l ," l970. · '1 ' ···: i'
there and Mr. Yarborough answored that this was the case •.
Thi• :.•tcrnato was not considered as it had been reported
tha• ,, •re is a house or structure that would bloc!< the'
.,, :
Since the pork will take a year to 18 months to complete, .
whiclr is of importance to the residents traversing Stevens
Crock, Chairman Puetz then askc~ how long ~t would take .to
construct the bridge, and Mr. Yarborough stated that it.
could be built in the same time span as the park. He. spoke
of the allocation of funds for this purpose. Conslderation
of tl1c school, in his opinion, is important because of the
daily need to move people across the creek.
Discussion followed as to whose problem, city or school, when
children cannot arrive at school at an early hour for special
reasons or cannot stay after hours for activities. Public
Works Director said that it was a city problem since the
schools have no legal responsibility outside the school
grounds. Planning Director Sisk stated that it is a city.
problem to provide access.
There was also discussion as to the possibility of the cur~
tailment of illegal crossings of the creek by the constr~c
tion of the bridge. Mr. Yarborough thought that it would
curtail these crossings and would train youngsters to
utilize th~ bridge.
Slides were then shown of the area.
In connection with arrangements with Flood Control, they
have indicated they would permit a crossing at that point
and the bridge would have to meet their specifications,
according to Mr. Yarborough, to afford greater capacity··
so there will not be a bottleneck at this point. As .to
cost, it could vary depending 011 what degree. it is developed,
possibly $5,000 to $20,000.
There was concern on the part of Chairman Puetz that the
bridge might jeopardize a private driveway but Mr. Yarborough
said there would be no problem here.
Planning Director Sisk presented a drawing showing the area
that Flood Control now has.
Public l'iorks Director said that nothing had been·-·:
prepared as to design as yet but Flood Control has stated
they will allow tl1e construction of the bridge.
Commissioner Jlirshon inquired of City Attorney Anderson
es to Mr. Doncgan's letter of Sept. 29 regarding prior
restrictions for residential purposes 011ly. Mr. Anderson
PC-20 •
•
•
•
•
•
Minutes of the Planning Commission, Octobc1· l, 19'10
replied that the city has the power to rezone any land within
the city and cited a case where the courts decided in favor
of the city.
Chairman Puetz brou,J1t up the map that had been presented
which showed tl1c city owning an casement from Phar Lap to
Stevens C1oek. From Stevens Creek to the end of Creston
is a non-c>elusivc casement granted to Cupertino School Dist.·
lie asked what the city would have to do to take over that
casement if this was necessary if a bridge was placed at·
this location. Mr. Andcrsou said that this is a non-exclu-
sive casement differentiated from the City of Cupertino
exclusive 0ascmcnt. Non-exclusive easements can be used
for various casements, pipolinc, bicycles, walking, et cetera
If tl1c school forcJd tho city to an eminent domain on that
non-exclusive casement, the city would have to pay a judg-
ment <lcpendi11g on the court's opinion as to what portion and
value the casement, had to the city, what portion and value
to the school and what portiou ~nd value to n third party.
In answer to Mr. Puetz second question as to maintenance,
Mr. Anderson stated that the code provides that·common·ways
that arc not de di ca tcd, according to Superior Co•1rt procedure,
the state reviews evidence and decides how to approach the
amount of repairs among the users in direct relation to the
amount of each user. Mr. Anderson felt that this would
apply in this situation where the school had no use at
all for the easement. The city would have to maintain the
casement.
Commissioner Meyers inquired about sidewalks for Crescent
and the dedication of property for this purpose in this
area. Mr. Yarborough stated that the right of way is
there. He also stated as f;:;r as maintenance was conc.,rned
that the city would maintain the easement and the property
owners would not be affected. Commissioner ~!eyers also
asked if sufficient property had been dedicated and Mr.
Yarborough replied that this was so.
Chairman Puetz called for a 5-minute recess at 9;05 p.m.
Following recess, Chairman Puetz asked that the first
spokesman for the group who will speak for the bridge
would speak and limit his time to one half hour. Follow-
ing this the spokesman for the group who will speak
against the bridge followed by a 5-minuto rebuttal by
each speaker.
Mr. Robert Clancy of 10460 Phar Lap Drive spoke for the
gr0up that would like to sec the construction of a bridge
across Stevens Creek. The problem has existe~ for six
c,-2Jl ,,, '
asc 5
;:.
,.
t·.
Page 6 Minutes of the Planning Commission, October 1,
1
1970
"
years. The City Council has seen the slides seen by the
Plnnning Commission at this mooting, He spoke of .~he",., .
children going. on· t;lte rail road• tracks and other/dangerous'::
routes. The City Council resolu~ion of July 20''stated,. Jt,'
that tho problem should be defined and a solutirin must ' · '
be found. Mr. Clancy felt the problem .was whether there · ,
sl1ould be access across the creek. He referred to the. ·
city staff report and the four basic assumptions. Access
to the recreation pr~gram is desirable and this is bping
sponsored by City of Cupertino at Stevens Creek Schciol.
During the summer this prog1·am nms all day and the ,chil.·
dren should hava a safe way to go there. As to the second.
basic assumption, he stated that bussing does not'all6w for
proper functioning of park facilities provid~J by th6'cJty.
No. 3 of the staff report stated that pedestrian walkways
can be made and in a way that would not be ln5urious to
property owners. No. 4 of the staff repor· L1Commended'
tot lvts, however, this does not solve the problem' or· any ··
child over eight. Mr. Cloney felt there should have'.been
a Sth basic assumption and this was that if the city could
not find a solution to the problem, the child will find' the
solution. They ure risking their lives to get to places :'.'
provided by the city, he suid. The city stJff has st~died,
the problem and came up with the same recommendation, for'."
a bridge to be built. Children also need to go back '1.lld
forth across the creek to visit friends tney have made or.
the other side. The city staff has reviewed a jitney
service.
Mr. Clancy said that the staff report comes down to two
ul ternutes:
1. Along Amelia and along Stevens Creek Blvd. to
our area. The urea to be developed on Stevens Creek Blvd.,
is in the county ~nd ~Ir. Clancy understood that this would
not be developed until 1972, but the children are in danger
n O\V.
2. Can the footbridge be built and not interfere with
property rights of adjacent neighbors? Mr. Clancy understood
the right of way exists and can be rcclained in 30 duys.
~Ir. Clancy spok~'of the fact thut there are no ~•dewalks in
Creston und tl1e supervision of a bridge of this nature. A~
to the molesting problem, he felt the problem existed at
tl1is time becouso children do cross there now. ·
This group had cont;ictcd every police department in the
county and he stated that they had responded that footbridges
PC-20 •
•
have been an. asset. Sgt. Tamm of Santa Clara County Sheriff's •
Dept. wcs quoted as saying tl1at a bridge could be built that
~ould not create a problem. Mr. Clancy felt that there were
certain special problems that should be considered by Planning
•
•
Minutes of the Planning Commission, Octobor l, ,1!)(0 '.;juni:«.
Commission in recommending a bridge such as a spacial, d70.n.c1:1
so children won't fall into tho crook, prohibiting.,111ot,01·~,,
cycles, and locks to bo lockad after Porks and RoC%Oation
Dept, has closed at night. 1bo bridge is not the porf~ct
solution but 110 asked, what is tho altornata solution.
As to bussing of school childrcii, Mr. Clancy had talked to
Scliool Supt. Corey in regard to the footbridge proposed for·
constructio11 by the City of Cupertino and Supt. Corey had
state,] that ll'.1s service will be continued and doponds on
th<' numb'.'!' of children requiring this S<)rvic~"
Mr. Clancy spoke of other alternatives having been mentioned
such as a new school but Stevens Crock School now and in the
future can cover all nec<lr.
Mr. Nicholas Szabo, 10235 Creston Drive, then spoke for the
gr~up who are against having the footbridge constructed. He
bega11 with a questio11 to Public Works Director Yarborough
as to the type of walkway that could be built in a safe
manner. Mr. Yarborough said that in his own judgment and
that of the Sheriff's Dept. and based on past ~xperience,
it is possible to develop as safe a :footbridge as can be
expected. There will be incidents. In answer to a further
question, Mr. Yarborough stated that the children are going
in the creek in many places now and attempt will be made to
have the bridge constructed so that children can't get into
the creek from the bridge. If security is a problem, each
property owner ha• the right t9 :fence off hi5 property as
he w~nts. Tho screening over the bridge wi11 not only
protect children from getting into the creek :from the
bridge but will afford an open view.
Mr. Sz&bo :felt that the neighborhood was pretty well set
and Stevens Creek School and the park will be utilized.
The bridge would make a permanent change in the neighborhood
and would be an atte~pt to make it more safe.
Mr. Szabo also stated that there had been a great :cal of
bad experience regarding footbridges and school walkways.
He felt there was no problem where a bridge is in the open,
far instance, over a freeway, but the creek is an attractive
place witli shrubbery and children have a tendency to go
there. The Council n1cmbcrs have all been out there and
four out of five said they oppose the location, according
to Mr. Szabo. lie was also concerned that the city does
not intend to fence the area. The cage over the bridge
would not deter children from walking around and going in
the h1 ntcr. ,..· "'
Mr. Szabo said the people do have a problem on both sides
of the creek. There is .111 equal number of pro and con as
to th~ bridge. At this point, he distributed maps to tl1c
Planning Commission members and recommended that Alternate
PC-20
P11ge . 7 .
;}::
Pago 8 Minutes of the Planning Commission, October 1, 1970 ' \ ; ' ' ' ; ,:; .~-
No. 1, which leads along Stovens Creek Blvd. and thence into
Cupertino Road and to the park. This will provide a safe
walkway altmg~Steveois Creek Blvd. Alternate 1 J.lr'Ovides ·
access to park site and elementary school. It is in th•
lrnbUc vh1w and can be seen everywhere. Measurements had
1ccn mode and the group found that for some people, this
route would be sl1orter than to go across the creek.
Mr. Szabo felt that the issue is tl1e park access as the
school provides bussing and ha believed parents would be.
relieved if tl1e footbridge didn't endanger their bussing.
Ile said that the problems :related to the footbridge lo.ca-
tion at the end of' Creston out1Jcigh the advantages. · ·
Tl1crc didn't seem to him to be any reasonable way to fence
off the creek so there would be loitering, etc. The major
users of lhe bridge would be students. Ile said that
Cupcrti110 School Distri~t on Nay 12, 1970 refused considera-
tion of footbridge and there arc letters stating that such
foot paths and walking casements have created major prob-
lems in the post because they cannot be supervised.
Mrs. Rosendahl of the school board has stated that at the
present time the school district will provide bussing for
all the children and will continue to do so.
Mr. Szabo stated that additional evidence was found where
City of Los Altos had a petition from 70 residents to have
a walkway closed. Additional problems, he felt, were
throwing of debris, bottles, etc. He thought there would
be disturbances at night as a result of the construction
of tl1is footbridge. City of Campbell had a problem with
the location of a walkway and !1ired a guard. In Los Altos .•
there was n problem of loitering and things being thrown
over the f~nce. He cited additional problems in other
areas and Has concerned about child molesting in an area
cut off from view.
lie stated that homeowners associations hava voted against
this footbridge for the past five years with Oakdell
llomco1mers voting 2/3 majority ar;ainst it. He had
information prepared showing how the associations hod
voted.
Ile felt bicycles could not hove access if motobikes and
motorcycles arc to be prohibited. Another concern was the
upkeep of the private driveway of the Robertsons.
Mr. Clancy then gave his rebutt;ll stating that Sgt. Tamm's
report can be verified. lie stated 1,hat the specific prob-
lcins had been in the various cities nnd lie felt they were
PC-20 •
•
•
•
•
Minutes of tho Plannini: Commission, Octohcl" ''1, ··i'9iO'
not significant . .. '
Question as to distance from Alternate 1 :ind 2 and
Mr. Yarborough confirmed that Mr. Szabo'~ fiiurcs arc
accurate.
Mr. Szabo tl1e11 gave his rebuttal and discussed tho distance
i11volvcd to the school, which he felt was the problem.
ln answer to Mr. Szabo's question, Parks and Recreation
lli<cctor Parhmn stated that when the new park is open, most
activities will gravitate to the park.
A further question from Mr. Szabo to Mr. Yarborough as to
providing a pedestrian walkway on Stevens Creek Blvd. with
six lanes of traffic, whic~ Mr. Yarborough un~wercd in the
affirmative.
Chairman Puetz announced the closing of the public hearing
and asked for comments from the city stuff.
Commissioner Meyers nsked Mr. Yarborough about the lcngch
of the temporary sidewalk planned by the county along
Stevens Creek Blvd. Mr. Yarborough stated there wa~ no
way to consider this project as an alternate to walking to
the 11ark or to the school. There is no firm committment
with the county as yet. If this is the solution, it may
be three to five years away. ·
Chairm~n Puetz stated that the problem the city is faced
with is not the need for access, but the best route. The
following would be his recommendations if the Council
agrees that the best poss.ble route is in the Creston
area:
1. No bike£ or similar yehicles shall be allowed
on the footbridge. · ·
2. Adequate lighting shall be provided at both ends
of the bridge. Said lighting shall be turned off
at a particular curfew time, us justified by the
School District or tl1e Parks Department.
3. A gate at each end of the footbridge is to be
provided and locked at the established curfew
ti.me.
4. The structure provided shall be completely
enclosed and fenced at both ends to prevent
children from falling into the creek or climbing
on the structure. A sig11·shall be posted warning
that a fine shall be imposed ·on anyone found'' ... ,. '
loitering or Jumping refuse into the creek from
the structure or surrounding afea.
PC·20 Plieo 9
...
Pago 10 Minutes 0£ t.ht' Planning Commission, October 1, 1970.
S. It shnll be the responsibility of tho S.choo.l, ;Distr.ict •
to open the gate one half hour prior to ~l~ss time,
and the rcspoasibility of the Parks Departme,nt to
lock the structure. On the off·schoo,l.days, .the
Parks Department will ba responsible for both
unlocking and locking the structure.
6. Tha footbridge shall be, to tho greatost extent
possible, on open design to ensure maximum visibility.
Chairman Puetz asked about the possibility of access from
Phar Lap Drive along Stevens Creek to Orchard Road. Discus·
sion followed as to this possibility. Mr. Yarborough agreed.
to meet Chairman Puetz on Friday morning, October 2, to go
over this route.
Further discussion followed as to modification of Stevens
C1·cck Blvd. roadway.
Commissioner Irwin moved that the staff report Alternate No.
2 be given consideration as one of two alternates, the
third alternative not ·suggested ,by the stuff ,report to be
that along the edge of the right of way of Stevens Creek and
Pl1ar Lop Drive over to and approaching Orchard Road tnd
thence up into the park. Commissioner Irwin further moved·
that if Alternate No. 2 of tho staff report were to be .
accepted as the only viable alternative that the condition •
suggested by Commissioner Puetz become a part of that
ucccptancc. Tho sixth condition is to have with a footbridge
alternative open enclosures as mucl1 as possible on the walk-
way area ior maximum visibility.
~lotion soconclcd by Commissioner ~!eyers, and pas!'ed with
un~ni1nous vote.
~lotion was made for adjournment by Commissioner lluthenuth,
seconded by Commissioner Hirshon, and passed with unanimous
vote that thc'mcetinc be adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
•
•
CITY OP CUl'EHl'INO, Stnta of C..U.fornia
10300 Torn• Av<•nu", Cupertino, Cdif.oi:nin
.!£..~<!.r..b£!ll~l.~ .. ~~ 50 .1~
MINUTES 01' 'X'HE REGUl;,\.R MEETING OF 1'ltr: Pl.ANNING COMMISSION HELD
SgPTr:MBER 2B, 1970 lN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY l!Af,L,
CUPERTINO, CA!.ll'ORNIA
Duo to the t~mporary 11bs.,11cc of Chainn1m Puett at the City Council
meeting, the meeting wns called to ordor by Vice Ch:.drman Irwin at·
8:04 p.m. <1nd he subsequently lad the n>Jsemblage in the flag snlute.
A) Roll Call
Commis1;ioncrs prQs~nt: Buthonuth, lI.i.rshon, ?-!eyers. Vice Chairn1an Irwin.
Also prose11t: City Attomcy A11derson, Planning Director Sisk, Assistant
P la nne i· Co\<Tan, A~•s is t.:int City Engineer Viskovit..h, and Recording Secretary
Dolores White. Temporarily nbsent: Chairman Puetz.
B) Approval of minutes of August 24 and September 14, 1970.
It was moved by Cor•imis8ioner Buthenuth, seconded by Cotmuissioner Hirshon
anJ passed by a L'.Llanlmuus vote that the minutes of August 24,, 1970
be approved as submitted.
It \../.:·u;· moved by Commissioner }ieyers, seconded by Commissioner Buthcnuth
and passed unanimously that the minutes of the meeting of September 14,
1970 be continued until Chairman Puetz returned from the City Council
meeting.
Nr. Sisk disclosed that there 't..rere no postponements and j.uformed the
Commissioners of the cancellation of the joint session of the Ci.ty
Council, Planning Commission and Architcc:tural and Site A-pproval
Committee originally scheduled to commence at the conclusion of the
pending Planning Commission meeting.
Vice Ch.:Jirmnn then announced for the benefit of all present in the
audience that the joint meeting hnd been cancelled.
C) Wr.i t ten Communicn tions
There were no "Written c~~1unicatJ.ons int1 roduced~
D) Oral Communications
PC-19
roll call
minutes
aiiproved
minut~s
continued
joint meetinf.:
cancelled
Vice Chaj.rmun Irwin rt:cognized a Tncmber of the nudicnca for tho presenta-
tion of a non-agenda item to the Commission.
Hrs. Samuel Bradlyn, ::!2344 R.iversidc. Drive, OUpcrtino, expressed her
concern as to nn existing condition resulting in non-complinnce to a
Unc Pe::mit issued to Hrs. Stella Kester in ~fay of 1969.
complaint
voiced
' '
1
discussion
:::-.nlicant' s
Minntas of tho Planning COll!mission, September 26,, 1970 ''' .' PC-19
'!\•
D) Continued
Accoi·ding to Mrs. Bradlyn, the situation had become intolerable due to
tlrn flim1, du•t, odor from manure whi.ch WM to havG been picked up on
a daily basis and the number of horaes having increased to batween ,25
and JO. She requested action be taken as soon aa possible :l.n that the
situntion had becomtl totally unbearable,
Planning Director Sisk reported that a visit had bean made to the
property r<!ccntly nt which timo it wns found that none of the condi-
tions had been complfod with and 11ddad that a few months previous tho
condhions had been revfowcd with Mrs. K<!st1>r for a second time. He
rccomm(lnc\ed " public hMring bo schodulod for rnconsi.doration of this
Use Permit.
Aftar a brief discussfon, it was suggested by Vice Chairman Ini::.n that
the Planning Director go with ll Health Department official to inves-
tigat1:'!: the £:ituation :l'.n existence on the property for the purpose of
providing te.mpornry rel:i.ef .for the r4!Si<lents prior to the hearing on
the Use Parmit. Planning Direct.Qr Sisk agreed to attend to this
investigation as soon as possible.
•
It was nloV<~d by Con1m:lssion(~r Hirshon~ seconded by Commissioner But;henuth
and passed unanimously thut t:he matcer be set for public hearing relative
to possible revocation of the existing permit on the first available date
with not.ices being published ns required. •
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Comrnissioners,Buthenuth, Hirshon, Meyers, Vice Chairman Iniin
None
Chairmnn Puetz
In response to an inquiry by Co1m11issioner Hirshon, Mr. Sisk indicated the
first available date to be in the first part of November.
E) Public hearing on Application 5-V-70.
Mr. Emil V. }la thews, 840 Villa Avenue, Sun Jose, referred to his recent
letter. explaining the events lending up to his appearance before the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Mathews felt there had been a cor.ununication break which resulted in
11is misunderstanding of tl1e building requirements. He said that on
several occasions he had requested instructions and the only information
he hnd acquired was a copy of Ordinance J.'.;O. Substantial invest1nent
had been rr.ade ~ according to Hr. :Mathews~ in the prepnration of his plans
in both time and money. lie added he had purch~sed the lot because of
its conformity to his drawings.
In response to an inqtiiry from Commissioner Buthenuth regarding the costs
incurred. }ix. M . .::i.thews indicated that the preparation of hin drawings,
himsc·lf, amounted to approximately $1+00.00 over and above the cost of
thl' prop0rty, h~ving been purchased subsequent to the drat_iing prepara-
tion. •
•
•
•
l'C-19 Minutas of the Planning Commissl.011, Sept<lmb<ir 28, 1970
E) Continued
: ' '" .. Page 3
l'bnninf; llircctor Sisk apol.ogl.zod for th(! misunderHtandlng but added
thnt cortdn guidcl!.ncs havo boon established and 111uat bo rnaintainod
in sotb9ck i·cquiremonts.
Commissioni!r Hi rnhon inquired as to what improvements had boen mad<l on
the property to date mHI Mr. Mathews nnswercd that th~ primo fnctors
had bec11 the cost of tho property and his efforts in the drawing of·
the plans. He continued thnt H he no11 hnd rn comply with sor:back
i·t~quiremonts hiB j.(·ttchcn would protrude into tho garage, makinR the
garage nrca unusablL~, nnd hls f:~mily room would be reduced. Ha could
offer no rc-..mcdinl c.~ommcnts _in ralation to drawing changes,
At thi• tJ.me, Chai.rman Puet• and City Attorney Anderson joined the
meeting.
The applicant went on to say that he had done his own sketching, pre-
liminnry drawings and final drawings working for a period of about two
months and indicated that, due to his unfamiliarity 1<ith City government,
h<l had not known that he would have had to clear his plans through mo::e
than one department.
It was commented by Commissioner Meyers that the majority of lots in
the area were of the size of Mr. Mathews' and suggested the possibility
of a larger lot if he was to use the same plan •
Vice Chairman Irwin st:ressed that preventative measures be taken in the
futur.e by the Planning Cotnmission t.o avert recurrence of this same
situation.
City Attorney Anderson rem'1rked that a V'1riance could only be granted
in a case of extreme hardship and added that the lot would remain a
non-conforming lot. He advised the applicant that it would be to his
advant.age to comply with the requirements at this time rather than
to be subject to future problems in this regard.
It was moved by Commissioner Hirshon, seconded by Commissioner Meyers
al.td passed unanimously that the public hearing be closed on Application
5-V-70.
group
discussion
public
hearing
closed
It was further moved by Commissioner Hirshon and seconded by Com.n1issioner 5-\'-70
Puetz that denial be recor.1oiendc<l to the City Council on Application denial
S-V-70 because of insufficient hardship shown based on the Ordinance recorrunended
requirements.
Ayes:
Noes:
Ahsent:
Commissioners Buther.uth, Hirshon, !-{eyers, Puetz, Vice
Chairrnan Irwj.n
None
None
TI\e npplJ.cant: waH advised of his ri.ght: to uppeal to the City Council
on this dccieion. •
footbridge
i0otbridgc
:~·.c.~etin~
Perrni t
Minutes of the l'lann:!.ng CmlbnJ.uion, September 28, 1970
E) Contfoued
,. J ! (_, " . ' ·, ; ""
Mr. Irwin strongly recomm~nded a l!leans bo provided to automatically: " :
present n packngtl of instructions to every home build11r. to avoid·
problems in the futux·e to which Assistant City Engineer Viskovich
r<lpl:led that such a package l.s alre3dy in existenca.
At this time, Mr. Puetz relieved Vice Chainn1m Irwin of meeting
cha ir1nn.nshi.p.
F) New Business
Chairman Puetz info1:mad the Commissioners that a review of the footbridge
study should be mnde some timt) i.n the near future because the City
Council would be discussing c'.ie issue at their meeting to be held
October 5, 1970.
l'lannJ.11g Director Sisk reported that the City Council had r,•.quested
reconmH.:~n<lat.ions as w~~ll as conuncnts from the Planning Commission pl."io:r
to their upcoming meeting.
After some discussion, it was lnutually .':I.greed among the Commissioners·
that the present meeting bd adjourned to a meeting on Thursday evening·
October 1, commencing at 7:30 p.m. for the footbridge discussion.
It was suggested that a time limit be placed. on presentations on the
footbridge issue and City Attorney Anderson commented that this type
of procedure would be a departure fron p.nst practi.ce.
Planning Director Sisk remarked that concern had been shown recently·
regarding non-conformunce to several conditions imposed in connection
with a Use Permit issued to Nr. Rifredi. ·
1 ::r. Rifrt~di) Mr. Sisk indic;:ited thut it appeared many conditions had been only
partially met or nDt,completeci at a\l. He pointed 9ut that the
billboard h3d not been removed, the landscaping had only been par-
tially completed ,.;hich 'i.Jas to have been done ;~~ithin a limited period
of ti~e now elapsed, the bumper strip had not liecn installed, the
bin removal WLlS only partially completed as was Lhe fencing,and the
paving had not been accomplished as rt~quired.
Slides. v..·ere shown by Mr. Sisk of the property as it was when the applica-
tion wns originally filed, depicting the billboard in question, the
entrance requiring pavi1~g and various other vie~•s of the land. He said
the fencing requirement had been imposed by the Architectural and Site
Approval Commit tee.
Spe<.1kfng on behalf of the applicant:, Jess Aguilar, Attorney at Lt:..w., came
forward to the poclium rel;1ting that a.Jd:i tionnl conditions had been
imposed on the applicant resulting Jn financial hnrdship.
PC-19 •
•
•
•
•
•
',.
Minutes of tho Planning Commi&sion, September 28, 1970
F) Conti11u<>d
. • l 1 ·-.'' :
He ~ontinued with n br~af prcgress rep.:irt .and indicated· deanul' .of \ll,e '.
pt·operty had begun wJ.th tlw removal of several trucklo11ds of trash, · :
the sawdust pile had boe.n removed from the property,· the' storing ·and.·
selling of t'1p •oil lrnd hem> ditlcontinued and some of the bins ·h11d bl'.en
removed from the wostorly !ii<le o( the property" nenr the fence.
As far rts specific rcquir,,ments wore concerned, Mr. Aguilar remarked
chat the applicant had had problems relntivo to tho sl.gn removr'. by
Foster-Kleiscr, a dolny had resulted from having to obta:f.n the owners'
pcrn1ission for dcdic.'.1tion nnd, further, the pav1.ng costs were more
than originally anticipated causing an additional delay in obtaining
funds. He saJ.d the a~1plicant plans to put in plar.tcr box landscaping·
llftcr si.gn rcn1oval and all materials required £or the fencing nre
on the property. :-ir. Ri.fredi intends to replace th'e cyclone fence
With the redwood fencing a.s soon as possible und the holes arc
alrc1Hly drilled for this purpose, Seventy-.fiva Monterey Pine trees
are located along the easterly border of the property ,.,..ith six trees
having bean last due to disease. A fifty-foot buffer had also been
installed on the property.
It was suggested by Attorney Anderson that a letter be forwarded by
the applicant with a copy of the lease.
Commissioner Buthenuth asked if the billboard, as it stood, was in
violation of the Sign Ordinance and Mr. Sisk replied that it was.
Atto-rney Anderson said tliat a Court Order could become a necessity in
removal of the sig.n relating thut :Foster-Kleiser appeared to be intent
on keeping the billboard where it was.
A question was raised pertaining to the City's requiring dedication of
land from a lessee and Attorney Anderson replied that it is lawful of
legislature to impose land dedication, if it: is !lot knolm at the tir:e
the Bpplicant is a lessee as was the situation in lir. Rifredi 's case.
Attorney Agui1ar commented that a letter had been sent to Foster-
Kloiser requesting removal of the billboard sign which was subsequently
rejected in a response from their Real Estate Department.
It wns the consensus of the Corm11ission that the conditions be met
within tv.·o weeks of September 28 with the exception of those conditions
rel.:,ting to paving and removal of the existing billbonrd. The applicant
was allowed a period of three months for the paving and planter box
landscaping. It l..'3.S requested the applicant submit infonnation to the
City Atr:orncy rcg.J.rding removJ.l of the billboard for hi1n, in turn, to
report on his findings. The planter box i...•as to be iustnlled pending
the sign removal, however, the area beneath the billboard would have
to be cleared of weeds and debris to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director .
PC•l9
Page 5
..\.1,
.. :-,;,;
progress
report
given
further
discussion
billboard
problems
revised
conditions
discussed
:~t.'\" St.1nJ.1rll
Condit ion•:;
r0virwcd
·iscussion
:·:..,nt inuc.cl
;.. '1'.I t \; -:;
·· .. :·~,·-~:3
.. j0urn:::cnt
M.tnutos of the l'l.:inninn Commi~sion, Sc•ptcmbcr 28, 1970
G) Unfi11l1hod Duslnuss •
~Ir. Sisk pr~•,ontcd a n•Vif'1'<1 get <lf Stnncl:ird Conditions llG co1npilcd
from the 12 Suwdilrd C.rnu.!Lion" of tho Ar•~hitc1cturnl nnd Site Appr,o:-ral
C<»"miLtoo ;md tht• l'J,;;nn.i.n:: Comr.ilnn·l,on for l'"Vi<'." o,! tho Cor.llnisaioncrn
mid i·oquo"t'~d s1dd c:onditions h11 l'ocorrnncndcd for adoption by the City
Council. ·
lt: '"'~ polnt.cd out l>:: C''"""Jr;,;Joner l!Jn;hon th.1t the conditions had not
nppotu:·pd tf'I he .-u·ipti('.,''~)lc jn ;ill inst:1ncc~s :1n<l, therefore~ quo!Jtion(ld
the validity o( tht.~:=.t~ conditjons :is st:1nt.1.n1·U conditions.
Aftar consirlcr;1blc c!i~1lr1~110. it wns mutunlly agreed t11nt c~c}) mccbor
of th.: C1..1~:::ihsion :;houlcl rt:v.i1~\,' the propo~;c<:i set of St:.andnrd Con<litions
t}H.>l"()ughly .::1nd return "'i.th cor~u:1C'nts ~it the next :;:cct:ing.
11) R0p0rts of Co::-.f:liss:ioncr.s
Thc-'re v:crc no reports p1·cscntcd nt this time.
l) Appro\•aJ of minutes of the meeting of Scpte1::ber l!., 1970
Co1::r1.iss:ione>r :~e~\.·crs :iffcrcd a cor1:cction to the:. :ninute5c indicatin[:.,' on
I\1f~C 2 ir t'.;,"' fir.st ;-'t11·~:.,-::-~tph u\1dC'1· .sub-.scc:::ivn ~~ iC ',;•::is Co::::::iss'ion·er
111..:in ~:ho :1."'-t1 1..:.: t!t<'). 1..y·:-:1::,-;:~1 hi.::.::l error .in t'.i~ a::t.-r.c!3. and :-.ot .Attorr:.~y
,\ndcrson. :;.:~ a.l.s0 rt:·:·t~Qste~i th~.L i~ ~,~ c}.2..ri~ic-J. that :-:r. l3utcrj h~~d
!1ct ;-c;.:L:.:::-:,;:;rl1 t.!C ::o th-2 C(':1Uilions spccif;ied as ~-:.:1.s interpreted-iro::1
tht:~ r::inute.s.
1 t w:':s r:.o\'l'•,: :_,,. C•""."".".'.i;:;sjon~~:· lr'i,·in 1 seconded by Co:;~:'.'lissjonc.r ~·:eyer::;
,1:1d p..1~.scd ~:::.•:1i:-::ous~y tZ;;:..t tl:•~ ::;inutcs of the r.:ecti:n~ or.· SE:.Tttc:.~bcr lti.,
J 9 7 0 !::ie ., ~-;-. :·o,_·~d ;1 s .:.~.:c :1d eel \,'i th Co::::-ai.ss ion0.rs Ei rsb.o:-i und Bu thenuth
~~stainin~ fro~ the vote.
Chair~.J.~1 ~11 .JL:~_;: i1~fv1:."'.cc: :!ll :in J.tti::1d.J.occ th.:it the Linda Vjsta Park.
~1ould he of~ici3l!y op,•ncJ on Sntlird~y) October 3, end nddcd his
co:r:~cndatil~:1 :-or c.::iort.s of Co1:1;ni;:Jsioners who tuo!<. part in the p'lnnt-
in !1cld l.J.st s~turday. &
It \..'as :::ovt_•d \.iy Co:".:Tit>sio:1cr Buth0nuth, sccon:Je:J tiy·Co::::1issioner Irwin
and p3sscd by :1 unani~ous vote tl1at the m2cti11r be adjourned to 7:30 p.m.
Thur~~J.:iy, October 1, 19/0-•
The QCCtin& ~:1s doclar~d ndjourncd ~t 9:43 p.m.
l'C-19
•
•
•
•
•
,,
CITY OF CUPERTINO, Stnto (>f Cnlifornia
10300 Tarro Avanuc, Cupertino, California
~:,~~J.£.t?.!~~~!l.~~~ 5 ~:-J.2.Q1
M!.NUTF.S OF nm REGULAR MEETING ()}.' TllE PLANNING CO)!MISSION HELD
SEPTEHllElt .111. 1970 IN THE cou:;cn. CllAHDER, CITY HALL,
CU!'El\TINO, CALIFORNIA
Tho mcct.lng wM cul.led to orJcr at 8:04 p.m. by Chairman l'uet~, who
suhS(>(jlh.,.ntly lc(l Jn thL~ flng snlut:c.
Commj~;sionC'rs prc•.<1cnt·: 11.1.vjn, Meyers~ Chairman Puetz. Commic-!siouars
C-18
nbsC'nt: Buthenllth and 111.?·shon. Also present: Clt:y At:ton1cy Anderson, roll c.:ill
l' J nnn lng ll.lrcc to1· Sisk, As,;fa t.nnt Planner Cowan, Assistant City Engineer
"'\':i.skov.f ch nnd Recording $(1 cr1.~tnry Do.lor4~s hrhit:c,
l t \V~1s moved by Commissioner Irwin, FJecondcd by Commius:io.-ier }!eyers and
un.:n1tmously p.nssed that approvnl of tho m:i.n.utcs of August 24. 1970 .be
cont.i11ucd for ~ better rcprescntstion of tl1c Commission.
There were nC\ postponc.ments, \Jr:ittcn communicntions ,or oral co:nmunica-
tions introduced at this time •
. '
1. Application 15-U-70 of Deacon-Jones, Inc. for Use Permit to
install a fast food center ins:i.dc the ?-!ayfair 1'1arket at
10075 Enst Estates Drive. First Hearing.
The• applicant: Ch•rlcs Ellcard of 750 -18th Street, San Francisco,
wns prC'scnt for discussion of the pending app ... ication.
Planning Director Sisk presented the ap1)lication with accompanying slidJs
showing thl:! proposed location of the take-out center :l.n the store.
Mr. F.lleard com:-:1cntcd that the food prepared in these. centers usually
consists cf fril'<l chicken, frcnch f!·icd potatoes, and fish and chips
to b{• l;Jkt:'n out of t!1e store. Tho.:. re arc no facilities on the premises
of a r~staurant type for sc.:1ting purposes and all food is boxed to
be tnkcn oii rhe premises~
Attcrtlcy Anderson questioned tl1~ applicant regarding the requirement
of Us~ Permits in other localities and :·Ir. Elleard indicated that none
of th.0-tLlkc-out c1~nters in San Frnncl.;>co, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Southern
California, Oregon or Wnshington areas ~invt.:: been tcqu1.rcd to have permits
Mr. Anderson then ankcd about the food inspect.ion factor nnd the appli-
cant dnswered that tht! t)roposed take~·out ceni..:c.r had been clcinred th.rough
trH~ Building Dc.p.:lrtm0nt:1 Health Dcpar·tmt.'.!nt, it ls j.n. adhercncu to the
approval
continued
15-U-70
discussion
MinutC>B of tho l'hnning Commissio~, Saptcmber 14, 1970
l'ubHc lfonring• (continued)
Safoty Code and .i.n confor111'1nca with fira i•cgul3tion• as required.
llc indicated thllt the applic;ition for 11 Uso l'<Hmit waa tho fiil.111.
step tu be t~ssumed.
It w;rn suggastcd by Commissionar lrwin that 11 condition be imposed,
:is pt1.rt. uf the Use P<:~rmit llpprov:.~l, thut this m.11tt\~1" ngnin bo reviewed
llt the <end of .one ye111· relative to C()ngcation on the prnmise!!S, to which
the .npplic.".lnt l"l"!spondcd in :igrc,!mont.
Com.mi.ssi.oner Meyers .. i.nq~1i.r(.~d .a.s to hours of opcrnt:ion and the cloue
proximity of this C(~'nter to Hnothor 1 well-kn\.n .. ;n chic'kcn take out ,in
the immedintc orca; the appUc11nt 1.ndicnted the hours of operation
would be from approxi.mutol)' U:OO a.m. until 8:00 p.m. or 9.:00 p.m ..
in t:hc ''""ning nnd was optimistl.c towards local competition.
Mr. Joe: Wuchcr o .. ~ 227L1 Curt.-1 l3l~1n~!n requested assur~:nco that the garbage
r.;itu.:1ti.on would b1..~ kept under control in the parkir~3 lot. area o.f the
Hay f .1i r l'ta rket.
l'.t was moved by Comm:i.ssioner Irwin, seconded by Co1~1mi.ssioncr Meyers and
passed unanimously tl:at the public hearing be closed on this applieatlon.
Co:::missioncr Irwin then moved that Application 15-~J-70 be approved , .
subject to the 12 St:andard CQnditions ..i.nc.1 Condition 13 that the op0.ra-
ti.on be reviewed at the end of one year to detet;nine if parking problems
or pc.riphc.ral problems have developed. This motion tvas seconded by
Co::imissioncr Meyers nnd the follow·ing vote was taken:
Ayes: Commissioners Invi.n 1 Meyers> Chairman Puetz
l\'oes: }:one
Ab.sent: Comm:Lss:Loncrs Buthcnuth and Hirsh.on
2. Applic3ti.oqs l:l-Z-70 and 17-·U-70 of Phillips Petroleum Company
for Prczoni.ng from County CG (General Commercial) to Cltv CG
(General Commcrci.:i.l); and Use Pe1init for a gasoline service
station; approximately .011 rJcre. Location: Southwest corner
0£ the intersection of !'lcClellan Road anJ Stelling Road.
First llc.<ring.
It ,~·as noted by Commi.s.sioncr Ir1Jin thnt there appeared to be a typo-
grapl1icnl error i11 tl1e age11<la due to tl1c sm~ll p3rc~l referenced as
• QI~ acre.
AftP.r clarification by the applico.nt 1 1-~r. Dino Butori, and the Planning
Director that the acreage w:ls • 788± acrP,it was moved by Commissioner
1.r"':-in that a Minute Order be inJ t:l.:itr.<l for the P1anning Director to
resl~<lrch th.is .011 acre and corr1:ct .i.t hQfor1..~ tlH~ Ordinance is drawn
such tl1at it would not have to be rc-~1dvcrtiscd for public ~earing.
This rnotion was then •seconded by Com:r::Lssioncr Heye rs nnd was passed
by n unanimous vote of the Planning Cormnissioners~
PC-18 •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
MinuL as oi thn Planning Comm.ission, Soi>temher 14, 1970 ,,·' :• ·'. '~;· j ;';
l'ubl:lr. llcnr:ings (contimwd)
l'lnnning DJ.rnct.or SJ.sk indicated that the <1pplic11nt WllR appianrl.ng
bcforo tho Pln1ming Commissi.011 for dotinitc confit1nnt:ion with which
to establish guidolinos. He showed p:lcturas of the service ntat.1.on
now in oxistenco und said the unit W!IS well designed, appeared to ho
landscaped in n favornbl<l mnmrnr and improasod him as one of the
bettor davclopcd location1 in cha nroa.
Mr. Dino Butor1., Real Et-itat:c Rcptcscntnt1.vn for Phillj.ps l'otroleum.
375 Illl.nois St.roet, San Francl.sco, requested clariCicat:lon of the
12 Standard Conditions indicating his concern, initially, as to
No. 5 HS tlw bulldi.ng :ls nlnrndy built and in existence and, furthor,
that it. would work 11 lwnlship to erect u retaining wall at this time.
lie rcmind0d the? Pl<~nning Commission that th<~ annexat.:f.on of this parcel
wns at tlw requnst of the City.
Mr. Butori mentioned tlrnt the. applicant would be willing to annex to
the City on an "as is 11 basis and consented to the addition of a re-
taining wall as requested; however, it was his f~eling: that the 12
Standard Conditi.ons should not be imposed in this instnnce.
After so1nc di.scussion of the Service Station Study presently being
undertaken by the City staff and further clarification of the
12 Standar,J Conditions, Chain:ian Puetz informed the applicant that
the attitude of the City is not to eliminate service stations from
the area but to maintain certain standards of compatibility. He
added that the purp~)se of the m.nsor;ry retaining v..•all is to act as
a buffer between the station -nnd residents and to keep children from
wandPring onto the station site.
Commissioner InJin inquired cf City Attorney Anderson what procedures
would be undertaken if n parcel of land abuts an agricultural area
and Attomey Anderson responded tl,at u bond i$ usually posted by the
land owner for such time as the surrounding land is developed so that
cl retain.ing wall can be ·added.
A 'repartee 0nsue<l in h'hi.ch the subject of ground signs at the ab-::>vc.
station were discussed .-ind, upon a motion by Commissioner ·rrwin,. a
second by Commissioner Heye.rs and a unanimous vote~ the public hearing
was closed.
It was sl1ggested by Commissioner Irwin tl1at the applicant erect the
retaining wall only as the. :i.mmedi.:itc. area surrounding the site developed
and added tl1at n wooden wall could be quite an aesthetic ad<l~tion if
done properly.
Commissioner }tcycrs was in agreement with th~ applicant insofar as
the retaining wall not being a necessity with the building in existence
and having been in operation for a period of time •
' rc-18
~age 3
eonfir.ma tion
requested
discussion
of 12
Standard
Conditions
hearing
closed
Minutes of tho l'l.:tnninf; CommiM:!on, Saptamber 14, l.970
Public Hearings (continued)
Ch11Inna1\ l'uet2 rema»kcd thnt tho rMson for a retaining wall being
Huggc-Ht:ct, out: of nu1sonry waA the life expectancy fActor· and thte
fact thuc the mnsonry wall wM unualiy more pleaaillg. He auggcstcid
the possibility of ~ bcm bo.:lng u~ad.
Attorney Anderson, in chccki.ng Ordl.nnncc No. 306 dafilling the powers·
of the Arch.it cc turn l .nnd Si t:c Appro._rnl Cornm.i t tea~ sugu<.Hl tcd the poa ...
};ihllity of a t'('qttir1'.'!m1.~nt bej"ng imposed by the Cotnmis~ion or that
tho mottcr be forw.1rdcd to the Architectural mid Site Approval
Committee for th('!ir rct::ommcr.dntic.a1.
It was movt'.•:d by c~1rnmJs~•ion~r Ir.w:1n .and seconded by Commios:Loner Mayers
that App J.:trntion 13··Z-70 be approved oubj cct to the 12 Stnndnrd Condi-
t 'ions wJt:h tho exception thnt, fn lieu of n 6-foot mnsonry wall, n
6-foot v.isual barrier, subject to tlrn npproval of t!ie Architectural
<HHl S:ttc Approval Comt.iittee, be c-:cccted on two t;ideE~ presently abutting
tlh! multipJe .. <luclling unit development and thnt CondHion 13 be added
as an nmendmcnt to Cqndi-tion S of: tl\e 12 Standard CqnditionS.
Ayes: Com:niss loners I t"W'in) Meyers, Chairman Puet:i:
Nt'.lCS: Non~
Absent: Commissioners Huthcnuth .::i.nd Hi rs hon
Cbai11113n Puc.tz inf0rr:1cd the applicant that, if he was not: in agreement
\·~illl the decision, he could vo:tce his appeal within five days.
It \11 ns moved by Cot:-:::iisr.ioner Irwin nnd secondt'!d by Commissioner ~1eyers
that Application 17-U-70 be approved subject to the 12 Standard Condi-
tions, Conditions 13 through 19 as explained in the Planning Director's
memor2ndu1n and the addition of Condition 20 as an amendment to Condi-
tion 5 of tl1e 12 Scarldnrd Conditions.
Ayes: Comi;Li.ssioncrs I1 .. win, Heye rs, Chairman Puetz
Noes; None
Absent: Commissioners nuthenuth and Hirshon
3. Application 18-U-70 of R. Cali & Bro. for Use Pennit requcstin<:
dcft">.n"lent of ccrtnin undl.•rground LJtil:!..ry facilities. Location:
Nort!n~'est corner of the intersection 1.1f Sara.toga-Sunnyvale
Rond nnd :McClellan Road; CG (General Cor.r-:i.erci~1l) zone. First
lien ring.
1-lr. Jnck Todd, Electrical EnginL~cr for R. C.Jli Brothers, 2t,5 Stockton
Avenue, San Jose, advanced from the audience and cxpl.3ined building
Jlrogrcss and events leading to t11is rcql1est for d~fermont.
Chainnnn Puetz jnr~uircd as to the Jenglh of t:lme required for completion
of parce} dr:>vclopmcnt anJ Nr. Jim \..'orley of Gilroy \Cplicd that it. \.Jould
take npproximatcly ~t·wo to three yc~ilrs.
PC-l.8 •
~·
•
• •
•
•
•
M:lnut.cr. o( the Plnnn.tns Conuuiss,i()n, September l/i, 1970 "' ., PC•18
1111301 5
l'ublic llc.n·ings (c<111tinued)
When aaked by CommiGsiona1· Mayers if the plan could be rovised,. . . . .
Mi·, Todd r<>pll.ed that the co•ts of n4u.tpment for underground utilit:tea ..
' would be oxt1«>111oly hlsh,. , · ·
After a brfof. dJ.11c11ssl.on of .3.1 tonwt.ivo suggMtl.ons, H wns moved by
Conuniss.ioncr l'rwi.n, st~condo<l by Comm.issionc~r M~yers .nnd pnnsed unal1-
imously t:hllt the pub.Uc. hearings be closed on this npplicntion;
Planning lliroctor Si!lk offorcd :1 suggl\Gtl.on that Condition 13, as
shown in his rncc.?nt mernorn.ndum, be rnvl.sed to rond, "'l'ho undergrounding
rcquJ rcmi:.\nt be Jcferr<~d until Parcel ~\ .and n are doveloped or as deemed
desirable by the City of Cupc>rt.lno, whichever occurs first".
It w.A.s mov£.~d by Commission1.1r Irwin nnd seconded by Com1nissioner Meyers
't1iat Appl1.caU.on 18·-U·-70 be arprovcd HUbject to the 12 Standard Condi-
tions Hnd Condition l.J ns spccifi.e<l by the Planning Director ..
Ayes: Comm:lssioncrs Irwin, }It?ycrs, Chairman Puetz
Noe! Ni.Jnc
Absent: Commiss.i.oners Huthcnuth and Hirshon
4. Applic::.1tion l-AB-70 of Marianist Province. of the Pacific:
Request for AbAndonment of Public Right-of-Way westerly
portion of ~!ad era· Road from its intersection with Her cedes
Rand to its westerly terminus, a distance of approximately
533 feet. First Hearing.
?-fr. Leo Ruth 1 C:i.vil Engineer for the firm Ruth and Going, Snn Jose,
was present for discussion.
suggestions
discussed
conditi:m
revised
18-U-70
approved
Planning Dirac.tor Sisk pve a slide present3tion of the unimproved area l-AB-70
in question indicating concern that the abandonment would eliminate presentation
access to the foothill arcu and .requested approval of abandonment
not be recommended to the City Council~
Mr. Ruth distributed cop:les of the Rcc·.Jrdation of Inspiration Heights,
}ionta Vista, on which npapcr roads" were shown us. developed £0r the
benefit of the property owners in the area. lle pointed o...:t that a
creek r11ns along tl1c ro3d and tl1at the gate h3d been pn<llocked for
quite some time. Ile s.:1ici, with the acquisition of the Cupertino Tank
Site, portj_uns of ~1erccdes .:ind Madera Roads \~'ere t.'.lken in and the
rond presently l!nder <li•scussion .had no\ connc·ction with, the p~Operty
on the h'c.st siJc, lh"? sai<l this roaJ was insignific.:lnt in relation
to the existing blocked off areas and described, with nn aerial view
picture, l1ow a jeep trail road l1aJ Leen in existence where the· tank
site 11ow exists. lie was of tt1c opinion t!1at tl1cre ltad not been nor
wuuld ever be a demonstr~1tecl use of this right-of-w<ly •
discuss· T1
-~rrur.eou.s
11~ier~ncc
·-orrcctcd
.. -AB-70
·on.t:i.nucd
-tu<ly
;~:s:-;e.stcd
Minutes of tho l'lanning Commi~slon, September 14, 1970'
l'ublic H<iarings (continuud)
Mrs. M.1rty l.nrs<m, 22770 Hercodoa Road, Cup~rti.no, voiced hnr 01ipoaitiou
to the nbnndonnH>nt ii;dicnting that the nrea, lrn:L1'1g aa beautiful as ·it '
is, should be Btudfod nn<l developed by the City for· the banefit of all·
and not be rcstrJ.ctcd in t'hiA way to n cortnl.n few. She was of the
opinion t:h\1t the mutter should ba hold in abeyance pendlng future devol.~
opmcnt.
Ml'. n. W. l.ar,;en nJd~d that: h:ls wife and ho had lived in the area for
the pl1st t:hre~ yen.rs and had n<-'!ver seen u pad.lock on the entrance to
th:le road nnd mndo 1.1 clnrificat:ion that the creek .is actually a small I nd.n gutter nnd not a rnvine ''"·inferred by Mr. Ruth.
1 L\\cicn Hertcrt of 22830 Sim Juon Road continued .1.n oppositio· to the
I
I Hpplicati.on under consideration ond suggested t:lar!fication be tna.de
of the mnp shown.
I Mr. Ruth reportf!d th.'.lt this is the only property owned by the :Mariani.st.
ProvincL: nnd future pl3ns .:ire for the construction of archives as a
documQnt depository for stor.:i.ge of books and manuscripts. He said the
ro:.td existing on the west side is u private. read rather than a public
ro.:1d and rcft..~rrcd to this f.:i.ct: as h:is primary justification for the
proposed abandonment.
I City Attorney Anderson questioned inferences mnde by ~fr. Ruth that the
C.ity was gu:Llty of serious errors :i.n crossing property lines and
I
building a tank on propc~ty that was not in the City's possession.
It \\•as clurifJ.cd tha.t' the ::'.!rro'rs had \not taken place' ns inferred and
I
it w.1s requested by Mr. Anderson that this item be noted in the records.
It \las moved by Commissioner Irwin and seconded by Commissioner Meyers
I that Application l-AB-70 be continued "o the meeting of October 12, 1970
I
! for further rcvie\,r •
Ayes: Commi.ssioners Iri.;rin, }fcyers, Chainnan P .. ctz
Noes: None
Absent: Commissioners Buthcnuth and Hi.rshon
It was recommended by Ch~irman Puetz thnt a study be submitted at said
meeting rclatJ.vc to the feasibility of a roadway through the area in
question.
Mr. Ruth wns in dgreement with the continunnce ns suggested and volun-
teered his cooperation.
A recess W.'..1.S called nt 9:55 p.m. and the meeting \./as ngnin called to
order at 10:10 p.m.
No unfinished busifless was introduced ot this time.
•
•
•
• •
' •
;
•
•
•
.• !
1. Application 12-U-69 o( A.A.A •. Ambulance. Compnny: Request of
extension of time on Unc Permit tor Ambulnnco Soi:vJ.cc lhilld-·
quarters, locat:od nt 10026 Orange Avonuo.
llan !lonovon, nttorncy for thc 11.pplicmit, came foniard to tho podium
to ~\nsWc!l" quc::;ttonB l"1.1.tativo to the proposed ext.ension.
Plnnnfog llircctor Sisk explni.ncd that a onci y.:.nr l:!Jnitntion hnd been
imposed '"' .1 condJ.tJon of a Use Permit Jssuad in August of 1969 for
temporat·y usci of the CX:i.stj.ng t'(!S1dcncc llS: a business headquarters
for t:hc A.A.A. Ambu.lnhcc Compn!ly. While showing sHdes of the rcs-
id<~nce, he said n rcque13t: had bc(~ll made for an extension of tima for
a period of one ycnr .:1nd rPcomm(!nc:ied a definite decision be made by .·
tho PlnnnJ.ng Comnds~ion as to 1,•hen the building should bo coiistructed.
Ch.::1irrn~1n iltic.tz quc.st 11.)l1ed the rt..1!Cent controversy \..rj.thin the County as
to .:in :i.mbnlancl~ 0f sci.vice to which }fr. M. R. Ucll, owiu~r of A.A.A.
Ambulnnce Compnny, replied that t:he situntion has 'been recently
resolVC'd and should not nffcct service.
Attorney Donuvan commented that the applie:.::int t.:as of the impression
that he would be obta:ini.n.g a contrnct from the County of S.:intu Clara
to cover Bervice in thf:? City of Cupertino and that a year's time t.:ould
provide the experience needed to proceed with the service. At this
time, he continued, the company is At the snme status as it was in
July of 196~. He addc<l that the applicant is performing County
emergency se.rvi.cc .:ind is in the process of adnpting his company to
the County procedures; consequently, the request has been made for
the extension to provide gainful experience in this area.
Chairmnn Puetz :inquired as to the existing blind corner \.;here the
residence• is loc.::ice<l and indicnted his conce1.'n for the surrounding
residents.
Mr. Bell responded thnt the ambulance drivers are trained very carefully
and are. not allowed to exceed the normal posted speed l:i.mits until
they are beyond a two-block radius of the headquarters.
Jn response to wh:Jt experience had bee:n gained du1·ing the past year,
~Ir. Bell said experience had been gained in the field of private
service only. He further indic.'.1.te<l thnt this particular area is
presently zoned commercial. .
It \.Jas r.iovcd by Commissioner Irwin and seconded by Commissioner :Meyers
that Application 12-U-69 be approved for a 9-montl1 extension subject
to the 12 Standard Conditions nnd Conditions 13, 14 and 15 as specified
on the Planning n.trcctor's. mcmornndum, with Conditi.on lfl revised t:o an
expiration date of June 8, 1971 instc3<l of March 8, 1971.
Ayes:
Noes:
AbsQ:nt:
Conunl.ss:loncr:s. !11,.Jin, Meycrs.1 Chair111an Puetz
N1.)ne>
Commissioners Buthcnuth .and Hirshon
PC-lfl
Pnge 7
12-U-69
background
discussion
urthcr
iscussion
12-U-69
9-month
extension
approved
Pngc 8
!•'rt·;';"-'..·
Ninut«s of tllll l'lam1i11g Conmdssion, September 14,, i910
,!(~ po J:!..2.i.l'.l!!.'.).!l:!!l.S.. Comm i .!!.!!.!2..!1£.!::.!!.
lt wti• proposed by Chairman l'uct:z that Nr. Storm be C(•!llll\e1n9'.r'~tod for
:01ru1wmorntion his endc<1vors while acting '"' City NannsH and, nhar som\),.d;l.acuss1on
);d:s proj .:ct
took pln.:o, it wrn mutu3.lly ngrcod thnt the commissioners would give
tho matter some thought and Y.Jould offer suggestions at the .. ne.xt
mooting id this regard.
Planning Director Sisk r.cmnrkcd that he recently had been cont3cted.
by Mr. Burt Avery, a develop''"• rcgording tha Oaks pro,joct on the
northern pwrt:Lon of the exist.in[~ Gl.tc.
)!r, Sisk th"n mad a letter from Mr. Avery requesting clarification of
sethnck requirements and offered a description of he proposed use of
the prc.iporty.
Hr. Avery cnr.ic forward from the audience and presented a drawing saying
that :i.t h·as very rough and schematic in effect. He explained that son1e
of the hous0.s were of <3 two-story type as well as on,~ story homes. He
\,·ont on with a brief description of the home designs.
In respCJn~;c to ar. inquiry from Conimissioncr }feycrs, }!r. Avery di.sclosed
that .a 20-foot setback, ns requested, would render. a large portiol) of
1~1i"1d L10 t 1..1.Gablc and would result in the nccessi ty of re-ongtneering the
proj oct.
,'\ft er an :inquiry froal Chairman Puetz. as to minimuin setbacks, Mr. Sisk
replied that 9 feet '~·as the m:inimu,r. requirement.
It ,~·as. movc·d by Co1.1m:!.ssioner Ir\vin and seconded by Commissioner 1'-teyers
that the Pl~inning Co!:l,.;.Jssion issue a }iinutc Order inclicnting a concur-
rence '1'ith the !)lan as presently drw.tv11 nt 15-foot levels and. offering
thL~ rcco::unendation th.at the City Cou1~cil look at: this application ·in a···
favorable light.
Ayes: Cornn1issioncrs Irwin, Meyers, Chuirman Puetz
Noes: None
Absent: Coremissioncrs Rutl1onutl1 and Hlrshon
Plnnn:i.ng D.itl!Ctor SJsk informed tht~ Cor:1?:-iissioner.s that the next regularly
scJ1cdu led mcctiug of the Planning Comr.i.isf>ion is being proposed as a
, int :".'.f-'t"'.t·In~'.. joint meeting be.t\~ccn the City Council) ,\i..:c~1itl~ctur.:il .::tnd Site Approval
;l.i)!:~:-"ber 28 Con:mittec and thu Planning Commission. He. said one of the items of
discussion nt this rnecti.ng of Se.pt:c1abc.r 2fl \\'o\ild be the Joint Planning
Council \,·h.ich is being proposed from the Policy PlDnni.ng Co1~1P.1itteo anC:
3dded th .. 1t" Cl reprc.scni:.:i.tive would bn present .:it t:hnt: rncc.ting. He added
tnat another itc1n of discussion \..'0t11.d be th0 re-organization of the
Architectural an:J Site Approval CL):rn:iittc2 policies.
PC-18 •
•
•
•
•
•
Minut•'" of t'lrn l'l1rnning Comml!lsion, Scptcmlrnr 14, 1970
It: was n11:ivcu.-t hy CominJ Hti.i..on,~r Irwin, ~HH .. ".on~tcd by Cotmnisslonct• Moyers
tHHl pnHucd with a uiHlnimouH vot~ thnt the mc.•Jt:ing ho nd.1aurnad.
ATTEST:
PC-18
Posa 9
adj ournmun t
•
•
•
Cl'l'Y 01' CUl'ER1'lNo, Senta of. CalHornia
10300 'l'orro Avonuo, (;.,port ino, C"lifor11fa
1:!!£.·!..~.25 2-4 s..01
NlNlJ'l'ES 01' 1'HE llliGUI.AR ME!Cl'ING 01'' THE Vl.A!INING 'coNNISS!ON HELD , .
AlJG\JSl' 2ii, 1970 IN Tl!E ·COUNCIL Cl!AMllER, CITY HAl,L, CUl',liJtTlNO ,CALIFORNIA'
Chairman Indn c11llo<l Uw nwctJng to or<lar at 8:01 p.m, 11nd led the
saluto to the ilag.
CommJss.ioncrs pro!-ien.t: 1)ulllunuth. Htrshon.~ }!eyers, Chnil'.'man llVfin.
Coimnissioncr :.ibsont: Puct:!. Also prcsnnt: City Attorney Ander~on,
Planning DtrccLor S.isk, ARsistnnt C:!.ty Enginl~er Viskovich, Mike
. __ shcpparJ nnd Rc«:or<linn Sc.crctnry Dolo1·c., White. '
PC-17
),'
roll call
It w.as muvcd by Commissioner Uuthenuth, seconded by Commissioner Hirshon minutes
nnd untln:Lrnous1y 1)assc<l that the minutes of August 10, 1970 be approved. i approved
According to Planning Director Sisk, there wore no postponements to be
discussed.
The re \1•cre: no writ ten cornrnun.ica t:i.ons.
Ornl Commllnica tions
After some discu~sior~, Commissioner Euchenuth moved that a resolution
be adopted amending Rcsoluti.on 795, Condition 16, to read: ''In the
event construction has not begun on Parcel B within the period of
three months~ the applicant wlll submit u landscape plan for the un-
paved bt.:ilding .s:Ltc to the Planning Commission for approval. Upon
approv.:11, sn:ld landscaping sh.111 be installc<i.11
• The motion was
seconded by Conunissioncr Meyers nnd passed unanimously.
It was further movi~d by Commissioner Euthcnuth, seconded by Commissioner
1'1eyc.r.:; nn<l pas~;cd unanimously that a }tinute Order be transmitted to the
City Council of the amendment to Resolution 795.
1. Application 14-U-70 of Standard Oil Company of California fot"
Use Pcrmj.t to reconstruct Standard Oil Service Station nt the
sout!1wcst: corn.:r of St.evens Creek Houlevnrd an<l Snratoga-
Sunnyvale Road. First llearlng.
Res. 795
Cond. 16
a.mended
Ninuce Ordc
approved
H-U-70
n 1"('$(•n t .1 t ion
angle (..."f
;-•t~1tion
qt1•.:t.1 t:!.1,.,,ned
ln:·1dscnping
d:...sc:us.sed
:t~rth~r
c:t.:scription
t!im1tM of !'lanni11g Cominission, Auaust 24, 197(f
Public !lc11.dngs (continued) 1 'i
Th,, appHcont, L, D. llall, 1805 ThC\ Alnmo.da, Sim Josa, (Rot!!.~~ 1'1!\!UISOr
!or Stnndnrd Oil Cornp1my of Cnlifornln in tho Snn .. Josu l\cs:l.on'a.l,'O,f'.f,tc,'!)
cam~ fot"l-lar<l from the audionc" offo·rinR to discug11 'tho property and'•"·'·
nnNwcr quci.ntions.
Planning Directo1· Sisk bugm1 hfo prcscmtntion showing slides. of.· thd '"
buil,ling now in "xistcnce nnd tho propciscd bui.lding which would iriclude
1,mdscaping nnd ot:hcr modern fe;;t.ut·cs. Ho mentioned that the main,.
question would be of or.icntnt:ion of the thrao bays toward the traffic
<lr town rd the rcnr of the propos<?d building, lie said the upplicat1on
npprov<1l was recomme11<fod by the l'lannl.ng Department incorporating the
12 StanJ.ird Conditions along with 9 additional conditions. ·
Clrnh·rnan Irwin i11q11Jrnd ns to tho renson why the service ntation build-
in~ • .i tsc 1 f ~ wus plac~d n.t un angle i!l relation to the. street and
Mr. Hn.ll responded thnt: th:l.s 'WHS tbe only feasible 'Way to place tho
bu.lldln~; due to lnr.k of an .1bundancc of space on the property. Ac-
cording to ?--!r. Bull, the. lot size VJas the only apparent restriction~
Cummissioner nuthenuth voice<l his concern at what nppeared to be a
close area for parking ,;paces to 1<hich Nr. Hall responded that the.
pnrking would be a functional problc1n of the dealer and th.i:..t size
w;.is, indeed, a limiting factor.
Conmi ss~ .er Meyers asked at.)out the lighting being visible from the
street and Mr. Sisk .commented that r.he lighting would be of a lo..,.;·
profile type and .o..idcd that the problem of lighting as well as signs
\~'as the concern of t:hc Architectural .1.nd Site ApproVal Committee.
Cor.miissi0aer Meyers asked Mr. Hall if there would be an automatic
spr.inkler systC'm contained in the landscaping area an<.l 11r. Hall
r0plj_cd that each planter w-ould hnve l.1 .sprinkler s_ystem and one of
the conditit)ns of the. leasL~ ·with each dealer was tl~at the landscaping.~~.
must be .r1aintninc<l l:?Y the dealer. ·
Conmissioncr Buthcnuth suggested that the Use Permit contain landscaping
as a condition there.of and }~:r. Hall e:videnced his support of same.
Con1m.i.ssione:r :!eye:rs questioned the trash area being large enough.
}\r. H.J..11 ans'~'cred that the arc.a would be 18' x 20' long and 6' or 8'
in o:J dth •'ith a hi.gh i;all adding tlwt the home office of Standard Oil
Compn.ny has suggested a roof he plnce<l on the receptacle.
Tho applicaot ca!J the b~ilding would not be of the steel building type
of structure but would lu'lve a brick veneer to give the appearance of a
brick bui.lding.
lt was the conscnsur. of the cof'imission that. the or:lentntion o.f the three
b:iys, as proposed, be ::iccc•pted .:ind the ::1:::intenancc of lnndscaping be
imposed DS a cond.ition of thL1 Use Pcr1uit.
rc-11 •
•
•
•
•
•
Minut<>S of l'lllnni11g Commisuion, Augu•t 21,, 1970 l'C-17
· ·"c l'.agc 3.-
l'ubHc Hcm-.lngs (cont._,1ucd)
Aft~r somo dl•icuirnion rog1n·ding th<> landscnpo arun 11l01\il tho west11rly
n11d south~r:1.y pro1io1•ty liMo, it \las r"commendud by Mr. Sisk that
Co11d!.tion 20 b~ climinntl!d from the c.onditions pi:cviously sugp;cstod •.
lt \MS moved hy Ccimmirrnion(•l" !lirshon nod seconded by Commisuioncr
lluthonuth thnt the public hanring of thio oppUcnUon be closed,
Th('.!. motion wns p~t.16cd unanimously by tho commiss.ion.
lt 1./1\R furl.hot" mov<>d h>• Comml.ssionor llirBho11 that Application 14-U-70
be npprovod subj~ct to the 12 Stundar,d Conditions and Condl.tions 13,
Ii., 15, J.C-, 17, 18, 19 & 21 us outl.lncd ln the l'lann:lng Director's
m<•mora11dum of Augu8t 19, 1970 with the additional conditioll thnt the
Use Pc,.,nit bt~ further conditional on the upkeep of the la.ndsc,j.ping.
Tho motion wns st~condcd by Commit.isioner Buthcnut.h o.nd pnssed unnn1.-
mously.
Commistd0<10r llut.h0n11th commended Stnnd11rd Oil Company on their updating
of th~ ~crvic.., st:ntion un<l indicn:::cd hi~; hope that. other con1panies
would foliow suit,
hearing
closed
14-U-70
approved
with con-
ditions
AppHcation 15-U-70 of Deacon··Jones, Inc. for Use Permit to in-
st.all n fost food center inside the Mayfair Market at: 10075 15-U-70
2,
East Er;tates Drive. First Hearing •
Due t:o t.ht.~ fact. thnt the applicnnt was not in the .audionco, it t-J'3S
moved by Commisstoncr Huthenuth nnd seconded by Commissioner llirshon
that the. hoaring of this application he continued until the end of
the pub.lie hen.rings. A vote was tr.ken and the rnot:!.on was passed
by a 11nnnimous vote.
3. Applications 12-Z-70, 16-TM-70 and 16-U-70 of Horst Kliemann
for Re;:oni.11p, from County Rl-10 (Residential Single-family) to
BQ (Quasi-Public Building); Tentative Map to combine two lots
i.nto one; nnd Use Permit to allow· a rest home for elderly
people. Location: Lots 37 and 38 at southeast corner of
}'oothi.11 Boulevard and Santa Paula Avenue. First Hearing.
Planning Dirnctor Sisk introduced this application with visual aids
saying that it was a t~1rcC'·-fold applic.:ttion which would elin1inate
the property line bet~~·ecn Lots 37 and 38 for incorporation into one
pnrcel; lhc ~1rc~1, consisting of 19,900 squ:J.re feet, \.Jould contain a
building of 4,862 square. feet and the .:J.rea would be enclosed with
.a fivc.-foot fence on the southerly and easterly property lines. J.\
condition was sugp,ested that l.J.ndsc:-iplng be provided in the .forrn of a
pl~ntcr box sepnrnting the parking areas from the sidewalk.
Neva G:isp.nr of 221.so Santa Paula Avenue, Cupcrtlno, came fon.;ard front
the .:1ud:i.ence voj cl ng her .support of the .:ipplication being heard and
added that the• horses in tho fenced ::\TC-a huve been -a nuisance for tho
past 16 ye.:1rs. She ~lld i.ndi.cate her \Co!1cern~ however, thnt this
appl.ic.:.1tion m:ty lead. to total annexati.nn of the .surrounding are.a.
15-U-70
continued
12-Z-70,
16-TH-70 &
16-U-70
resentation <
resident
sunport
indicated
h<'l'.lrins
\.:' loSt'.'d
lC-Z·· 70
~1pprove:d
16-l!-70
;t'."l~'l.(l\'t~J
l 'i-TM-70
.:·~)"11"0\'Pd
l ~-t:-70
:> tud.v
h.:i.ckgrcur:d
Ciscussiun
l'ublic l!cnril"IJ,\R (continuad)
M1·. Sisk ropHcd that .•pplicntions aro hon rd at tho property Ollnet' 18
request and tho ro-•oning <1f th:lB part.iculllr property would not
nac<!s1rnrily l"¢r.ult :in nny of!nct: upon tho sun·ounding proport:l.oo,
Aftc1· a nh<'>rt di.scussion ro.g11rding mm~xation, it wnn moved by
Commissionrn• lli.rslion, saconclod by Commission Moyars and pHsad
unanimously th:it tho pub~:lc hearing of this applicntion be closod.
Tt "'"s thcn moved by Commissioner nnyers and seconded by Conunissionar
Butl1onuth that Application 12-Z-70 ba approved ~ubjuct to the
.12 Standat:d Conditions und " poll of the commission was t.akan,
rcsul ting in that:r unanimous voto of approval.
It: 'V.'.'.\S moved by Co:mnissioner Meyers that .\ppl.:i.c:.ttion 16-U-70 with
12 Standard ConditJ.ons uncl ConditJ.on 13 at rncommcndod in the Planning
Director's report be approved; it WM sccondecl by Con"ni1rnioner Hirshon.
.'."Ind r.:.isscd un~1n1mous1y.
lt '''"" furthc,r moved by Cor."nl.ssioncr Meyers that Application 16-TM-70
be approved wi•.h th<! application being suhjcct to the 12 Standard
Cond:i.tions. It was thci.1 seconded by Commissioner Buthcnuth and
pa8sed un.:"lnimously hy th1.~ c.on1mission.
J t \\'.'.l~..; moved by Comrniss :!.oner Buthenu th 1 seconded by Commissioner
Hirshon nnd passed unanimously that, inasmuch s.s the applicant was
I still not nv.3.ilable to discuss Application. No~ 15-U-70, the matter
be co11tinued until the next meeting~
l.. Sidewalk Standards: Discussion cont:lnued.
Plann:l.ng Director Sisk introduced the discussion by commentint? tha:t
the matter of si.dew,,lk ,standards had ori~inally been brought up on
}!.arch 16 by the Public Works Diie~tor Xvhen asking the 'City Council
for sug[;estions in this rcg.::.1r<l. The matter was then referred to the
PlGnning Commission for a study to be conducted.
~fr. Sisk show1.':'d slicles of different sidewalk areas .and suggested
rcduci nr, the s tantlard 10-foot sidewalks co 5 feet adj acant to curbs
with a 5·-foot portion to be usLlci for lnndscnping> utilities, hydrants
and signs, OR was done nt tt1c PJylcss Drug Store on ltomestead Road,
VaJ.lco Pnrk an<l other local nrcas.
Aestheti.c v.:ilue of sidcwnlks in rclat.i.on to lnndscaping was emphasized
and it "-'llt> i.ndicat:ed thnt there should be minimum stnud::irds as bc.JiC
l~~.•s(~nti.:11.s wj,th t:rndc-offs at tho discrln1:tnation of th0 Planning
Di.rector nn<l the Clty Council for un.usuhl plans propose.cl~
It \.:a.':.; suggcstC'd by~ fir, Si..sk th11t: each case bo presented to both the
PJ.11nni11g Commis .. ~un and the CLty Council ;1fter chc:~ck:f.11g the tentative
map for nppropviatc use of tl1e property.
PC-17 •
•
•
'
•
•
•
Minutes of l:'ln!ll\ing Commission, August
Unfinishod llusinMs (contiuued)
2~. 1970
':• 1;·;::,_": ji'
C-17
''<'ni,•i ~age S
"·;, •'I !
City Attorney Anderson indicated 1:h11t ono of the biggest problems in '
the City's history has be<>n th" sidewalk atandards,;iasuo 'imd•it hos ·' J
resulted :ln 1.1nny plnnn:f.ng t:cagedics. Ile ;;n.id we should av<)id bargain-r
inR wl th developers but· sh0t1ld h'ava u cnrtnin numbnr of. optiom1 open· : " 1
for po~~~ible npproval. · · !,•·
., ( I
Respi:.'n~ ih.i.l i ty
suggt.."S tcd th.,_'l t
of same.
of maintcn'1nte of land!lcaping was discussed and it was
a sidc~·alk sweeper could ba ucil:l.zed for tho upkeop '·
Chni i111nn I twin t(.~c.ommended fut'ther research be done on the sidc'l.,ialk
situation and th«t the matter be brought back for further discussl.on
nc a lntcr data.
Commissioti<'r Hirshon was of the opinion tlrnt the responsibility of
l.:lndsc'lping maintcna.nce, ground rules and trnde.-off options should bei
further invc8t.igntcd and stud:i.l~d~ and di: cussed in the near future .•
Tt w;1s moved by Commissioner Hirshon, s~c.onded by CommiSsioner Meyers
and \."l.:l$S{~d unanimously that the s:i.deunlk sto.ndnrds be studied :fu-rther
b)' the Pl8n11i11g Director and thnt he return to the Planning Commission
\~·i th recommendations. . ..
1. Rcqu<;~st forextension of tin-....
Fred E. Rhodes for lot split
Boulevard nnd Cupertino Road
September 2, 1969).
on Tentative
dt northeast
(approved by
}lap 20-TM-69 , of
corner of Foothill,"
City Council on
Planning Dfrector Sisk presented n slide showing the land in questioa
:lndicnting thrtt the applicant wns to retut·n 'i.J"ithin one year's time
to present n finnl map or p.:ircel map for recording purposes and th~~t,
to date, this had not b·: ~~r. done.· He said the applicant ·was rt~questing
nn ndd:Ltlonnl one year ~ ·r that purpost! and added that the applicant
hnd m;Jde the appropriate d1..1clicat:Lons and improvements to the street
cyident in his original inap.
Ir \..'3.S moved by Comm:lssioner Bu the.nu th 1 seconded by Co:nmissioner Meyers
,_.-ind passed unanimously thnt the extension of ti1::e he ap1)roved on Tcn-
t;1ti\'c Map 12-TM-69 for .:i period of one yc.'.l.r, said apprc .. val being based
u11on conditions as originally set forth.
Tl1c 1n3ttcr of sign h~nners being <li5plnycd nt tl1c new Payless Drug Store
,,•as discussed nnd it t-:a.s indic.:~t~·J thnt the b.3nncrs \·:ould be taken 'down·»
as soon ns possible.
Commissioner Mevers commented as to <.n .:irl Lc1e he read reccntJ.y in the
h1n.1 l Street Joui-nnl reg.:lrding scrvicP .stations •. He :s.iJ.;id:\thi1:t evidently
service st:<Jtion~> were of r:re:1t concern to other nreas .~$: ile.11· ns"·to · -
the City of Cupe rt.I.no indicating r:hnt in l taly several ~ommunit:l.es
hnve limited the number of service stnt:tons to a spccifih need.
' further
Sfdcwnlk
, · discussion
'
'
additional
research
~uggested
20-TM-69
review· of
.. original
~1atter
time
extension
a po roved
assorted
,discussion
l':igc 6
driv<'!-in
discuss.ion
extension
continued
~cc ting
adj ourncd
. i;!ll •·; /'' i.'..i•
Minuto• of l'l11nning •;ommlssion, August 21., 1970
1. Clndfiellt:iOil' of o,,finitlon of Drive~in l\estl)Ur4nt .•
Plnnn·lng D.lractor rcfcrr·rid to his rcc;ont meino1·andum requent:inflt
dir~ct:i011 in cJ111·ifying the r,uhjnct of dr:lvo-in rcstnurnnts as set
for in tl10 ordinn11ro.
Mr. SJ.ek continued that tlrnrc: 1.s an applicnt:lon pending by McDonald's
wh('re they hnvo indicntL"d they urc no longer .tn tho d:riva-in restaurant
lHHLincss Hnd ttt'~. p111nning to usp s:1.t-down !ncilitics insLcad.
Af:t<'r ll brJ.cf <li.scusston, the coMcnsus of opini.on of the commission
wn . .;; thti.L thn dcfinit.i.on ns exists in the preHent ordinance should be
luft. ns i.s, the key to th:I.i.; dofin:ttion would be that the restaurant
would be cons.ld12rcd a drive-in if it had n drive-up w:Lndow and further.
thnt with a drivc.-uµ window in existence, a Use Permit would be required.
2.. AAA Ambula11cc Scrv:lcc Use Permit.
It was indicated by Hr. Sisk that a Uso Permit "1as issued to the AAA
Ambulance Company approximately one year aRO which involved a Use
Permit with the intent to build a new building allowing them to
use the existing building for a porio<l of one year while also using
n mobile> trailer for their offices. Be said the year has elapsed
and inquired as to an extension of time wondering if the applicant
has to go through the whole procedure again or if the m.ntter could
just be heard.
It was the consensus of the members of the comn1ission tha.t there should be
some way in which to limit the number of extensions and it was agreed
to place the m3tter Oil the next agenda for public hearing.
Adj ou rnr:1on t
lt ''as moved by Commissioner Hirshon, seconded by Commissioner Buthem1th
and pnssed unanimously that the meeting be adjourned.
The meeting was declared adjourned by Chnir.na.n Irwin Jt 9:59 p.m,
ATTEST:
APPROVED: /'
, I -::"/ <""' I ).
~ril,\; .
.. 11/'. __ c_~t&:~i.-......
Chairman
l'C-17 •
•
•
• '·" Cl'l'Y OF CUl'lrn'rlNO, St11te of ClllifornJ.a
10300 Tone Avenue, Cuportino 0 Clllirornla
f.~2.~E_-4505 'j' . l' :.~ _l l+.f.<,'·l I
:,,,;_:: ... i
i
MlNlrtllS OF 1'11E R!CGULAR Ml!liTING Ol' THC: Pl.ANNING COM:MlSSION HELD . . ' '
AUGUST 10, 1970 IN TUE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HAI.I., CUPERTINO~. CAL!FORNl.A
The mcu r:i ng was c." llc<l to ordm· by Chn:l.nnun Puctlil nt 8104 p. m. and· he '1
subsequently led tlrn fl,,g sulutc. i
Com1.nisBi.onol:'R prc·s~n.t: Buthcnuth, Hirshon, Irwin-, }toyers and Puetz.,
Also pre<H'nt: Pl1rnntng Director Si.Bk, City Clerk and Acting CHy'
Mat1llger Ryder, Assistant l'Immer Cowan and Recording Secretnry White.
It was moved by Commissioner· Hirshon, uoconded by Commissioner Irwin
and passed unanimously that the minutes of July 27, 1970 be approved··•'
as corrected •
. i
!
.'' i
PC-16
'to: .. ,,
',' .·
'l
l'"
roll call
m:lnut.es
approved
no post-
ponements • Planning Director Sisk ;reported no postponemeets.
•
Written Communications
There were no written communicat:I.ons.
Oral Communica!lons
None reported.
.!'.ublic Hearings
1. Application 4-V-70 of Skaggs Payless Drug Stores ·for Variance
to pernit roof and canopy to overhang a property line at the
southwest corner of Homestead Road and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
Mr. Walter E. Seebach, Civil Engineer of Ruth &. Going, 919 The Alameda,
San Jose, California, c.3me forward to discuss the Variance .:ippl~.cation
indicating that: when the tcntntive map ·was submitted, it ·was found that
the overhang wns not acc2pt~1ble. He said the separation of the property
had been for financing purposes and there would be eventual changes
which would h.1ve to be submitted at a later date inasmuch as the future
wa.s undecided at this time.
Planning Director Sisk commented tlwt the canopy antl overhung are parts
no written
cOmm~ca tions
':
''
no oral
communications
4-V-70
legend
application
discussed
of the structure of the building nnd he could see 110 purpose in eli1"in-further
ating it based on the property line if a Variance of a tuniporary nature comments
could be granted.
' "'<
·~
,.
1;,
'
Page 2
npplicant
ngr<.~cnblt~
to c''nditionr.
l;indscnping
plan~
suggested
darificntion
1"1.;~qucstcd
landscaping
dis~-:uss.cd
Minutes of the l'lunning Commission,. Aug\llilt 10, 1970 .'.·.:1·r'i','l:J:.! '·JO ~'HO
Public Hearings (continued)
,,-: :: ~,··.;, th.ito r
": \' : ~·1rH 1'1'{\i
Mr. 5.,..,,b11ch continuQd hy saying thllt Parcel A will be tranaferred to
anothor comp1my by Paylesa and . tl'i" property ·will. be, lea»ed;• b1u:lt1/; :.1
roaultins in Pnyless Drug Stores. being in control .of bntti, rari:al A:u:v11,
and l'nrcel ll, lie said l'ayle.ss is agreoablo to cone'. t·' 'llS as pre-
vJ.ously mentioned incl.uding Condition 16 rlllutivc t~ ve.n.11g the
parking nrea thus e.li111in.ning the. dusty condition, it ~ tenant has
not bnen found within throe mouths. , .. '·''
\ ~ I ! I ! li : o
Mr. Sisk suggested landscaping plans be submitted wi'thin three months
for approval.
Mr. Rolla11d Koenitzer, 10060 Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino, California,
came forward from tl'ie audience and requested clarification of the
building development, at this. 1>oint, in relation to the or.iginal
building plans to which Mr. Sisk responded that the plans today are
the same as the original pl.ans for these buildings.
A short discussion followed and th.e landscaping was talked .over becwe.~
the commissioners and the applicant., Mr., Seellach said the .l&ndac;ip:l..ns.
has already been designed by the architect anJ Mr. Sisk r.ecomm.en,d~Ji, '·''·
this item be forwarded to the Architectural and Site Approval
Conunittee for their perusal. .•.'i
PC-16 •
Public licaring It was moved by Commissioner Irwin that 'the Public l!ea:r:iugs port:J,qn,,, '. '' •
closed of the meeting be closed, it was seconded by Commissioner Jluthenuth
4-V-70
approved
with condi-
t.ions
.s·ugges ti on
;:-;adt>
servi.:::c
station
discussion
and passed unanimously. .... , ; t 11 :,.;
It was thon moved by C<>mml.ssioner Irwin that Application, 4c:V-70. be,·: .,"
approved subject to Standard Conditions and extra conditions as
applied which would be No. 13 thr.:iugh 16, it was second.a<! .by. '1 . ''.·
Commissioner Meyers and· passed unanimously.
Commissioner 1'1eyers cr.nnmendcd the Payless Stores for their architecture
but suggested that the garbage be cleared. The applicant agreed to,.
do so.
Unfinished Business
1. Sc!rvice Stnt'ion Study: Review of Draft co-.1tinued.
A general discussion took place. rel.:.tting to the study currently being
conducted on service stations. Each member of the co1nmission and
each of the Planning Depart1nent staff entered into this dialo&t.i.e~
The topics discussed ranged frotn the cause of the existing proble.u1s
to tha rights of the property owner versus the general public welfara
to that 1<hich might be considered as hoth expedient and long-term
solutions. . '
Of primary concern, both to the members of the
were such matters as ~ow best, if possible at
properties be upgraded to present development
' "-:' ! '.
tl'ic staff,
o~d~r . :1 ,,-·,
commission and
a 11, can these
s tanda rd.s.
' ', ''' i L> .f :; <') •
•
•
•
Minutc.s of t.he Pl1mning COl1111lbsion, August 10, 1970 PC-16
Page 3
' .. " . . ';
The applicatl.•>ns of sign o>:dinsnces to service stnti.ons, cbe clearing,
of the oito td1mglea on cornur stations, chi> nff1H:tivanoss 'of'. tha ·.,. ·.
Use Permit so nt\ enforcement tool vorsus co1npls!ots on ~oni.ng viola-
tions nnd tlrn ndmini.strotivc proccdura• ncodcd and ava:f.lnblll' to
accomplish th'' :lntl'llt: of any orHnnnco setting forth standnrds for
sorv.icc stat.i()ns werP a.lGo disc·~.ssed thol'oughly.
further; 1 ·
discusllion
It was mov"d by ConmliHsioner Uuthenuth thnt the service ut11tion study
bo. continued, it wus seconded by Commissio11cr llirshon and passed ·
unanimously.
There were no reports presented.
Re P..C2.E_!: ___ <.].f_J:l.~l!l!1~~£.J2_ i. r <~:.~2-~~
Planning Direct<..'r ~isk comm~nt:ed on n two-part proposal recently
forwarded fro"' the Plurming Dirnctors Association of the County
for review by the commissj_oners relative. to control of directional
signs for subdivisions and signs adjnccnt to expressways. ·, ~ • ·
The first pa.rt of the proposal suggCst<.~d that the Cpunty grant ,_,
directional sJ.gns for subdivisions within the sphcrc_of the City
after first contact in~; the City to find out if the-1 'td~ta).··-·rtunib-e'r-of.
signs allowable had been approved and, if so, no additioi;wl signs
' would be granted by the County. '
Mr. Sisk remarked that our ordinance does r10t prohibit the number of
signs except by the number of turns required to get to the subdivision
and suggested that consid~ration be given to limiting the nu1nbe r of
signs in a V.'.:lY other th.an by number of turns re.quired. He said that
we have no real contrnl of signs in this situation at 'the present
time.
The second part of the proposal pertained to a suggestion that the
cities :tnform the Planning Policy Committee that the County take a
position regarding billboards adjacent to expressways and that outside
advertising signs be prohibited within 600 feet of a County expressway
being COI;1parable to State and Federal Gaverrnnent requirements.
Mr. Sisk continued that it would be difficult to give comments
as to tl1e first part of the proposal inasmuc1l
requirements b~scd, at present. on the number
vary considerubly from area r:o area.
1S we have our sign
turns wl1ich could of
It was moved by Commissiont~r Buthenuth and seconded by Commissioner
Hirshon that the County check with the City regarding additional
signs adjacent to expressways,
Ayes: Commissioner lluthenuth» Hir.shon, Irwin, Chairman Puetz
Noes: None.
discusnion
contintt<ld
no reports
sign proposal
introduced
first portion
discussed
present
ordinance
discussed
second
portion
discussed
more
discussion
suggeStion
approved
~idl~w.11.k
~lii:.:CllSRlOn
..::on.tin.u<~.d
me~ting
:1djourn<.~d
l'l
Minutes of th<t l'lnnning Comml.nail>n, Augl.lJlt 10 1 1970 ·
Ro1>ort o! tha l'lnnning Dlroctor (continued)
It wan mov~>d by Cormnir.donor llfrshon nnd aaconded \>;Y ConUTilss:i.Ji{~i:<
M'1yc.rn th11t tho sl.dcwnlk tJtr..ndnrd<1 dillcunaion, wh:tch hnd ·i;~"'\,;Jl'.1;11~'
viously sch"dul<ld for this mact.ing, be continued unt:!.1 'tha nex~· · ''.
meeting. The motion was pnMcd unnn.tmously by tho connnin~:.ion,~~ti::
It wns moved by C<lnnnis11ionar Bulhcnuth,
Hirshon ~1nd passed unanimously that tho
seconded by Corwuission<1r
mcet:lnc be 11djourn<?d.
·f.''
Th" meeting was <l"clnred adjourned by Chuirmnn Puetz st 10:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
.3t_gg~ --~ City rlerk
I ! , /
t.~
PC-16
·,·i r
',,;,:
•
•
•
CITY OF CUPERTINO, St4tC! of California
10300 Torro Avtmuo, Cup~rth1<1, , C4Ufomia ,
Ph~LJ,'!2-41.\)5 PC-15
MINUTES OF THE Rl!GUI.AR Ml!ETING Ql,' Tllll l'IJ.NNING COMMlSSIOU HlUJ),,,, ,',
JUL'!' 27, 1970 IN l'l!H COUNCIL Cl!AMllER, CITY l!ALL, CUl'ER'UliQ, OALU'C\RNIA. "'
'111e mMting was callc1d to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chnirman Puntz, who
led th<1 assemblage ln the flag anluto,
Conunissioners
Also pl'nseut:
City llngin<•or
present:
PlannJ,ng
Viskovich
llur.henutb, llirshon, ll"win, Meyers and Puetz.
Director Sisk, Assistant Planner Cowan, Assistant,
and .llacord:!ng Secrecai-y Uolorca White.,
l. Commi•sioner lluthanuth moved, Commiasionol' Irwin aecondad and a
vote was taken of the commissionex·s present, that the od nut es of
tha July 13, 1970 mid July 15, 1970 meetings be approved.
AVES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners lluthanuth, Irwin, Meyers
None.
Catmnissione:cs liirshon a11d Puet;::
Chairman Puetz announc~,d that the minute• of the July 13, 1970 and,
July 15, 1970 meetings had been approved •
. Postponements
roll call
minutes
approved
Planning Director Sisk commented that there were no postponements,
· no postpone-
, 1ments
Written Ca1n1nunications
There we.re no writ: ten comn1unicutions mentioned.
Oral Communications
No oral communications were commented upon.
Publi:_c Hearings
2. Applications ll-Z-70, 12-U-70 and lJ-U-70 of Jason Chartier for
rezoning of .826 ;::,,:re from Rl-10 (Sfogle-family Residential) to
CG (General Commer...:ial) and Use Permit for automobil~ service
statio11; Use Permit for ~hild cure center and nursery school on
1-1/2 acres. Location: SoutLwest corner of Hon\cstead Road and
Maxine Avenue. First He.a.ring.
Mr. Robert Dempster represented the applicant and addressed the com-
missic..oers r~:g;;.irdi!1g the "grease pit nyndrome 11 • He began by saying
that th& ;ipplicant as a resident ai.t'. property owner lias certain ri<;hts
no WJ.·itt~·~
comm1!nic.s -
tions
no oral
communica-
tions
description
of applica-
tions
applicant
presentation
i!Xa1nple
giv.,n
comparison
cited
previous
approval
in area
necessity
of facility
prior
~ipprovals
discussed
:lnutes of ti,ie Planning Com1d.11don; July:27, ,1!>70''·''· ,,.
l'ublic l!earings Cont'd
,.,,\,'
that should not: bo d<1niad. ll" continuud that, he felt, fAct11 shou1d·.:11a
haQrd .against ap}>lic11cim1s aa well alii •for, but ,that the propel'ty ,own11i:
haa th" right to have e,varything discusHd tbcrousl1ly and £:1.lt•r•d
througl1 before a final docision is 1M.d11,
As an exampla, Mr. Dempster described the situerion ac llomestead. Road· , ·
and Wolfe Road wh<>rein n newly-d,,vclop<!d A"rvics station had greatly
add<>d to thu aesthetic value or: tlrn at"·'" and that the property had for,
sometim<? bMn ll -vac,mt lot which in 110 wny improved the area.
In regard to th" appli~atio11 in question, Mr. Dempster stated that there
!is also n vacant lot on t:he coi:1101:, a service !3tation is needed 11nd the:.,,,
!addition would be very aestl1etic to the area. lifl wc11t en ta say that
the parcel hno been a large, empty lot for " 1rnmber of years sitting
unused. He added that thc1·e is ptcsently a stable located in an east.,rly
direction of th" property adj11c1mt to Maxine Avunue and he feels the
'location of a service. statfon would certs inly be, an aaaet to the neighbor-
hood.
lie menti.ouad that there is " Mobil service station already in the area
/
which had previ<'usly been gi·antad a Use Permit and indicated that he had
recently visited this station and observed vsrious,traffic patterna.'and
Jutilization of the unit. He contfoued to say that there was a very
!high rate of cars using the area, however, no 'traffic congestion problem'
'had been obs.orved. He further, remarl.;ed that the City, in. granting a 'U11e ·
Permit for the Mobil station, had established a precedent in the area
rzlative. to future sites for st.~rvice sts.tions ..
Mr. Dempster indicated thut in the Planner's Repott it was pointed .out.: .. ·
that the General Plan did not cover this area. He explained that
Homestead Road is now a traffic artery and not a quiet road as it_'once:,
Wtis and that he folt we must have a realistic approach in establishing
proper use ;;dj a cent to it:' Ha continued that this property. was not .:unique
in relation to other service station sites j_n the immediate area anc1 that
this property exhibited similur site characteristics to the ,Mobil sei-vice
station located easterly on Homestead Road. He added that the very ·
best use for this corner was that whl.ch was being proposed and. was, :without
question, an obvious improvemc.c:nt of the present use. He said t in relation
to open space and greenery• this service sta~i,:)n building will -occupy
is;; of the land area and will be nicely landsc:iped. He then exhibited
a rendition of the prcposed service station which included landscaping,
and spoite of the lube bays to be located at the rear of the station in-
stead of at the front as usually done. He fu:r:ther discussed the masonry
wall which had been planned.
He made reference to the fact that City Engineer Yarborough had ·already
di~cussed l!ghts with the State at this particular intersection and that
this is. all the more :reason that favorable consideration should be givan
to this request• He said that if m1 office building or apartment building
were to be erc,cted on this lam!, it would only cause congestion •. Ile
•
I,'
~·
•
~.
•
•
Minutes of th11 Plamlitll! Co11•:lii.11don, July 27, 1970
'. " : .:; ;.j ,. ,: ; ' ;·: fi, .! '1
Public Uoari11gs Cont'd
indic .. tcJ this in:CJperty has had careful i·aac<>rch, and it was found that
the best use wt>uld be 11 aervic"1 atation· facility which ha,i.ip@r.sarua.Lly,.1
felt wrnld not interforo vi th thn homoownars and wouL:I; .,me>_ et, certain,ly,
be an added convenience to them; lt w11s his opinioll that it is.just ar< · >'
matter of ti1110 until th" land vo1>ld bit ut:ti1:rnd .for :-11 ser.vice .,,.tation
and, oven if th<i p1·esent comm:l.smion found the· request undesirable,
others in the £utura would ai:cept i.e. Ho raquesced tltat thi1:1be. ,·,
"pprovod all in ona pack11ge, .l'.ncluding the commercfal zoning, service ·
st11tion, and child care contar and nursery. !le than showed numerous
photos of the IU''tlll while dbcuosing economic surveys in fovor of the.
2oning.
111:'. Dempst:<1r commented that he felt each aprlication should be judgad on
its own p1trticular circumstances and merits and not on s general basis.
lie said that s g11aoline station should not be voted against:just.because
it is a gasoline station and the investment exceeds one-quarter·millioni
dollars in this particular one because it is an eKcellent site and, with
a good 1Jp1n·ator, will profit ns did the Mobil atntion within the first·
90 days of o;iaration.
In regard to the application for the nursery, Mr. Dempster conunentad .that:,
converting the existing Moosa Lodge buildings into a nursery is a rela-
tively easy task with a few minor changes in the buildings. lie· remarked,·;,
that the traffic situation is not n problem and exhibited a map of the
area while indicating that the service statj.on would not have to draw· '
from the freeway traffic to exist nnd could function well with the local
traffic flow. lie said, in addition, that it was me11tioned p-rei1ioasly.· .....
that there were too many service stations in existence and ioquired.:as_•.
to, how this could be proven.
vantual
pprovl\l
iscuued
additional
resentation
Returning to the nurse.ry application issue, Mr. Dempster continue<.! that,
as indi.cated in the photos, there was too much parking. area now but·
hotos
shown
a portion of this area would be con•erted into a play area for the
children.
In conclusion, Mr. Dempster inquired if the Conuniss:loners had any question
that he could answer on behalf of the applicant.
Commissioner Irwin began hy st:.atlng that a great: deal of discussion haci
made reference to t;he "good 11 or 11 bad 11 of the issue and 11 if iv-e are in our
right minds". He said it appeal'ed that Mr. De.mpster was s11ying that,
sincn v.'le made one mistake in an area, that aren is committed rrnd, from_
that day on, we should propagate this mistake in all directions. He
indicated that the lfobll issue had been denied by the Planning Commission
and heard on appeal by the City Council. He continued r.hat o~ten the
County doL~S not agree with the Planning Co1n1nission and also that the
City Council does not always concur on these. issues. He lJent on that
perhaps Cupe.r.tino <loes haye dreams, but v;e have these dreams because
we want Cupertino to be a better place than the areas atbl1nd us, As an
example, he cited the sign ordinance which has since. been adopted a8 a
model for other communities and indicated our density i~ lower, 0 pcn
spaces great!!r and by using this space for building or asphalt wa would
be destroying it.
· ... _,•
discussion
Page 4
scirv:lce
st3 t ion
study
draft
disc.ussed
furthei·
discussion
'" 1: \:i;:i ,,' ·.!.~;,.t-:;,'!·>· .. ~ :)1;J.'1t
inutes of tho Planning Com•duion, July 27, U10
l'ublic llur:hl!Jll Cont'd
· .· ·· · ·, , i,: i ;· · ·, Ji~ :, I. t'r·;J
Commissionor lrwi.n wnt on to say that he :felt :we ware nor. ·putt:l.ng ~114d •Jd J
are" to good use by placing a e•u:vicl!!· station ·on ·the. bnd and .. 'WO 1,\llUlt.: .' ! ·:d
decid" whethillr on area 111 useful .. co. uli or it :I.a :11.11ight·:Wll wuld:.rathex .. :,1;:
not see in our city. 1111 then inquired. of ,Mr. Il<!:mpater if ho was J&mil:l.ar, ,,
with the service 11tt1tion s~udy wh:lc.h is an attampt to h1w11 a ce:i:tain · · ,,.,
amount of control by the Planni11g Conoohsion in tbi& rogard. : lie ·said -, '·· ,,
with this study, we am trying to avoid the "~rease pit ayndNme":.s:l.t.ua•.,.,, ..
tioll. Commissioner Irw>.n thon r.,f;erred to portions of the 11ervice !l~ll~ipn,
study rough draft (Page 85) parta.i.ning to the present .. s:l.tuatilltl• '; ,, "'", , L,
He quoted that: "l) a strong effort alwuld be made to minimize po-. , rJ
tential traffic conflicts by limiting ingress and egress to the City's
thoroughfares Bnd 2) servica stntiono should not be ·located in close ,.,
proximity to resi.dcntially-zimnd property". Ile stated further, that .•·'
then is residential pn>perty Oll both sides of the property, a six,-.. :·
foot: ratalning wall would not protect thu rusidenta from ·the disr11pt1ve.
elt"ments of opnration such as air con1proosor ·guns, service bella, et~
c~.tcra, and we must figure out whnc is the beat use as it affects tho
City, includil<g l:esidcnta as well as the businessman. Ile said that if
a large number of residents arc unhappy with the development, friction
will result,
Mr. Dempster commented that a service station should not be. t~~at~d a11 1
some kind of disoese and felt the cour.try would not necessarily l,>e oy<tr-, •'.
run with service stat.ions .if this request was granted.
Commissl.a11cr llirsLoa mentioned tbnt he felt we were placi11g "the cart
before the hol."se." in t:h.:!s. situation and wanted to hear ot.l1er .. comru.e~ts:
and discussion.
Planning Dir<>c tor Sisk showed slides and referred to the staff rj!!port
saying ti1at t:he general plan pr.inc.iple. was base.cl upon a central copa::-.
me rcial core for the Cit l' 1.Jith outlying neighborhood facil.it::l.es :t°\l:f.: : .
serving the residents, '.and he continue'd that commercial facilities,·: .
slides should be utilized for more than one purpose. He sho,.;ed several views
shov.;n and lof the .:1rea surrounding tht~ area being discussed and stressed. the .fac. t,
priaciples thar. there would be gr:'!at inconvenience in crossing the thoro11.1;hfare to
defined !enter the servict~ station facility. Referring to traffic, Planning
!Director Sisk, while pt·ojecting further slides, indicated by pointmg
)out bands of color showing traffic volu1ne that Homestead Road did.
I
.not appear to be f'.ny typt': cf major traffic artc.ry and it was his
feeling that this service station would not he a necessary neighbor-,
hood facility and was not in conjunction wj_th principles that are
valid. He did, however, feel that the nursery tV'.:iuld he favorable.
Chairman Puetz requested co1nrnents f1·ou' the .audience as to pros and. cons
on the subject and Mrs. Hal Huey, 10831 Jlarranca Drive (one block from
cor..ments the proposed site) said $he did not like the idea of more traffic in
requested the area bccnue.c in the future her children. would have to cross the
street to attend the 11/est Valley School. She also felt that the no.is~
was not a great problem hut that there were quite a fow stations already
in the area.
clarifi-
cation
At this Ume, Commissioner l!irnbon asked Mr. Dempster if the three items
were independent applications or all in one package.
PC--15
•
l
•
• ,·-·
•
•
•
Public Hearings Cont'd ',,_
Mr• 0-pster n•sponded by maying ~l>at ono item. do"• n<>C n,eccsaarily,
hinge on tha othut·s but foolt ,lt would bo au ~.xcell1mt, al~-.i,l::"ln~,
package.
Chainnan Puetz sld.d that the Commission had not been pr<ljudiccd agai(ist
service stntl.om;, in 1w11cral, but inquired "" to Wh1\t co11tr.ibution
another iscrvico stat1v11 would make whei' them are ali:cady no mat>)I in
the City of Cup~rtino. H" <:ontinucd that '"' must learn by tho
mistakes rnnde by others and, further, that wo must make a choke
as to what C\lporttno should h1ive us a city.
Mr. Dcmpst<>r r<>sponded thnt the Mobil stat.ion was not a mistake, that
it made very good use of the property and that the burden ill to show
thilt a Gtntitin intcrfores with the health, welfare and aafoty of the
r'~side.nc:~;.
'o . I
/<. dl.scussion fol.lowed between Mr. llcmpster and the commi'ssioners per-
ta:lning to the traffic situation at which time it was reiterated by
Mr. Detnpste.r that tho stutJon would r.ot ba fr<>eway-oriented but would
cater to the loc"1 traffic in the area. ·
It was rnoV<'d by Commissioner Irwin, seconded by Commissioner Meyers ·and
unanimously passed r.h,1t the public hearing be closed.
Conimissionel~ B\Jthenuth mentioned that commercial zoning of the area:-
would be detdmental and he fe.lt he could mit approve a servict> station·
on this propercy.
Chairman Puetz then inquired as to the separation of the applicatio.ns to.
be handled indivl.dually.
Commissioner. Buthenuth requested clarification regarding the discrepancy
between the drawing showing 1. 032 acre and the application showing ·
.826 acre.
Planning Director Sisk replied to the question relating to the land
discrepancy by indicating the legal description was based upon the
entire property before dedication and that the correction will be
entered and recc.·rded i.n its entirety on the final documents~ He
continued that the tentative map ·will be recorded showing improvem~nts
and itcins to be installed pending action tak1.:1n by this commission. -
Commissioner 1'-leyers m.ove.d, it was seconded by ComrnJssioner Ir'.V'in and
unanimously p.:i.ssed that the-public hearing be re-opened for general
comments on the: i.ssues 12-U-70 and 13-U-70 in case there might: have
been any misunderstanding.
Chairman Puetz then requested comments from the general public as to
these. issues nnd Mr. Dempster indicated the people in the area did
not appear to Le as concern1.:!d ns tho commission ,1bollt this matter.
Chairman Puetz then came forth replying <11'1[ it is t!>e duty of cha
commissioners as a body to check these matters out t:hProughly and
completely.
further
discussion
traffic
discussed
hearing
closed
zoning
detrimental
separation
suggested
clarifica-
tion
requested
discrepancy
discussed
hearing
re-opened
general
comments
requested
i-
,'
' '
Public Mearing Cont'd
introductl.on Mrs. lluey co!lmlent.ed that thero were :govoral othc.r-intorolllt6d pettie11• in::' •
oi clrs. Odou the audienco "1ho "1ished to voice their objections ti'> tho' iu1ro•of th•"·'.;,:
~ft·s. Odou 1 s
c:b1nments
discussion
of child
ccnt1.."!r
publk
hearing
closed
11-Z-70
denied
applicant
.'..'lclviscd of
right to
appeal
J2-L:-7Q
denied
13-V-70
approved
·w:i th ccnd i-
tions
public
hearing
closed
gao<>liae stilt ion and mentioned Mrs. Odou "1hO was a member o! the -·:. · · ,,.
audience.
Mrs. Odou of 10924 Bnrr11nca nrivo then camo forth' and indicated her
approval of child c.nJ'o center in preference t<> having 11 l>11r· (the·Moosti
Lodgu) in their back yard.
Chairman Puetz asked fot other comment• to which Mrs. llewey re11pomled · ·
with an inquiry as to the maximum n•1mber of children allowed at the
center.
' ~ ':
l'l:rnning Dir.,ctor Sisk conm1ented thnt tha State would p1·ob11bly limit
number of children rel.>tivc to the building sizo. Mr. Dempster tht.n
said th~t there would be no evening hours involved and they had _not
discussed n maximum number of childrtu1 ns yet.
the
After sou1e d:f.scuss:i.on, it was moved by Conunissioner Meyers, seconded ·by
Conuniss:!.oner Irt'1in and pa.sst~d unanimously to close· the public hearing=··.·.~_-.,
and t~nd the discussion of this issua.
lt was further moved by Commissioner Irwin and seconded by Commissioner; ..
lluthenuth that Application ll-Z-70 be denied, resulting in the following
vote:
AYES: Cor.i.missioners Irwin, Meyers) Buthenuth
!NOES: Corr.nissioners Hirshon and Chairman Puetz
rllSENl': None
!Chairman Puetz. udvised that the applicant had the. right to appeal the
fde.cision made by the Planning Commission, in· '..rriting, 1.\Tithin five days···
jto the Council.
lrt was moved by Commiss:loner Irwin, seconded by Commissioner Buthenuth
l"nd passed that Application 12-U-70 be denied with the follo1ring vote:
t
·\YES: Com."l'lissioners Buthenuth 1 Hirshon, Irl-.tin, ?-!eyers, Puetz · --.,
'OJ:S: None
IJSENl': None
/
Commissioner Buthenuth moved, it was seconded by Commtssioner ·Meyers
and passed unanimously that J\pplicatio!l 13-U-70 be approved subject to
the conditions as recommended by the Planning Department, plus conditions
13 through 19.
AYES;
NOES:
·\BSENl':
Co1nmlssi.oners Irwin, Meyers, 1luthcnut:h and Chairman Puetz
None
None
Commi.ssione1· Irwin commented regarding the conditions irivolved in
t\pplicatlon 13-U--70 and tho public hearing was declared closed by
Chnirmoa Puetz.
•
•
•
•
•
Minutes of tbo Planning Col!mlis1'ion, July 27, 1970
' . ' ·' . -~ ·.1.·. ·.
Sorvicc Stat ion Study: Rqvicw of Draft continued •
Planning Director 1iisk ·commontod that he· had nothing ·naw to •offer' atl'th1~
time and reque•tod c:ommmtts fr''"' thll'l comm:luim1ors 11s to tl1ier thoughtis ·.I
on tho matorial that. had b1.>on ~ubtnitted ·to them, Chairman Puct:i: i1iiti11ta
a discussion l'eS'*l'ding pol.ntll which sll(>uld ba strl!ssed in the service··· ·
stat;:lon study. He stnted th11t spacial l.andnc<1pir.g, property conditions,
sign cond:l.~ions, otcotor11, should be <lBtabHshed to evduacc servic111 ':
stations ln residential arou•. Ho furthor mentioned that in planning·
ahead, wo must find out what individual property owners plan to· do 'With
tho properties and coordinate between th<~m, tho City, and the developer:
and wa must al.low for commercial use t.1ithin tho rcsid<mtial areas.
Planning Director Sisk suggested that th<• r<•ms:l.11dcr of· this discusaion
be co11tinuad until tl1c next meeting.
Chairman Puetz intr.:iduced another discussion relative to smog and pollu-·
tion problems resultillg from ga.soline vapors to 'Which Commissfoner Irwin.
replied that certain standards should be set pertaining to these problems.
Chairman Puetz inquired it there t.1as a report regarding the sidewalk.
stand.uds to which Planning D!xector Sisk replied that one was not
reaciy at this time but: .aS'sured the conuuiSsioners that tlle report would·.
be ready in the near future.
Chairman Puet>. then asked the meanJng of the sub-heading "R<lport. of
Plann1'lg Commissioner" on the ngcnda and Planning Director Sisk responded
that this was done in an attempt to conform to the agendas of the City ·
Council and the Architectural Site Col1trol Committee. He said in this
t-.~ay the commi$sioners ii."Ould have an opportunity to comment on certain:
points of importance to the commission.
\
Commissioner Hirshon mentioned that the Planning Policies. Co~it'tea of
the County h«d a meeting last week in which a new ag~ncy\"lffilhdisc'usse,d
that m:i.ght replace the present Planning Policy Committee, with more·-· -
authority as to environmental probl~ms.
;
Chairman Puetz opt:!ned another discussion pertaining to our Cupertino image
'. ! J_;,,.
····' 1" j ;, .
discussion of
cond:l.tio[)s
discuss ·!on
continued
ecology
discussed
sidewalk
standards
report
agenda
heading
clarified
new agency
discussed
and Comn1ission Irwin replied that we should encourage a multiple image City image
and not adhere to a single design idea.
Pl.:1nning Di.rector Sisk reminded the conuuissioners of the joint meeting
of the City Council and the Planning Commission to be held on Wednesday,
July 29, 1970, at 7:30 p.m., at which time a member of the County Planning
Staff would be pre.sent and .show slides involving housing problems in
Santa Clara Valley.
Planning Director Sisk continued by introducing Mr. Rifredi in the au-
dience and explained that Hr. l'.i:"re<li had been inv0lved in a Use Permit
application relative to his Honta Vista Ready-Mix business which was
approved by t.ht! City Council on June lst with certain conditions to be
accomplished t1ithin certain periods of time. Planning Director Sisk
stated that he wisl1cd to discuss tl1c status of Mr. Rifredi's compliance
to the Use Permit conditions.
n1eeting
reminder
Mr. Rifredi
introduced
'
Report of Planning Director (continuod)
'' . ; ~: ·i .-J
Nr. lUfrcd:i began by saying thr.t he had atarted clearing the area of
woeds us 1.1 H1·st step .in cOlll1>lying with tho conditions :!llllllodiately· . '·-.
niter the Plmmfog Commisdon ll1;1adng, buc 1.1 week later the City · ·:;
Mr. Rifrcdi 's Council imposed further oondit:!.ona as t.o dedication, rouwval ,o,f a ···
pres<rntatJ.on chain l:ltlk Ione" and r<>plllce111ent with n wooden fence,..along with tha ·
landncapi11g. !kl said that when he mentioned Che ded:tcaticm of .the
portion of land to hi~ landlord, hia lnndlord w:m'ted the assurance of:'.·
" long-t:ern1 lea<m and wlth that, rdirrnd his rent on the paraal. He
continued that tlrn chain link fence problt!m has not >ls yet bee'l .
~Ir. Rifr(•di
1.:om:ncndt.:.>d
solved but he is purnuing this and h11t1 purchased 100 trnM .to ·ac... . .. ·
complish the landscaping, Mr. ltifrcdi indicate.d that co11atructioi> baa.
l•egun, without land!lcap.ing, duo to the dedication problem and l'oster-
KJ dser n<rnds a <Oopy of the Use Permit in order to remove tbair sign
in this area.
Co11unissio11cr J:rwln mentioned at this time that ho felt Mr. Rifredi has.'
made every effort to comply with the conciitio1ui imposed and. should be
commended £or this. • .:
Chainuan Puetz then indicated that the body agrae.i with Commissioner
Irwin on this po.int and :it was u:o·:ed by Commissioner Irwin, seconded :.
by Commissioner l!irshon and unanimously passed th11t.the meeting be
adjourned to Wednesday, July 29, 1970, commencing 11t 7:30 p.m. · ·.:'
The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
_Jtw~-:J~-
ity Clerk
PC•l5
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cl!Y OF' r.m•1:lll'1NO, Stnt<,1 M C•l Hor11ia
lO'.lN> Torn• Avenue, Cupiri:ino, Cnlifornill
.l'.l~<~~'!.; .... z.?.?c~!·.!~2.:'i .
. "; '· .. . -·it
11rnurns OF Tiil! Rl\GULAH MLl:'l'lNG ()F' rnr. HANNING COMHISSlON
lll\1.D ,)IJLY 13' 197(1. rn Tim COUNCIL Clll\M!ll!RS; ctn l!Al.l.,
CUl'l!.l\TINO, CALll'ORNIA
Chnirm"n ?uet' rnlkd thA "'''"tinr, to or<l~r at: 8:05 P. M. nnrl lod the
r.nlute. to tho. fJnR.
Roll Cnll --···--··-"-··--··
Commi.$slont:ir.s presl'·1·1t;: )1,urht•nuth, Irwin, ~ayers, Chairman l')uctz. Also /
pi.:c~sc.nt: Plnnnjng JJirc<.~tor Si~ok: Assistant Ci.t;.i EnRineur Viskovi.::.h; Cit:Y.
Attorney And~rsorl: noco1·Ji111~ Secretary natty Do1·ris.
It W<ll~ movc<l by Comrn:i.s.sJoner Irwin, 801..~onded by CernmissiotH!r Meyers and
µt1ss~d ut'l.An:i'lr1ously that the. m:lnut.a!:! of June 8, 1.970 be appi.·ovcd as sub-
rn:i.ttcd.
Commise.ion.~r f~uthenuth eskcd that t:be m:lnutes of June 22 be a1nended to
indJ.c:utt."' Lh.-1t he had led .'.\ dj_scuss.ion concerning the dcp>.~ession of the
P. G. & l:. Stibst..:i t io:.1 (Pnge 6 ~ 1\ppl i en ti on 3-Z-70, Review of Develop-
ment Plnn: Pacific Gus and El8ctric Company) •
Commissioner Irw-in moved, Cornmissioncr Buthcnuth sec·onded and it was
passed t1nsnimously to upprovo the min,1tes of Ju11e 22, 1970 as amended.
Plnnning Dir€~c.tor Sisk announced that there had been no requests for
postponeffic11ts rcccivaa.
h'rilten Co1".'.:~1t~nic:nt.ionr-: ----------·---------·---
Planning Director Sisk ndvis'2d the Commission that he had received a
co1-~rnunicat1.1.'ln cupccrning the County application under Ne""' Business,
Item A of th~ agenJa ~11<l that he would l1old this letter for prcsenta-
t.io:l with thi:; ;: .. pplJcntion.
A. County Application ~o. 6Z70.4 for ch3nge of zcne from
A (J~~clusiva A~~tic11ltur;1J) ro RJ-2.4 -9.9 acres.
Applic~nt: S;1ntin:1 TinlJ~sni11i.
}ll;ir'.iiing Plr(:Ct ,,~-,rim Sisk~ t-Jith thD help of visual aids~ presented
ti>i.s .:1pplic.:-:ti("'rt f0:· tllL' rc-::1~;1ir:;-: of ~1,9 acres Joc:1ted .:it: the south\\'l:'St 1
Cl~~·ih:r of Lht> int:ersi c.:ti:.:i. 1..:f .Stell.ing Ro.:1d n1Hl ~1,~c1e.llnn Road. HC' said 1
o dt!Lallcd c!c·vd,1;ooicnt. pl:in is cub1"J.ttt!d with the <1pplication prO!'ODing I
l'C-13
roll
call
addil:ion
to mi~1utes
minutes
appro\rcd
110
poHtpon~l:!er!t
6Z70 ,I,
Ninutas of th<> Planning Commiauiotl July 13, 1970
nrl'.\ "r-n t .1 t j on
<)f (\)Unt.)'
..\;lJ' 1 ~ C' i\t {(~0
67.70. '·
I
j
to con•trnct " 132 unit plnnnad dev"lopment project, Hr. Sisk, 11aid' ,th4t
tho Locol Ai:oncy Form"tfon Commission in 1968 h«d datorminod tbis pro-
perty t<> be within th" aphoro of influence of Cupcrtfoo which was re-
'" fi rmod at the ii• mnet:lng cf July l, 1970 11nd LAf'CO will inform ,tho County
l'lnrmlng Commission chs.t tho d•walopment of this property should be ac-
complishad within tho jm·.isdiction of the City of Cuportino.
C'l':lrnmi ss ion
di.scussion
slaternent of
po.sit icn on
6270 . .:'.i
he inc]ude<l
~ on Go:...ls
Co!':!mittec
lci.nt mcetinf~
1 l!l v 29
I
I
Mr. S.isk exl'laincd that: the 1·oason for bringing this application t<> tho
Cmmn.isdon w1rn t:hst tho etaff would llka to havu a st:l"ong ststemont nf
poslti.on to prcst•nt co the County l'lnnninr. Commiodon ut its mcetl,ng of
July 16. Ha st~ced his feolinas chat: it is important chat the Cupertino
Plnnnin~ Commis,,iol\ take a very definite stand in this matter, indicating
th<lt the property is naturally within our growth aran and that irny land
use decl.Gions conccraing this development uhou.ld be made by the City of.
Cupe rt inc>.
Commlssiwn¢r Xrwin inquired if any effort, had be<1n mnde on the part of
[ dcvolop<>rs with r"gard to anMxation. Mr. Sisk i·eplied that numerous dis-
i cussic>ns with the various developers ha<l been held and the feeling was
I thnt this should be devolopC!d within the jurisdiction of Cupcrtiao, ac-
cordit:r, to our standards. lie stated the City is going to ask the County
l to let Cupertino muke the decisions on this development.
I Commission<!r lluthcnuth remarked that this development would be in the I middle of singl.«-family Rl homes and thought this to be poor planning.
I Cha,rman Puetz expressed his feelings that this area should i·emain Rl in
order co retain the aesthetics of De Anza College. Mr. Puetz said that
I
i the streets J.nvolved in this dt.1velopment are still below standards of
Ci.tv st:rt"!ets and this '"ould create n1ore of a traffic problem. llt! stat.ed
he would not be totally against s multiple development with an Rl type
nature to it.
Planning Director Sisk felt that this property did not necessarily have
to be developed in $50, 000 Rl Single-family homes. He thought a planned
unit development \vith 3. reasonable density could be un asset in the area.
Commissioner Irv.,in moved that the Planning Com.'Ui.ssion resolve that the
LAFCO ass.ignmcnt of sphere of influence in 1968, reaffirmed in t970, to
Cur.e~tino be adhered to with respect to development and land use of this
p?:'opcrty. This 1notion \.Jas seconded by Commissioner Meyers and pa~sed
un:intmously.
0r.-:i.1 Communi.enttons
Chairm:i.n Puetz prc.~posed, in the form of n motion, that somebody from the
stude:i.t bod~· of DeAnza College as well us th~ various high schools in the
locale he: appointed to t1cr~bership on the Citizens' Goals Committee. Com-
mi.ssicner Irwln seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
1 Plnnn.ing Direct.or Si.sk informed the Commission that he had discussed the
joint meeting on tl1c housing study witll the County and there will be a
forty-five minute slide prescntotion on July 29 to a joint meeting of the
.; Planning Commission and the (;!ty Council to discuss the prog.rcss of the
1 hous:lng eJement study~
•
•
•
•
•
•
. '
Minutes of tha l'lonning Cornrnilllsion July j , l !J70
Oral Comunicat io1\a Cont'd •
Chait"tnnn Puet~ th<>n asked H ther" 11er11 any oral communicationa from the
audience and thare wer<!I nona,
A. 14-l'M-70, Ralph G. Rodrigues: 'fsntntivo Map t<>
divUo .376 acre .tnco two iHirc"1a, located east-
erly side of }fcClalltin Nead, approximately 700
feet ~nst of 1.indn Viatn !lrl.vt1, Fir•t Hearing.
Planning D:lroctor Sisk advised the Commi&sion that the applicant for thi
tentative map Rlso had n meeting ill Sunnyvale this evening and had re-
qt1asted thnt his presentation be continued until later in the meeting.
Comm.issioner Irwl.n moved that Application H-11'!-70 be heard after portio
!I under Item 7, Public Hearings, on tho agenda nm\ that if the appl:tcnnt
was not present at that time, the applicntf.on would be continued. Com-
n,issioni;.r Meyers seconded the ml1tion and it was passed unanimously.
B. 15-TM-70, Skaggs Pay Less Drug Stores, Tentative
Map to divide E.501 acres into two parcels, located
on thL': southwest corner of Homestead Road and
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Raud. First Hearing.
Planning Director Sisk presented this application, using v!sual aids to
show the location of this property. Hr. Sisk pointed out that the over-
all site co'1tains 16. 3 acres and was divided into two parcels in Mnrch ·
1970. The applicant has stated that the reason for creating Parcel B is
PC-13
page 3
14-TM-70
legend
14-TM-70
to be heard
lust under
pvl·lic
hearings
15-TN-70
for lending purposes only and that Skaggs Pay Less will maintain control presentation
of both properties. Hr. Sisk informed the Commission that there is a
problem regarding a roof overhang projecting over a proposed property
line. The 22-foot offset along the westerly property line of Parcel B
marks the beginning of a common ~.Ja.11 line-prope.rty line bet'l,'een the Pay
Less Drug Store currently under const:ruction nnd a future. building to be
constructed on Parcel B.
Aside from i:he ovt~rha.ng proh1£nn described, }fr. Sisk said·, the proposed
property division c.onforms to all applicable zoning ordinances and th~
subdivision ordinance. The Plnnning Director said the Planning Depart-
rr.ent. recommendation was for a~proval of the map subject to the 12 Stan-1
dard ConditionY with an additional coud!tion that they will have to bringj
this into conformity with the setback requirements meaning that something
will have to be done with this overhang.
Ch~irman Puetz remarked chot the oripinol application for chis property
development WRS for the entire parcel un<l asked what w·as the reason for
this lot split.
Planning Direct'Or Sisk showed 'ln ttxco.rut from tho developn1ent plant which
plnn has been tipproved 1'y the City, and remarked that Parcel S shows a
commlssion
discussion
h''Hring
closed
i s-r~·-10
.\P1-~<f
with
conditions
r.:inute
(1rdcr
14-TN-70
~1resl'nt:.ition
Minutos of tho PlRnnins CQ!Jlllli$11io11 July .P,, 1117.Q
Public llonrins~ cont'd. -Applic<1tton 15-nl-~(l
'-,J
« I -~ ' "
futuro huil.ding. 1111 Hid ~ho applicant had inMcat11d irl suhmitt,1.µg, tl!h
Tontat:lve Map that thQ propoo"d div isl.on is foi: .financi11g .putpoa1J•• ""
:ommissl.onor lley0rs iuquir0d if th" pnrking facilities were edequata ·~Pit
l'nrc"l A 1rnd Hr, Sisk replied in thq nffir1Mtiva naying this was a part
of tho npprovoJ dew1opnwnt rlan.
Chairmnn l'uou inquirnd concerning the ingress and egrus !or.:tbis property.
~r. Sisk showad n slide of tho proparty, indicating ingress aad•egress and
access to ~41ratogn-Sunnyvale Road which also is sho\l.rn on tho approved de.-
vcloprntmt map.
Comm:tasioner !Juthenuth moved, Cor.:missiatrnr Irwin seconded and it was paso-
ttd unnnimously to closa th~~ puhllc hen ring.
Commi~si.oner lluthenuth moved th1lt Apphcntfon 15-TH-70 be approved subject
to lhc 12 Standart. Conditions p'.us Condition 13 as recommended by .tho Plan-
ning J:leµarmont staff. !his rn0tion was seconded by Commissioner Irwin.
Ayes: Commissioners Huthenuth, Irwin, Meyers
Abstain: Conunissioner Puetz
Absent: Connn:lssioner Hirshon
Commlsdoncr Buthenuth •noved for a Minute Order to have the Planning Staff
loolc into t 1rn pa~kin.> of Skaggs Pai• Less and if an when the new building
is built and sec ~f the overall pa•king ratio is within the· City ordi1iances.
Ayes: Commiss:f.oners But:henuth, Irwin, Mayers, Chairman Puetz
~oes: None
Absent: ConUllissioner Hirshon
Cha i.rman l'u~tz odvised tha$e pr'1sent tho.t Application 15-Tl1-70 would go. be-
fore the City Council at the meeting of July 20, 1970,
li•-TH-70, Ralph G. Rod«igue» Tentative Map to
divi(e .376 acre into tw~ parcels~ located east-
erly side of McClellan l~oncl, approxim~tely 700
feet east of LJ.nd11 Vista Drive. first Hearing.
Mr. Dick Pacheco, 1960 The Alameda, made the p~esentatian of this applic'ltion I for ~he anplicant. Mr. Pacheco "xplained that the Rodrigues' were planning
! to TI'OVe tY.ro hnusez onto thi.s property -one for them and onn for their. daughter
i and familJ. A:o. they elected to have a kitchen in the second unit then it be-
l
l came necessary, in or.der "o meet the City ordinance requirements, to subdivide
and iile a Tentative Hap. He said the t.\~·a parcel~ would remain under one
O\.'"ne.rship.
I Assist:nnt City Engineer V:i.skovich showed slides of the property. In answer
1 to Chairman Pltetz'F question as to any prcblcms with this property 1n the
! e\".!r.t McClel~cn :ts finullY developed into .s. City standard size street~ Mr.
·Sisk saJ.d they fo proposu to dcdJ,,at• und improve accordfog to the CHy
s!:andards.
•
t
-~-
•
.•
•
•
Minutes of the Pl.anning Commissioit July 13, 1970
Puhl:tc llMr:!n11s Cont'd, -14-l'M·-70
i ,. ·'·-·r:Ji/;'.c!>;
l'lannlnP: Dir<'ctor Sisk 11,<lvised tne Cr>mmiasJ.on that this, property is ad-
jacent to t\xioting singlc-fohdly rcsidonc~s to the north and south,
Hont11 Vista l!igh School to the east, and the Damico property to the vuut
Al.thoup,h no plan lines off:lcial.ly o:x:l<tt For McClellan Road, the. Engineer
ing D"partm<ont hllS ustuh.lished a tentatiV1) plan line. wh:lch is in confo• ..
anca with tho applicant's proposed dcdicntion.
Mr. SiBk stnted that the epproximntc Dize and locatfon of each house to
be moved onto th<1 property is indicated on the map. The pi:oposod resi-
dence on !',ucel 1 docs not meet tho sidoyard setback requiraments of the
Rl Ot"din.rnce. A lot width ,,£ 87 ,5 feet wwuld require a total s~t.back dis
tance of 17.5 feet. The map indicates a totnl setback distai1co of 17
fcot. J1c snid the applicant can either alter the house, which is pro-
bably impractical, or increase the lot width to allow the house to con-
form ::o setback requirements but reduce the driveway width to 12 feet.
Mr. Pacheco 1.tdvised the Commission that the applicant i.s eliminating a
12 foot hreezewav from the main residence whjch with an allowance of .6'
j.nche.s from the ;lriveway (leaving a 12 foot drive) would nllow them to
meat the setback requirements of the City of Cupertino.
Chairman Puetz raised some questions concerning traffic and the possible
d•inger of people hacking from the dr:lvcway of thi.s property onto Mc-
Clellan Road. He snid McClellan is a hazardous street along this portio
particularly at the corner near Byrne where there is a blind cor.:ier due
t'o the houses beinp on a highe1· elevation.
Planning Director Sisk stated that a condirion could be attached requir-
ing the applicants to provide ample turn around on the property.
Commissioner Irwin moved, Commissioner ?'-teyers seconded and it was passed
unanimously that the public hearing b~ closed.
Commissioner ~!eyers moved that ApplicatJ.on 14-TM-70 be approved subject
to the 12 Standard Conditions and Conditions 13 as recommended by the
P lann:i.ng Department Staff; Condit ions 14 which '·lould require a turn
around for tl~e driveway on Paree] 2: and Condition 15 stipulating that
the property line be changed to show a 12 foot flag instead of the 12~
foot nn Parcel 2.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Commissio11ers Irwin 1 Mey~rs: Chairman Puetz
Commissioner But,henuth
Commissionar l£irshon
Chairman Puetz advised those present thoc this application would go be-
fore the City Council at its meeting of July 20, 1970,
PC-13
page 5
presantatl.on
by
Planning
Director
comments of
applicant
public
hearing
clos~d
14-TM-70
approved
with
conditions
Review of
Co11nr:v
1rnplicution
for mobile
hot:~c pnr.k
review by
Planning
D.irector
Cor..ments of
"ppli.co 11t
Council
resolution
revieweJ
Mimi~es of the Planning Commisdon July 1.), 1970
ir· · '. ;
A. Servica Station Study: l\cviaw of Draft continued.
C'ornmiRsJ.oncr lluth<1nuth rnovcd thnt the Serv.ice Station Study be continued
to an adjourned l'lanninJ> CommissJ.on mc12tin!l Qt 7:30 !',M,, Wednesday
:1uly 15, 1970 which motion was sccondl?d by Commisllioner Irwin and paased
u!lBn.imously. ·
New Business
~--...... -----------
A. Review of Santa Clare. County application of the Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Sm1 Frnncisco (Los Altos Invest-
ment Company) for change of ZO!lP. frcm Exclusive Agri-
cultural (A) to Rosidcntl.nl Agriculturn (Al-I!), and for
" Use Permit to all.01~ a 957-spnco mobile home park w:l.th
ralitted stores, coffeo shop cmd service station facility;
""~roxi.mfltely 159.8 acres located westerly of Muryknoll
R .... ,~1t'. and southe.rly of Junipero Serra Freeway.
Planning Director Sisk reviewed the background of these two applications
which aro currently before the County .Planning Commisaion and which were
hcnt·d 11 month ago at which Ume he appcacted bef<>re the County with a
Resolution from the City Council tak.ing a position on this development.
Pr. S.isk said the County had contiuued the application for a period of ·
thirty days to give the various cities involved an opportunity to dis-·
cuss this proposal with the County Staff and the Architectural and Site .
.Approval Commit;tee a:rrd the upplicants had been asked to come before this
Commission tonight nnd explain "What there proposal is.
Nr. Max Dittm3n, Engineer with Shahinian and Rodgai:-s of Los Altos who are
designers of this project~ came forward representing the o'Wiler.
~Ir. Dittman stated that this property will be leased on ten .. year leases
with an option for a second ten-year lease, primarily proposed as an in-
t.erJ.m use. He said a portion of this property is now z~ned hy the County
as cemetary property -approximately 50 acres -with another 100 or so
acres zoned agr~.cultural at this time~
PC-13
I ~Ir. Sisk interjected, saying that the CHy Council hud adopted a resolution
on this matter and took the position of not being opposed to the develop-
! ment but did not hr:-art:i.lv endorse it either. He said the Council had in-
j eluded a number of cond.ttions tlnd that sooner or later the property would
be a 1 ~n.e.xed to t:he City and that Cupertino would have a1 input as to how the
pronerty is developed and tlic.:te would be certain stipul.:it~ons made as a
pnrt of the use pctrnit relative to this interim situation and various
other t~nffic concerns.
The app1icant explained that th~ rer:;.son for thls development: was to get
•
•
funds to run the Catholic School and co11ege on this propt\rty. He said •
•
Minutes of t.hn l'lt11ming Con.111hsion July 13, 1970
Now lhrniness Co1\t 'd •
this ia not an ordinary trailer pnrk which has 10 "" 12 units per acre,
hi?,h den.dty, with r.rnnsj.t'l1t tra.Uora l.n and out. ifo :;aid this would
ba t>. mobile horn" purl< of th~ counny club type with complete recrna-
tion facil iti"s: the area will have common gretei>a that will bo ·land-
scapod; tho creek will be maintained in as much a natural state as pos-
sible: and it was planned to rrt.ain much of the natural vegetation. ·Mr.
Dittman •aid there will bo 6.1 units por acre.
Mr. Sisk introduced nnd road o letter from the Croston Improvement As-
sociation received by tho Planning Commission at ir.s ln,st meeting «nd
which WHS mentioned by him "arl.ior in tho meeting m>der Written Communi-
cations. The Crt!ston lmprove.mont Asst~ciation, Inc. etated-they wanted
to go on r.,cord as not hcl.ng J.n favor of this application.
Public Worl's Dil'cctor Yarborough prcs<!nted various site plans and aerial
photos pointing out the specific location for this devefopmcnt as well
ns adjointn.g properties, .1CC\:lss roarls, etc. lle seid thern will be some
problems of ingress and egress one of whl ch was creating "secondary ncce s
i~r. Yarborough said there will be a traffic signal on Foothill Boulevard
when the first 300 unit:s are <lev~loped and a second ncctJss to Permanente
Road will. ba provided at the beginning of the second devefopment. stage.:
He said a mastar plan will be provided and that a precise plan will be
brought in for approval at each phase of development.
• Comml.ssioner Irwin felt era t once constn1ction is started to open up
the valley that a pattern is set and before lo!lg there will be a la1·ge
devel.C'pment upon one of the beautiful hills. !le also said he thought
the location for the access rond \>UlS a dangerous one.
Co1r:.missioner Buthenutb moved that t:he Commission propose that. in accord·-
anco with Resoluti.on No. 2008 adoeted by the City Couttcil of Cupertino,.
providing the county does glve this proposal a f avornble action, the con
ditions recomrr.ended by i:.he .Planning staff be adopted. This motion ·was
seconded by Co1nn1issioner Meyers.
Ayes: Connnissioncrs Buthenuth, Meyers
Noes: Conunissioncr Irwin, Chairman Puetz
Absent: Commissionar Hirsh.on
Following this tie vote Public i~1 orks Director Yarborough reviewe::I tl~ con-
dit1ons as s.:ated Jn the resolution adoptc~ by the Council and a.nvthcr
vote was taken after the motion t..•n.s reintroduced by Conun~ssioncr
Huthcnuth and .s2conded by Commii::sionPr ~'eyers,
l'C-13
l'age 7
cotnments
of
applicant
writ tan
communicatiol1.
read
presentatfon
by
Director of
Public Works
81,060
tie
vote
Ayes: Commissioners Huthenuth, Irwin, Meyers 1 Chairman .Puetz
Noes: None
Ahscnt: Commissioner Hirshon
81,060
cond·itions
adopted
Chairman Puetz called a recess at 10:30 P.M. recess
The meeting reconvened at 10:45 P.M.
_;:/
" ,.
'
1 .'1-U-6~
-~··---
.l)~cussioll
a!)µlicant 's
1..-:ornmer.ts
l ''-U-69 __ ,. __ _
discussion of
sidewall:
~t:lr.c!nrJs
.. ~ .... >nr:inue.c.!
!<inut-es <if tho Planning Commbdon July .13, 1970
New Bu9in;,ss Cont'd.
B. 14-l!-69, Roque•t for "xtondon of ti111e OI\ Use P0rmit
p,timted on July 28, 1969 for tho operation of a 'driv~·in
restaurant llt the southeast corner of Orango Avonua and.
Steven1J Crock lloulev"t'd (Res()lution No. 678)
. ..
··1 ' .. · .. (
Chail•r.nn Puetz revie~·cd this applicetion llnd thu Pl<1<1ntnR DI.rector's niemo
saying that this is a request for •rproval of use permit t.:> allow eonst-euc-
tion of n d1·.tvc··in restaurant nt this l<lcation, The applicant is unable
to conetruct tlrn facility at this time and has submitted 11 letter request-
ing a one-yMl' extension of the permit.
As st.•t"d in the Plnm1inR D1nictor 1 s memo, upon re\•iew of the application
l.t came to ll.ght that the previously approvad tentative map crenting ·the
building site for th<> drive-in has expired. It was stated, therefore,
the us" pennit is m<>aninglcss since a buildable site does not exist and·
the Plnnni.ng staff has reconuncnded denial of the re.quested extension~ ·
?-tr. Ron Pi.tr.man, co-o<tvner of the property> in answer to Commissioner Irwin's
queGtion, replied that t.hl'!! applicants ha.d not been. aware that the tentative
map had "xpircd and he did not m1derstRnd why the use pl'\rmit had been ex-
tc11ded in view of this.
Commissioner lt"l\fin thought the Plann.i11g Director's memo was in. 01:d~r in
view of the probletns existi,,g w.i.th the expiration of the tentati·ve map and
sn:td that:, after all, nothing can be done without: a tentative map.
It v..las moved by Comn1issioncr I1·win, seco1~ded by Corr.missioner Meyers t1''lt
the requt:st for extension of time on this use permit be denied.
..A.yes: Commissioners Buthenuth 1 Irwin, :Meyers, Chairn1an Puetz.
Koes: None
Absent: Commissioner Hirshon
' Chairman Puetz informed the applicant that any appeal must be submitted to
the City Clerk w1.thin five d1!ys.
C. Discussion of S.iaewalk Standards.
I Co~~issloner Buchonuth moved that Item C under New Businesa, Discussi0n of
Sid0·~•['.lk Standards, be contint:cd to the adjourncc: meeting to be held at
7: 30 P .x. on July 15. Commission.er Irwin seconded the motion and it was
passed unanimously.
D. Review of Height Ordinance as related ro antennas (:{eferral
from City Council for public liearing ond considerdtion as
to whether changes should be mddc in the orclin:.:.nce.)
Commissi.onc.r Buthenuth moved, Commlssioner Irwin seconded and it was passed
..
•
•
•
.,.
. i-
•' ·.
(,
,.
•
•
•
Minutes of t.hc Planning Crnniniss1on July 13, J.970
N(tW Busint.!sN Cont'd. -Item D
unanimously to continue the l{ev:f.cw of the Haight Or<linnnce to the ad ...
jourirnd meeting of: July 15, 1970.
Gor;mins10ner Ruthenuth moved and Comm:tssioncr Irwin seconded thut t:he
mc~'.t:i.ng be adjourned.
At 11:10 r.M. Chairmnn Puetz adjourned cha meeting co Wednesday, July 15,
1970 at 7:30 P.H.
ATTEST:
c-D
age 9
t\cvicw of
!eight
Ordlnnncc
continued
.,,_
1:
•
•
CITY 01" CU!'ER1'1NO, Stat<1 of Cnl.iforn~!'.,
l0300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California
Phone: 252-4505 -----
MlNln'ES o~· -rm: REGULAR Mf::Il1'ING OJ!' TllF. PI.ANNING COMMISSION
HELD JUNll 22, 1970 IN TllE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, .CXT'i HALL,
CUPER'£INO, CALIFORNIA
Chairman Puetz called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.H. and lee' the
salute to the flag.
Roll Call
Conunissione.rs r ... rc.sent;
Also presnnt: Planning
Assistant City Engineer
Buthcnut:h, Hi.rshon, IrwJn. Chairman Puetz..
Director Sisk; Assistant Planner Cowan;
Viskovich; Re<!ording Secretary Betty Dorris •.
It was moved by Commissioner Duthenuth , seconded by Comml.ssioner
Irw·in and pass~d unanimously that the minutes of the previous 111eet-
ing of June 8, 1970 be cor.tinued to tl;e next meeting for approval. ,
.\nnouncement of Postponements.
It was moved by Comir.:issioner Buthenuth, seconded by Co,nmissioner
Irwin and pas~ed unani:nously that Item A under Ne,,, Business, Revie\1
of Santa Clara County application of the Roman Catholic Archbishop
of San Francisco, be continued to the next: meeting as the applicant
was unable to attend this meeting.
Written Communications
A letter from the Creston Impr.ovement Association, Inc., Home-Owners
in Creston~ Riverside and Pringlewood Subdivisions, opposing the re-
zoning of the lands of the Roniw1 Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco
was presented to the Plaaning Commisr.ion by Mr. A. T. Lind, P~esident.
A. Referral from Santa Clara County: Application
6Z70.~ of Robert Jakob ct al -Rezoning from
Cmmty CN (Neighborho0d Commercial) to CG
(General Commercial), property located at 19160
Stevens Cr ..... ek.. 0ouievard, soutt-l side of Stevens
Creek Bolllcv,.,.rd be tween ~1il 1 e:c Avenue and TantaU
Avenue.
Plannin~ Director Sisk presented this referral application and advis~d
PC-12
roll
call
minutes
postponed
review of
I County
'ap;>lication
continued
1 c.orr-J!lunication
1 received
County
I Appl.ication
6270.3
I
the Conuniss.i.on the the request before the County is to rezone for presentation
General Commc~·cinl so that the car lot can become a confo11ning use ..
Mr. Sisk said the Commission .shoL~ld .formulate a position on thi.s 1 ad-·
vising the County so that they are: aware of the feelings of the Plai~ning
Commission.
..
~' .,
' ,.
·~-
~i ;_nut(.~
1'rd0r r~
Ccninty . .;ppl.
6Z70.3
13-TN-70 .... ~~---
.ll-(l-70
.appllcations
ccnsidcrcd
':-·inLly
rres0nt<Jtion
~ ) :--. .
P J ~.:1nin£_
Minutes
/ Wrir:ten
of the Planning Conunis11ion Jun1> 22, \970
<::onununica.tions Cont'd,
I I Assistant 'Planner Cowan showed slldea of the subject property •. When
, Chllirm.11\ l'uetz .lnquircd as to what is p!unned for .the adjacent· area
; Mr. Si!lk pre.~cnted a plan fot nview by the Commissioners.'; lie said
; it is planned to upgrnde the fncility and provide landscaping along
I S(:f:'.vens creek Boulcvnr<l Quu the we.Stf'!rly property line.
Chairm.111 l'11etz thought the County should be advised of the 12 Standard
· C011d.1.t.J.ons for General Commercial Zoning within Cupertino. · Co;nmissionec
lrwin felt that this would be only un expression of opinion as .Cupertino
could not impose its conditi~ns on tl1is County aoplication.
Commissioner Irwin then moved for a minute order to have the Planning
lJir·cctor contact the Countv ',''1ning Commission with regard to this ap-
plication, stat'lng this Coin·:·:' •n's objections to it, particularly with
ragRrd to the st~cct stana~ ·. and tl1e architectural accoutrements such
as waving flags, whir.l.ing diL .s» ('tc. nnd the upgrading 1 as l.lutll.ned iU:'
t;1e pla11 to b0 ca:."ried through. 1"i1e motion was seconded by Cotnmissione::
Hi rs hon nnd pnssed un3nimouoly.
·There wer~ no oral. ,ccmmunications and no comments from. the audienc·e .. ·
'Publi..:: Hearings
~A.
'
Donald Pritzke::-and George Fernandez: Tentative Map
and Use Permit for 155-unit apartment project in a
PlannHd Developme:1t (P) Zone, approximately 11.3
acres locci.ted \\1estcrly of and adjacent to Blaney
t\vcnue, 350 feet south of Stevens r.reek Boulevard.
Commissioner Irwin moved that Applications 13-TM-70 and ll-U-70 be con-
:sidered jointly which motion was seconded by Commissioner Hirshon and
passed unani1aously.
1Plonning Director Sisk presented this application. pointing out the
·location from the develop1'1ent plan. He stated this development: involved
:a dl~nsity of approximately 14 dwelling units per acre. '?-Ir. Sisk said
·,this property has been before the Commission numerous times in the past
for similar considerations. lie pointed out there woulJ be another access
,which will be off of Rodrigues Avent1e extending along the perimeter of the
,property to the various parking accesses. There will be 2.3 parking spac-
1es per dwelling unit which is .3 of a spnce in excess of the 2 -1 refiuire-
rment. Mr. Sisk sc:lid this development will include 56 one-bedroom apait-
.mPn ts, 79 two-bctl room apartments, 12 two-bedroom townhouses and 8 chree-
ibed roorn. He snid 50 per cent of tl1e site wcul<l be devoted to opett space,
) 27 .5 pt_r cent devoted to drivew:.lys and parki.ng, 21 per cent to building
'sites, which is quite commendable as far 3S Jand use r2lationships to the
site.
•
r
I
r
I
l
t
•! i
I ~.
l
' '
•
•
•
Mirmt<>a ot the Plmrning Comm!.ssion .lunu 22, 1970
.. , ;·
Public HMrJ.ngfl Cont'd. -13-l'H-70, 11-U-70
Assistant Planner Cownn. thinn showed alidc~a of this area to f~miliar-,
be th•~ c''mmbsJon witb th~ property i11vol.vcd.
PC-12
page 3
Mr. Sisk said tliat, in lld<lition to thia dcvalopnw.nt, lllan<ly Avenue would
be improved from this propert:y southerly. Rodrigues Avanu" is to ex-'
t"nd from !Haney Avenue a<i.j.1c<mt to the so<Jl;!H:it'ly property line <>f I
the d11vt'?lopmcn.t ncross the Chuck and Torre propcrt:f.cs pi.·oviding anotlcr, comments by
access to the rown C~ntar and the new Library. The propot;al is to 1
1,1 ,1 i · · ~• n .ng dedicate and improve. RoJrigucs Avonuo for tho full 60 foot west along
1
. Director
the southerly property l~no us well as the na<.~essnry dudication and
impro\·t~m~~n.t along Bla'ney Avontie to .,.~ffact the standard City improve-1
' numts. A pan of tt1is proposal would bo rhe improvement of. Rodrigues 1
from Dlauay westerly to connect with m<isting Rodrigues Avenue.· /I
Commissioner Hirshon inquir<'d if there would be any way Rodrigues
Avenue could ba lined up with Price and was told by Hr. Sisk that !
there had been rumors tlll!t possibly a petition would be circulated by I
property ownel.·s a&king that Price be closed at Blaney Avenue J
The Ch,dtmHtt ask«l tl"'' C.t.ty Et. ~ineer for a brief summary of the street pa ti
tern, t~1e general obj<..ctl.v.es and the possible effects that might come
out of chat.
Hr. Yarborough said that, first of all, the pattern included in the.
'i'own Center plan l:'·;ving some north-south ~::.;.:-eets des::f.gned to provide i
access and egress to the various properties in the Town Center did notj
give any significant street connections to other areas north of Stwmsj
Creel' Boulevard or provide a good opportunity to bleed off the heavy ,.
traffic in this area.
Mr, Yarborough said that what the City had attempted to do io1 cr.,ate .
1
! summary by
an intersectl.oa with Vista Drive which would ultimately be tied in
with possible c1ev•lopments in the Hartani property which is the larg-J~!~ineer
est other u1.d<:!veloped pro!"lerty in the area, thinking in tt:!1.·1a.s of col-
lecting and concentrating the traffic at one point with a clear cut: 1 warrant for traffic si.gnals rather than having a lot of small openings i
with no real north-south connection. The aim would be to create a !
second street parallel to Blaney tl1at would help that north-south pro-l
blem that now exists on Blun3y. He said thP-City should think in '
term!. of how to make the best use 0f the street pattern to minimize
the effects of v:hnt is ultim'ltely inf'vit;lb1e. }fr. Yarborough said
that a study would be made after the development is in to determine
the traffic effects, etc.
The Dan Donovan, attorney for the applicant, 20440 Town Center Lane,
presented this upplication usirg site and elevation plans and gave a
history of the property and the application3 heard before both the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
Hr. Donovan said that the applicants have now reduced the density from
I
I jpreser ... ation
;by ap;~icant's
rttorney
.~
\
2
' ·'.: ·_.-,
"Ii
4
c omrnents by
,\ttnrl\CY
Donovan
.-1udience
~~urther
con-.::ierits by
, Minutes of the Planning Cmnmiado11 June 21., 1970 l'C-12 I i .: .•
(ublic Hearing -13-'i'M-70, ll-U-70 Cont'd. ,, , . , .
, 16 to 14 ~nits per acre 1<ith tlm d1rnlling unit• bein11 :roducod· frO!ll :•181 to
:1ss, thfly have ngrccd to build Rodrigues Avenue and to obtain the right-
lof-wa)• to build llod1·ig11er. Avenu" over (>50 foet Gerosa ·th& Chuck .:a·nd ·Torre
i properties <rnd <1.lo11g their c>1m pr.openy lin0, lie :said the' applicencs also
had '1gr<>ad not to l<MS" to any()ne with children u11d11r t.he ag11 <lf 14· years. I , ,
:Mr. Donovan pointed out the pat·king areas say.f.ng the't'e would be no exits
, onto Blnn.<:':y Avtin"'(?,. Ht.'?! :.;ai.d ther.a \vould be large open Bpbleea -·bet-ween the
;units and tho units would be constructed with ceddr (')t' rodwood,extor.ior.s
'and sh11ko roofs. lie said the.so are qualHy ai>artmeuts which 1<ould .rent
, fr~m $195 for one-bedroom to $325 for tho three-bedroom. Mx·. Donnvan·
pointed out the ameniti<1s of the development including recreation' facilitl es,
.lakes, etc., saying that tho lnndscuping will be lush and there will be many
.: tYP.eS,
\~l1Pn Cha:lrman Puet;.; asked f1;,r .audience comments, ~tr. Robe-rt Ma.son; l.0214
Port.al, co1nmented concerning, particularly, Randy Lane and Rodt'1gucs.:Aveuue,
lie said that initi.:.1lly Randy Lane was to go th:-ough this property but was
turned down by the City. He WQndercd why this could not be .arhieved -no·OJ
bccnuae it is importa:lt to the tr •. ffic flow of the nren and felt .it: '1as th<!'
·only way to so1ve the traffic problem getlernted by this develop111en.t., He
said the Town Cente~ Plan shows Randy ·Lane, also, thnt both Vista Dri've and
Blaney Avenue have .:;ci:ools on tht!m which means a 25 MPH zone and -sho-Uld not
be used ns 1n.ain access routes.
'l.Jhen aske(i hy Commissioner Buthenutli if the applicants accc.1 .. t;,,:ec.1 ·.:the :condi-
tions imposed on the application Mr. Donovan replied in the .'ff'.rmative
s;~ying, hl'Wever, they would like to discuss the monetary CC"·;! c:er.9.tions
i~ ..:::onncc:tion with Condition l/_. of the Tentative Ha, \.;rith the City Council
and would appreciate a City Engineer's report on monetary cunside:rations
as the "pplicant is goir:g to build Rodrigues Avenue an~ perhaps ·something
cot•ld be worked out· ·,that· would be advantageous to bpth the ·applicant···and
the City.
public hearing Corr:mis.::,inner Buthenuth moved that tl'e publl.c hearing be closed, Commissioner.
cl0s1=d Hirshon seconded and it was passed unHnimously.
.::omr.icnts by
CiJr:'"•!':li ssioners
Commi-Ysloner Hirsl1on thought this plan was a great i.mprovement over ·the pre-
vious npplicatiuns in terms of density, which is lower; in ternis of parking,
,.,:bic!1 is more than adequate; in terms uf or en spaces and, also, in te.rms of
~'"'\verall qual!.ty. fie d:i.d not feel thJ.t t!"le Ranciy Lane elimination would make
tllnt n1l1cl1 difference since Vista will b0 ope~ed ~nd there will be accesses
easterly a11d w~:sterly to llighway 9 and to lilnney for access north and south-
He,~as i~ favcr of this development.
Commissioner I···win also commc:idcd the ap?li.cant on his development saying
tllc appl:ic.anls had shown goo<l f::ti.th in attempting to eain access through
Ra11dy Lane fut· extra fo?tage.
. ~·
•
~ ..
•
•
•
•
•
' ' ~ ; '.: ,,
Hi1\Utca of the Plm>ning Commission JuM 22, 1970
l
PC-12
,,
·;,. · · '' page 5
l'ubUc lfoad11gs Cont'd. -l3-1'M-70, ll-U-70
Chait'lna1t l'uot~ ugx·aed wir.h tho comm~nts of Ctm~1,d1;rnJ.onars ·!T:!rahon nnd
Irwin n11d thought that nr.cps can h~ tt<kel\ to atl.eviatn any traffic
pr{_)bl-c:ms ~ l-1<.~ Hn.f.d this wni; an (~xtrt.?me improvement over th~ previous
plnns eubmittod for this dovelopm.,nt and ho. w.1a in fovor of 1.t.'.
lt was moved by Commi~.H$lo1tct· Buth<~P.uth, seconded by Commios:loncr Irwin
that AppHcn t ior. 13 .. TM·-70 be 11pprovnd subject to the 12 S tandnrd Con-
dit ions plus ConditioM l3 and 11. ar, imposed hy the Planning
Ayes:
Noes:
Absl:!nt:
Comm.i.ssioncrs Butht!!nuth, Hi rs hon, Irwin, Chairman Puetz
None
Comml.a;:iioncr Meyt2rs
It '"'" moved by C0mmiss.ioner Butl11rnuth, secondo?d by Commissioner Irwin
that appl.lcation 11-tJ-.70 be approved $ubject to the 12 Standard Con-
ditions n.nd sub,1ect also to t:hc 27 Conditions as recommended by the
Chairman
Puetz
comments
13-TM-70
• approved
Planning Dcpai·tment. ll-U-70
Ayes: ConimLrnioners lluthenuth, llirshon, Irwin, Chairman Puetz approved
Noos: None
Al"Jsent: Commissioner Meyers
Chairman Puetz advised those in attendanc(~ that th(~se applicationswould
be before the City Council at its maeting of July 6, 1970 •
Conunissioner Hirshon moved that a mL1ute order recommendation be made ,
to the City C•>uncil in furtherance of the i11tent of Condition 14 of the''
·Tent.Hive Map wherein it ia indicated Blaney Avenue shall be dedicated
and ir.Jproved as require.d by the City Engin~er; That the City Engineer .
have a propost>.d disposition for the developrat:at and dedication of the !
necessa17 right-of-way to improve Blaney Avenue along this stretch r;;f ·
~he development satlsfo.otory to the . taff which can be discussed with
the. applicant at thst time. minuta
In addition, that: a .suggesti.on ba forwarded to the City Council for the
possibility of a study being made as to the feasibility of closing off
Price Avenue ta vehicular traffic which might be a possible solution
to any congestion arising from thi.s pat·ticular tract.
The motion for this minute order was seconded by Commiss:toner Invin and
passed unanimously.
order
Chairman Puet;:: called a ten minute recess at 9:20 P.M. The meeting \Vas recess
reconvened at 9:30 P.H.
Unfinished B11siness ---------··---
Comn1is.s~_oner Buthcnuth moved that Item A be tnoved to the last ite1a of
buoiness uo t!1nt members of the audience might participate ~arlier in
the Review of Developmt~nt Plun.'..ol under Items B and C •
Minutes of tho Planning Conuni&sion, Jum1 22, 1970
U11£ ini»hed Bus:l.neae CQnt 'd.
B. Review of Development l'la'1: !'ad.fie Gaa & · lllec.tr:I.<:.
Company, 2J. 67 act·'"' located easterly of lllaney ·
AvGu1uo, aouth of Jlomeste4d Road and north of Junipao:o
Surra l'n1ew1'y •• ML zona,
Planning llire~tor Sisk presa11t~d this development 1>lan saying that the;
City C<lund l hnd npproved thn changol of z<ming fr<:im Al-43 to ML on Chia
20.67 ncrc parcol on Apl"il 20, 1970, sul>j3ct 1:0 the condition.that.the:
nppl.icant submit a landscaping plan for the <111&t and ~outh .prope~cy ~ines
prior to nny <'XPllnded ur.a oi the propeny. The pl!\u aubmitted wi~h,4p-
rnscnt11t.ion plication 3-Z-70 depicts the futu1:e d1.:velopment of. the entire parcel.
The p1'<oposed future construction co11sisr:n of addHio11 to the parking .lat
front inR Homestead Road, stc>rago racks, shop buildings and the substa~ion.
l"lw pl nn shows an eight-foot block wall .ond a fifteen-foot laudsc41ped
b1Jffcr strip batween the industrial property and tl1e adjacent singla-
fornl.ly residential. A detailtid landscaping plan will be submitted. by the
applicant to the Archi.t:cctural and Site Ar.proval Committee nfter approvnl
of the development: plan.
At this point, Comr.dssioner Buthenuth comm<mced a disc~1ssion concerning
depressing of the substation facilities so as to provide an aasthetic as
well. as a noise •'.>a tcment val un to this type of f..;-::1.lity. This matter· wns
discussed at length between the commissioners 3nd it was concluded that
this was a very desirable consideration, llOwev,,r, one that should be more
properly considered by the Architectural and Site Control Committee at··:
such timH as the f'acllity is to be installed.
Assistant PlannH Cowan showed colored slides of this existing ·facility
showing its relationship to the adjacent property and the freeway and
pointing out locatious of the proposed cor,.structi~n.
corr .. ;:cn t~· by J
.::q:ip::..icant I
I
I
Mr. Clarke nulliner, Land Representative for Pacific Gas & Electric,
20065 Stevens Creek Boulevard, addr.ess(!d tht>: Col!mlission. l!F! said that
P. G. & E. had made au offer last October t.o take care of the Ci.ty.'s laud-
scnping along Blaney Avenue but, to date, had heard nothing further. He
said this property was originally an orchard which had been purchased from
the Division of lJJ.ghways and that some of the trees had been removed with
others left to provide screening untl.l such time as the freeway trees
reached maturity.
3-Z-70 ----approved
:1r. Mulliner saJ.d this is a long-i-ange plan but that the substation will
go in tho latter part of 1971. Prior to that there will be art additicinal
96 employee parking area which will be done this fall if this development
plan is approved.
!-tr. Mulliner suicl that although the 8-foot 'block wall was much more ex-
/
pensive than Jnndscaping would be, the company ft:?lt that this would provide
a mucl1 better buffer between their facility and the adjoining residential
1 pro 11erty. Thi5 was also better because of security reasons.
I Commissioner Hirshon rnc,ved, Commissioner Irwin seconded that Application
3-Z-70 be approved subject to the 12 Standard Conditions plus Conditions
13, lL1 and 15 as recommcndt!d by the Plnnning Department.
Ayes: Co1nmission~rs lli.rson, Irw.ln, Chairman Puetz
Nu es: Com:nJ.i;sioncr Buthl.!nut:h
Absent: Cornrnicsioner Mcycrc
"
•
•
J.'
•
•
•
f 1Pc-12
;-page 7
Minuteos cf the l'l•mnin11 Commission Juno 22, 1970
Un!inislwd lludneas C<•nt. 'd. · ·1 . ;; \ ·:.; .:! <tP1~ ;;'. I f . :·
l I
Conunissiont\r l.-win moved th'1t the Commio~l.on propo911 a 111~n11t11 unler ;to!
the Atchit.,ctur.il and Sill' Approvnl Conunittct'! to cxamtne the block wall
along l!omcstcntl Road with an ~yr tOllRrd lo;mring it t<:l,,a;6 foot decora"'
tivo wall in Heu o( thn 8 foot. wnU p~csontly epeciUa<1. ,minute
This motion was seconded by Commii;sioncr Buthcnuth and pnsoed
ly.
•order
una11i11PUS-
c. CoMidorntion of R,,v!scd llcvclopmont l'lan:
I
!9-TM-70
jlegend Foothill lnvcstmcnc Company, 6.47 ncrma
locatc<l easterly of Foothill Bciulov1ud,
betweon Alpine Drive a11d Salem Avenue -
R3-2.2 Zone.
'!
I
Pl,.,1ning Director Sisk informed tile Commission thnt thl.s development
plan is basically the some but it had been brought to tha attention of
the Plannl.ng Deportment th;it a large nmount of fill is being dumped in.
the area which is causing concern by the residents easterly on Alpine presentation
Drive. The Architect is presenting profiles token at different loca-
tions on the property showing cx11cely what is going to happen on this'
development. Mr. Sisk said, in his opinion, there is no problem and
the plan as approved is materially the same. l'his review is to ;keep
the Commission aware of what is happening.
Mr. LeRoy Johnson, Archftect, 2100 Souti1 L'oscom, Campbell, presented comments by
profiles showi.ng exa~tly what changes are being made in the slope from architect
the property line and informed the Commission that there would. be no
impediment to the vision~
When Chaitinan Puetz asked if there were any audience comments, Mr.
Edward Gouvei:i, 10341 Alpine Drive, addressed the Cot:lrnission. Hr. i
Gouveia objected to the fact that most of the trees which forned 11 !audience
natural rct1'ining wall were being removed and that the buildings were 'comments
being raised and will interfere with the view from Alpine Drive. He I
felc that the applicant should be held Co the grades on Foothill Boulel
vard.
When asked by Chaixman Puetz how necessary it was that fill be used on
this development site, Mr. Johnson stated that the property falls 26 I
feet from one end to the other and in order to have proper drainage,
this was necessary.
1 Dr. Richard Chappell, 10327 Alpine Ddve, <id<lressed the' Commission say-:
ing thnt he w.:is at the top of the slope and he is concerr.ed about ere-.
sion when the root-bound soil is removed. )
Assistant City Engineer Viskovich stated th.:it the slope \vould not be :comments by
as big as it iG now and chat tl1e 2-1 slope 3S planned would be stable Assist~nt
enough to protect from slope erosion, even without the retaining "1a.ll. City Enginl~i.'!r
p~ge 8
audi(•nco
C<>mmcnt
ini.nuto
Service
Station
Study
continued
Application
continued
discussi.o:i of
sidewalk
standard~
continued
aajour11:J0nt
Minute• of the l'l:mn.ing Commisdon June 22, 1970 l'C-12
Unfinish<>d Busi11Ms Cont'd. ·• 9-l'M-70
: ,._ .. ,,-
Hr. lfalt1.n' Ainsl'orth, formar ownar of this property, addros$od tlrnlcom-
mission nllking .if .1nyona w.1s nwarc of: tha old St<>vons Crack' spring'which
1JS<•d to drnin ncross this property anJ if proper. prucauti.ons were. being
taken, Mr. Johnso11, th<' Architect for this davelopmcnl, .informed those
present tlwt lw was ;iw11re of this ,as he has a full. soil report.
It was moved by Commissioner Irwin, Mcondcd by Conunissioncr Jluthenuth
thnt Application 9-T~l-70, rcv.isod development plan, be npp;ovcd. ' ·
Ay<?s: Commbsionerm Jluthcnuth, llirshon, Irwin, Chairman Pu<>Cll
Noes: None
Absent: Cl>tnmis sioncr Meyers
CcommissJ.onc:r But:lwnuth moved for a inJ.nute order requesting the applicant
to take this n1.:w exhibit to the Site i\pproval CDmmittae prior to the
next meeting of tiw City Council. 'fllis motion was sccondud by CoDunis-
sioner Hirshon and passed ·unanimously. ·
A. Service Stntion Study
Commissioner Irwin move :i, Comnt.i.ssioner Buthenuth seconded and -_it. W~~
passc.d unanimoubly to continue th..?! Service Station Study.
Kew Business
A. Review of Santa Clum County application of the Roman
Catholic Archbishop c•'. San F:randsco (Los .\ltos Invest-
ment Comp.:iny) for change of zone frou1 Exclusive Agri-
culture (A) to Residential Agriculture (Al-H), and £0>;
a Use Permit to allow· n 957 space r.!ohlle home pa'rlt_ Wit!~,
re.lated stores) c0tfee shop .J:1d service station fac.ility;
approxir.1ately 159.8 acres loca~ed westerly of }foryknoll
Road and .:southerly of Junipero Serra Free\vny. ·
.. \nno~1ncc;ncnt •,.;as made earlier :1.n the meeting of the postponement of this
applicat:i.of! to t:hc next meeting of th..:. Planning Cor:unissLcn.
n. Discussion of Sidcw'1lk Standards.
It t:a.s moved by Corxnissioner Irwin, seco1-:dcd by Corn:>:d.ssioner Buthenuth
a:1d p.:is.sc-::l un3njrnously thiJt Item B. bt~ contir .. u~c~ to the ne:.zt meeting.
Coinmissiuncr Euthcnuth moved for .:idjournme.nt ~ _'omrni.ssione.r Irwin .secondect
und Cl1nirraa11 Puetz adjourned the meeting at 10:55 P.M.
ATTBST!
•
•
•
,_,
" '
•
•
•
CITY 01' CUPERTINO, State of CaHfornin
J 0300 Torn• Av.,nuo, Cupertino, Cal Horn! 11
.!'..!!.<!.!l!:.'-'----~-05
MINUTES 01' l'UI•: R~:GllLAR ME~TING 011 Till~ Pl.ANNING COMMISSION
m:Lll JUliE 8, 1970 IN THE COUNCIL CllAMlllmS, Cll'Y HALL,
Clll'ERTINO, CAL lFOltNIA
''i:
VJce ClrninMn l't1<»tz cn.lkd th~ meeting to ordor at 8:00 P.M. and led
t:lH\ snlu tc to the f lng.
City CJ~rk Ryder a.dmin1stcrod the Oath of Offic~ to the two newly
tlppointed Commissioners, John w. Huthenuth and Robe.rt W. Meyers.
HoJ l Cn ll
--··~-·--··--··
Comm.i::isioncrs present: Buthcnut:h, Irwin, Mc.ycrs, Puetz. Chairmnn
Hirshon. Also present: Planning Director Sisk; City Attorney
And-2rson: C.ity Clerk Ryder; Assistant Planner Cowan; Assistant City
Engineer Viskovicl1.
Elcct:i<:?,n of Chairman and Vice Chairman
It: was lnoved by Commissioner I;:-win and seconded by Commissioner
Buthcnuth that Commissioner Puetz be nominated for ·ch.airman. The
nom:l..natians were closed on the: motion of Com1nissioner Buthenuth, the
second by Comrn::f.ssionei: Irwin and unanimously passed. The vote for
Commissioner Puetz as Chairman for the coming fear was unanimous
with Commi.ssioner Puetz .pi.bstain.in.g.
On the motion of Commissioner Buthcnuth and the second of Cor:imissioner
HirRhon, Commissioner Ir··win was nominated for \'ice Chairman. Th~ nomi-
nations were closed on motion h~r' Commissioner Me:y·ers and second by
Cornm.issioner Buthenuth and unanimously approved. The vote for
Commissioner Irwi.n was uns.nimous with Commissioner Irwin abstaining.
Minutes of Previous M~eting
It was moved by Commissioner Irwin, seconded by Commissioner Buthenuth
and passed unanimously tl1at the minutes of May 23, 1970 be approved
as submitted.
There were no written co11ununic.ations.
There \-1ere no oral CL)lll.!7!Unications •
rc-11
oath of
office
taken
roll
. !call
I
I
I jChairman
iPuet:z
;elected
'vice
.Chairman
'Irwin
;elected
i
I . :nl.nu tes
!approved
' ' lno
con:munication
received
10-Z-70
Minutes of the l'lannir>g Commfodon June 8, 1970
1
1' u b 1:.;l:.;· C.....:Hc;;<:c:"::.:'r i .!!JI!:
A. Vnllco Park: Ro•on:tng fror. Agricultur11l-Resid .. ntilll
Singfo-fomily onu-ac1.'c fots (Al-'13) to Planned ;)c-
' velopmcnt (P) with Planned Industrial Park (MP) use
itlt<rndod, 7. 9 acres located at the northerly terminus
or Mnadow Av.:?ntw, Appt·oi:imntely 300 feet easterly of
TnntmJ Avenue and 650 foct southerly of Homcatell<I
Road. ·Ffrs t He'1ring, i
I ' Planning Director Sisk prooented the application explaining that this
' property formerly had been ownt>d by tlw Santa Clara Unif.i<td School Dis-
~ trict and had been purchased by the ~lpplicnnt for future expansion of
i adjacent industrial facilities. He •aid th~ applicant had filed a
prcscntnti<m: BJ.milar rezoning appltcation with thq City of Santa Clara for a 2,9
acre section of the fornieic school sJ.te "hich is adjacent to the pro-
P<'rl:Y involved in the Cupertino rcMn'ing. He said that the City of
Sant;; Clara Planning Staff had requested that approval be subject to'
the same land use control a.s had been adopted for silllilnr zoned pro· ...
porty in \'all.co Park adjacent to the Cupertino-Santa Clat'a boundcy •.
corrunents by
Vallco
~kH18f;Cr
audience
complaints
ln .1nswer to Commissionc•r Iluthenuth 1 s questiotl, Mr. Sisk said •that
there were no special conditions imposed on the original zoning other
than the inter-city ag1·eeme.nt.
· Mr. Walter Ward, General Manager of Vallco Park, said that when this
property originally had been annexed and zoned, this school site had
been left out. He said that a Use Permit would be required whenever
development took place on this. The only prior condition had been
pe.riphery landscaping for a 25 foot buffer strip plus the setback
from the City limi~s line.
When asked by Chairman Puetz if anyone in the audience had comments,
four residents of Melody Lane in Santa Clara voiced their objections.
The residents were: Hr. George Gobleski, Mr. Donald Mldd3.ebrook, Mr.
!>1urray Coopcnnnn and Hrs. }!ildred Johnson.
Colored slides and a tnpe :reconling of machine noise in the urea \Yere
presented to the coramission.
The complaints of these residents included the unsightliness of park-
ing J.ots; the objectionable l1igl1 ligl1t standards; inferior landscaping
nnd screening; the lack of a 150 foot buffer strip; and tho seemingly
co11stant ringi11g of an outdoor telephone, duy and night.
It then was determined thnt the complaints h'erc being registered ngainst
the facilities of Arncric.3.n Micro-Systems and th::it this operation '\Vas not
within the City limits of Cupertino. It was also determined that the
inter-city a~recmc11t was between the Cities of Santn Clara and Cupcttino
and did not .involve inJividual companies. The majoi· difference was that
•
PC-11 •
•
~;-
'":=-
• f'
•
•
Mhmtas of th~ l'lmming Conun.ls,.ion .June 8, 1970 ·,.!
Cupert in'' had more stringent rnqu.irements thnn did Sun ta Clara.· . Mr;:' ··
Sisk suld that it had been <levdopod through correopo114~nco ,>rith
Snntn Clar" that the latter doeC' not hnve the zoning controls ~ha~
Cupertin<> <loM .,ith Us(l Permits, ' · · ·
M:-. Ward .:-:im1n<?11te<l that these compla.ints had been unknown to him until
tl1is mooting. Ha said ho would assure that tha outdoor ringing of the
bell l.Jould be toned down. Th<i noiso emanating; from the company was a
known factor and he explained that the delivery of the noise depres&ant.
had been d"layed because of the transportation diff:lculti<!s, He said ·
this would soon be insrnLled and he had discussed with American !1icro-
Syst:ems nn addit:Ionnl means of muffling the sound should the present
plans be deficient.
Mr. Wnrd further explained that it was difficult to install mature
plantings and have them live. The size of the trees had been approyed
by both cities. So for as the exesss space fronting the Hewlett-Packard
facility, this would not be them when planned ''xpuusion takes place.
Commission<Cr I::win wondered whether or not it "'"" possible .Ameri<::an
Micro-Systt.~ms was something less than truthful in l~c.ting this noise
exist for eight months in view of Vallco 's own stringent standards.
Mr. Ward said that this involved two separate occ.urences an.:! promised
that tho situation would be corrected •
Cha:trman. Puet~ thPn e~plained to the pi·otestars tb!lt Cupertino had very
.strict requ.irements under its Light Industrial Ordinance after which
. Hr. Sisk read excerpt• in detail.
Commissioner Hiri;:ihon thought the particular zoning request was compatibl
to the general plan for the area and pointed out that this application.
\Vas for zoning only a.nd did not consider any portion of the building
phase. It was his feeling that the best time to control pollution was
with the issuance of the Use Permit.
Cotmnissioner It""'\.tin said that the dincussion was taking place under a
request for a Planned lndus.trial Park Ordinance whereas the standards
" , I ' . referred to are in the Light Industrial Ordinance. It was his sugges-
tion that these standards be included as a requireiuent for the issuance
of the Use Permit.
Cormnissioncr Buthcnuth pointc.._i out that l;Vhile much of the protest h.:1.dbeel
for noise, the lighting sl1ould be controlled as well.
comtnents by
Vall.co
Ganer al
Manager
discuss.ion
In response to one of the protester's questi.ons as to what would. happen f
if there was a violation of the Use Permit after the building was in, 1opinion by
the City Attorney m:ide the following comrncnt: Courts will not uphold !city
an unrc.:isonobl12 condition imposed by .J Cit)'. \,.11at is unreasonable IAtto .. ~ney
changes ·.•ith r-he ti.mes und i.t 1s a fact: that high noise levels arB now
4
3pproved
with
c.onditions
I
. Planni11g Commi!lsion Minutes June 3, 1970
' ; ' : '. ; . -· ' ~ . " ''
Public Hearings Cont'd. lO-Z-70
roore cominon than in the past.
and (f thare is a violation of
tl1e business out.
The City doea h~v<) an injunct~vil,dtht'.
a rensonnble co11d:ttion, H .. co11l.d fiJr¢0 '
It IMG moved by Commissioner Irwfo, seconded by Commissioner lluthi;n·:th
and passed unanimously that the public hearing be closed,
It 'tv.:~s moved by Commis:;loner Buthenuth, seconded by Commissioner Irwin
and passed unnnimonsly that Application 10-Z-70 be recomm'1nded to the
City Council for approval subject to the 12 Standard Conditions and
Conditions 13 and 14 as recommended by the Planning Director plus Con-
dition 15 ''hic.h is to include the imposition on this zoning of the ·
performance standards for noise and lights as set forth in the Light
ln<lustrial Ordinance: end subject ot the preplanting of appropriate
screening dong the property adjacent to the Rl Zoning.
On the motion of Commissioner Irwin and the second of Commissioner
Heyers, the Planning Di1·ector was instructed to in.form the Santa Claro.
City Council of these conditions.
Chairman Puetz lnfonned the applicant ,and the audience that this matter.
would be advertis >d for a public hearing and would be before the ()4ty
Council at one of its meetings in July.
B. Aprlication 12-TM-·70, Marvin M. Smith; TentativP.
Hap adju•ting property line to divide 18,556 square
feet into two lots, located on the southerly side
of Alcalde Road, approximately 80 feet westerly of
Merriman Road -R2-4.25 zone. First Hearing •
. The application was presented by Planning Director Slsk who said, that.
the request was for approval of a Tentative Map to adjust a property
line presently dividing two existing lots. The property involved is
in the process of being annexed to the City. The present County zoning
presentation. is Duplex which, in accordance with the present City policy, i;vould re-
vert to Cupertino's Duplex Zoning. The lot sizes comply with the City's
Duplex Ordinance.
Mr. Sisk further pointed out that a four-unit building currently exists
on the re.:ir of Parcel B. This building is nonconforming in tha1: it is
n four-unit npartmcnt in a Duplex Zone, docs not: have off-street parking
requirements and the lot size is approximately 600 square feet short of
the required 10,700 squ1re feet for four units in an R3-2.2 Zone. lie
s.:ii<l the present City polic)· is to accept nonconforminR uses annexed in-
to the City prQvidcd such uses are not expsn<lcd or altered significantly~
1 Commissioner llirshon nskcd 1. • .-hat would h3ppen Jf this application was not
'3pproved ,,•h.Lle the land itself \..'.'lS .:innc):cd. The City Attorney said that
'after a r€:'ar;onnblc time no permit h'Ould be lssucd for the remodeling
I
I
I
'
•
•
•
•
Minutou of tho I' limning Commission Juno 8, 1970
Public Hc>adntlfl Cont'd. -12-TM-70
or rcn~vation of existing nonconforming buildings. Mr. Sisk agrued
w.ith the. statem,,nr. but said that there 1<ould be no effect on the ex-
istin11 buildings rcg•n·dlc•• of. where the property line was. Tho
buildings arc nonconCot'mJ.ug; th<l application 1o1as only to permI.t the
building of a dup.Lox on th" front 1rnrcel. .
Mr. Marvin Sml.th, tho nppl.icunt, said that the four-units h11d. been
built many years ago when the lmid hod been zoned R3. Hie pusent
proposal is to try and upgradu the property and build 11 duplex on the
front p,uccl. The split change in the property line was needed for
the prescrJ.bcd setback for the new bui.lding,
Conunissiotlf?r lrwin r·emarkod that the 20 foot easement would be a
permanent situ11tion if l.ot 8 is sold. Ile said that it was not pos-
sible to encumber the lot sJ zc for an casement and this resulted in
a reduction of a p6rmit:te<l area fcJr the duplex.
Commissioner Hirshon pointed out that the CH:y 1 s policy was to ac-
cept nonconformance H not expanded or altered sig.iificantly. It
waB his contention that the City was incrcasi1111 the nonconformity of
Parcel B by saying it was alright to put a dupl"x on Parcel A.
ComlnissioI\er Meyere asked if the ingress and egress easemect .was
counted as a part of Lot A when the net square footage was calculated.
Mr. Sisk said yes, but i.n this situation both parcels were ow.ied by
the same person and this was an easement only. Parcel B is landlocked;
without uny legal access but if this easement is recorded then such
an access \olould beco1ne i;.ermanent.
The applJ.cant st,qt.ed that the buildin11s currently were occupied and
leased and that eventually Lot B would be upgraded but he was not
now in a finanGial position to do -so. The zoning by the County,, t-Jhen-;
ever it did take place, had been for 12 units on each of the two par-
cels.
Cornmissloner Buthenuth asked if it '"'as not a requiren1ent that City
property have frontage on an improved Citj street. The City Attorney
replied in the affirmative but that a.n exception could be made for
cause by thu City Engineer.
It was moved by Corr.missioner Irwin, seconded by Commissioner :Meyers
and passed vnani1ilously that the public hearing be closed.
Commissioner Irwin tho',1ght that there ,did n:>t seem to, be any alter·~
native to the application.
Commissioner Hirshon sn1d that he did n0t feel that '~D.Y jusi:: because
of previous Co1Jnty zoni11g and l1e was not in favor of perpetua·~ng
nonconf orm.i ty.
PC-11
" )llllle 5 ,
comments by
aFplicant
comments -of
commissioners
discussion
"'.·
{
},,
12-T>I-70
-----~~·-npprova<l
9-TM-70
legend
Minutes of the Plmming C'1rnmi~sion June 8, 197()
Public Hearings Ccmt 'd. -l.2-TM··10
CommisBioner Irwin asked :if thor0 IMS an e1stnbliehe<I time Umit for thb'
nonconforming bu:lldinga to mtiut in t.h<iir present form. The:•City At.;.' ·:
tor:ney '""I: lied that a Ccrtiiic11tc of Occupancy "1ould l>e deni..id tho' first
time a request for a buil.d:tng pe.rni.t is made and destruction of the urtits
would come. thert,afte.r.
After revfowing the map, ConunisGionet· nuthenuth said that it was obvious
this "ma ne<!!ded upgrading a11d thought p<lrhaps this application was a'
Gtep in the right direr,tion.
lt. was move.cl by Commiss.ioner Buthenuth, s.~cond,:i.d by Commisair..1ner Irwin
that Applfoation 12-TH-70 be recommended for approval to the City Council
subject to the 12 Standard Ccmditions, Tho. motion can-.l.ed w:l.th Comm:l.s-
nion1~rs Dut:henuth, Irwin and Puetz voting a.ye and Commissioners Hirshon
and Heyern voting no.
Chairman Puetz advised the npplicant and members of the audience that the
application would be b"fore the City Council on the following Honday.
A. Applic3tion 9-T:!·-70, Review of Site Developmen~
l'lai. of i'oothill Investment Company: Tentative
Map, 6.l,.7 acres iu ·an R3-2.2 zone located easter-·
ly of Foothill Boulevard, between Alpine Drive
and Salem Avenue.. (Continu,ed frorri -pri1·viouf,;
meeting.)
PC-ll
Mr. Sisk distributed maps and explained that tha:e had Utlm a slight'mllllge·intne
plan previously .:iailed to the Commissioners. The egr~ss onto Foothill·
presenta.tion Boulevard ac the northerly portion of the property wa.s·altered to allow
for a l'1rg~r radius. He explained that the zoning was proper but that
the p<~rking requirements were. three spaces short.
Commi.bsioncr Duthenuth inquired a.s to what the apparent curb stop was
and he was told that this wn.s a vehicle refuge or turn-nut lane in-front
of the proposod clubhouse facility. Hr. Sisk said that one of the sug-
gested conditions was for boncls to assure the installation of standard
i.nprovcments \~·hen .such \Vere required by the City.
Mr. Jerry Johnson of the Foothill Investment Comp:iny e.xplnined that the
main of ficc would be in the Recreation Center and this vehicle refuge
was co provide temporary parking facilities. Ile said that the area be-
c:c.Y:1~rncnts bv lw~en Foothill Boulevard and the buildings would be open space and plant-
3pplicant ed. Also, that there would be a gradnal slope up to the ~ear of the pro-
perty to keep swny from any unsiglttly retaining wall. The application
for this develop1ncnt was scheduled for Architectural and Site Approval
Committt:e hl~,'..lrinp; the follo\~ing Wcdnesdo.y.
•
,,;1
,,-,
i
\
•
•
•
Minut<'s of the l'lm1nill!l C.:>mmiHaion June 8, 1910
Unfiniah"d lluain""" Cont'd. -9-Tl!-70
It wan moved by Con11nLisianer llut.h<muth, 5eeondcd by Comr•i~eioner ·Irwin
and !Hl.Sa<•d un.1'1imoual.y that the dt.C! plun bu approved 11s submitted·
subjcict to th" 20 r.onditfons as suggost"d by tha Planning Dop11rtment
nnd that the pnrking focilities conform to the rcqllirements of the
parki.ng ordi.nance.
Chainnan Puetz CllllQd for a recess at 9 :58 P .M. after whlch the meeting
reconvened at 10: 12 P. M.
A. Request. for extension of timo on Tentative Map
of Ward Crump Dtlvel.opments, Inc.
It was mov"d hy Commirision"r Buthenuth, seconded by Commissioner Irwin
and passed unanimously t.hat Application 12-TM-69 b" granted au exten-
sion of time for the Hli.n>! of a Final Map.
!J, Discussion of Sidew'11k Standards
At the request of the Pl.arming Director it was moved by Commissioner
Irwin. seconded by Commission(!r Buthe.uuth and passed unnnimously that
the Discussion of Sidewalk Standards be continued.
c. Service Station Study: Review of Draft
A general discussion. took place on the submitted draft of the Service
Station Study. Commissioner Hirshon said that this was extremely im-
portant to the City and he would like to see as many persons B.s pos-
sible become involved with this.
Commissioner Irwin agreed but said that the. Commission first must
. ,!
have some guidelines and review the background and details so that ,
inte.lligent discussions could take place. H" asked if any comparisons 1
had been mnde of other cities of similar size, population and density
and if they had had the same problems that Cupertino did.
Assistant Planner Cowan said that at the present tin1e Milpitas had
three lawsu:i. ts pending with regard to location restrictions. Co111mis-
sioncr Buthenuth sn.id that it was his ir.ipression from the recent
League of Californl..:i Cities Conference that most cities have the same
problem of too many stations.
CornniiSsioner I.nvin sal.d tltat his v:i.ews on gas stations were well
known but he realized that the Citv was not in a position to arbitrari-i
ly say no but Jf Ji.. didn't then t:h~ City would be completely overrun.
1
PC-11
page 7
9~1'M-70
~ved
with
conditions
12-'l'M-69
granted
extension
discussion
sidewalk
standards
conUnued
discussion
of service
station
study
St~rvi c:e
Station
Study
discus~ed
present.at ion
cf second I
section at
ncx t -;~c. ting
:' cm n yv a le
1
/
:1urse:ry
s::hool 1
3.pj.'lic.'..\tion
r.-iinur:e
orJ.cr
Pp~0s.ing
nursery
p.3St
Ch.1 i tT.an
llirshon
I
Minutes of tl11.' Planning CommiB!l:l.on June S, 1970 ., , '"'' ;c PC-11
Ne" llusines• Continued
Cornmiss:ionet' lluthunuth sllid that many typ11s of controls .were appli"ble:
and this wu somoth:lng worth looking into. Commisr>ione.r Hirshon thQUght
the upgrnding of existing stations wu equally as important ·as ·Control~
ling new :inBtallstions.
Cha.irman t•uetz pointed out tho dif(er<~nce between cori1pany owned opera-
tions and leased operatio11s by j.nd:l\>idual operators over which'compan:l.es
have no control. He suggested the. posaibilHy for periodic· review by
the Architectural and Site Approval Committee as being a requirement,
Ct)nmlis5ioner Irwin thought there was a definite need for stronger enforce-
men'.: sections in the City' a ordinances but even r.hat would not suffice
unless more stnff was available than the Building Insµector,
Assistant Planner Cowan preaented colored slides of the various types of
service stat.Ions within tho City and the difference in image which had
been created with the pass:Lng of time.
It was Commissioner Irwin's feeling that he needed to overcome his pre~
vi ous negati.ve feeHngs and predjudices, He oaid both the City and
the companies could benefit by this study and there was a definite need.
for guidelines bei<lg developed without predjudic.;.
Chi'l.irm.an Puetz thought that predjudice for the City was not altogether
bad. Ile suggested that the Commission hnve spokesmen appear before
them to give both sides of the issue.
It then was the consensus that this first draft receive additional re-
view apd that the staff then continue working on the second section of
it and have it ready for presentation at the next meeting.
Planning Director Sisk said that he had received an agend& from the
Sunnyvale Planning Cor;unission which indicated an application for nursery
' school opernttons to be conducted in a duplex on Homestead Road opposite
Blaney Avenue. It was indicated 'hat there would be facilities for ur-
proximBtely thirty children.
It w:1.s moved by Comlni ss ion er I ri,..•in, seconded by Commissioner Hirshon that
~~minute order be developed indicating the Conunission 1 s objections based
0n t!1e undesirability from traffjc and opposition to the use of struc-
tures for other than their intended residential use.
Cc,mmissioncr I1>.~1 in said that before the meeting closed he would like to
ofter his thanks to past Chairman Hirshon for his efforts on behalf of
the Cor1unission to which all voiced their agreement.
•
•
•
\;"
•
•
•
•
Minutes of the Pltmnfog Conunhsion .June 8, 1970
On the motfon of Commisdonar lluthcnuth and th<. sacond of CommissioMr
Irwin, Chairman Puetz adjournod the mooting nt 11:05 P.H.
ATTESl':
. ~/~) .. ~ft~zr' ~,;{i-(~---------Clt)' Clerk
~ . '
PC-ll
page 9
•
I
;rf .: '·Jc 1_·t~_H1;~iJ1i
l CITY OF CUPERTINO, State of California
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CaHforn:ta
EE2na: 252-450~
'·:' •i ·;_;l_ -.-i (,-i•:fi~ PC..10
" '
" ,,
,_!-1.' ,'
MINUTES or TllE; RFGCLAR· Ml!.ETINq ()F Tflll FI.ANNI.II~ COMMISSION
llEI.!l MAY 25, 1970 l:N TllllCOUNCI!. C!!AMllERS, CITY HALL,
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Chainum llit••htm call"'d the ntilating to order at ,6:06 P.M. and led the·
snl11te to the flag. , i
~l Call
C()rollliss:f.oners preGent: Buthenuth-Irwin, Puetz, Chairman Hirshon.. ·
Also prMent: Plmmins Director Sisk; A•Bistant l'lannor. Cowan; City
Attor.n~y Anderson; Assistant City Ev.gl.necr Viskovich; Recording
Secretary !Jetty Dorris.
It was mow'd by Comrniasi<mer Puetz, aecond"d by Collllllissioner Irwin.,and
passed unanl.n1ously that the minutes of May 11, 1970 be .approved·.,
~Ann.ouncement of PpRtponementa
:>'
Plstmi.ng Director Sisk advised the Commission that h<. had received a
rnquest for continuance of AppUcntion 9-TM-70. , , .. ·
It '"'" moved by Cmr.missioner Puet:i:, seconded by Colll"1iasioner Irw;f,n-.lln.it
pas,.ed unanimously t.a continue. Applicat:!.on 9-'l'M-70 to the ne:xt regular.
meeting. (AgP.ndn Item A. -New llus:l!\ess) ; ",: ·
Plann:ing Directm: Sisk advised the Commission that the Service Sts~icm '·
Study "'as not yet .::omplete and requested that this iCem be postponed.-·
to the June 8 meeting. (Ag<mcla Item D. -New llusinesa)
It was moved by Commission Puetz, seconded by Comraissionel' .Irwin and ·
passed unanimously to continue the Service Station Study to the meeting
of Ju:ne 8, 1970 to allow the Planning Depar!:ment additional time to p':-e~
pare a final draft.
Commission Buthenuth requested that the Commission receive a rough ,draft
of the Service Station Study prior to the ne..xt meeting. ·
Wrf t ten Coum!.unic.ations
There were no written communications.
There were no oral communications .
' i
roll
call
I;·
minutes
approved
9-TM-70
continued
service
station
study
continued
rough draft
requested
110
communicati<ns
received
page 2
9-Z-70
l ()-TM·· 70
legend-
Minutes of the l'lnnnJ.ng Conunisslon May 25, 1970
I) '• ,.:" :.:; YT!~.!
A. E. H. !laker: Rezoning from Ai;ricultural-Residential
Single-family one-acr" loto (Al-43) to Reddcmt:tal
Single-family 10,000 "~· ft. 1ote.· (Rl-lO)';:·nnd :;_,r:·.:r•'
Tentat!.ve Ma1> -app~o>d.mately • 75· acre locat&d W&llt 1
e:Lde of Linda Vietn Drive, 350 feet·south of Columbus
Avt'.!.nuc. First Heuring.
~~:' ~:~).\
!'limning D:lrector Sisk made this presentati.on, uning visual a1.da, •and:
pointed out the location of the property involved in th" application• • '·"
Assi.atant Planner Cowan showed slides of the property. Mr. Sisk advised
the Commi.ssion that the overall property contained 27,800 aquare feet
and was an area thnt has been left over from n prcvi0us annexoition to
presentation the City. It i.a pres<:>ntly 2oned A:t-113 with an axis.:l.ng dweUing unit.
comments by
City
Attorney
comments by
applicant
public
hearing
closed
The proposal is to divide the property, creating two minimum 10,000
square foot lots. Mr. Sisk pol.nted out the Hmall area adjacent to the
Hillside Park th11t the City is requesting the Appl:Lcimt to dedicate and
sn.id that the 12 Standard Conditions are attached to the approval of
these appHcations.
Cornmission<!r Puetz inquired about the drainage from t:his property and
was informed by Assistant City F.ngitmer Viskovich that drainage would
be to Linda Vista Drive.
Chairman Hirshon asked if the 70 fo~t building site on Parcel A complied
with the ordinance and Planning Director Sisk replied that it does and.! ·: •
that there is no problem· with· varia.n.ces or setbacks ... ·
City Attorm;y Anderson mentioned the policy established several years
ago by the County of blocking off and controlling access on parcels by
setting up an eas.,rnent one foot wida which required a Grant· of Easement·
for crossing of property lines. He inquired how this was handled by the
City and was told by the Planning Director that it ·is possibl£l,for·a,City
to require that access rights be dedicated as a part of the.certificate·
on a final map; ho~vever, he did not sec that vehicular traffic· over,:the
rear property line to the City pnrk was a problem inasmuch as the park
could nor be considered in the same vein as " public street and that the
property u"ller had no rights of access at present. City Attoruay Anderson
agreed that access to the park in this manner might be considered tres-
passing.
The applicant, Mr. E. H. Baker of 11107 Linda Vista Drive, informed the
Commission thnt the reaaon for this s~bdivision was that he is a retired
man on a fixed income trying to cut down on his tax responsibilities and
that this property is too much for him to take care of. He t..."ants to ·divide
it for sale and he stated that he is agreeable to the conditions imposed by
th<e City and willing to make the requested dedication.
In answer to a question from the City Attorney, the applicant: stated that
he d:ld not intend to use any ingress and egress in the rear of this property.
Commissjoner Puetz moved, Cornmiss.ioner Irwin seconded and it was passed ua-
animously that the public l1enring be cloeed. •
'1:
•
•
•
MinutM of tha Planning Commicoion Hay 25, 1970 PC-10
,:i •I I,, ,., J>ll84' 3
PubHc. llearfog• Cone 'd. 9-Z-70, 10-TM-70
''·'
Commis1don6r Pucttt. moved, Commio.,ioner lluthenuth, ... econded·. that. Appl,ica
tion 9··Z-70 bi> approvlld subjec.t: .. to the .U Starulard. Condf.tio11n ..
Ayes: Comnliosion .. rs lluthenuth, · Irwi11, l'ue10z, Ch11J:tman 11:!.rahon
Noea:
Absent:
None
None
Commissioner Pueu mov<ld and CommJ.s:lonor Irwin 8ec.ond~ that Appli.ca~
tion .10--TM-70 b<> appr<wed 1111bj,,ct to the 12 Standard· Cond:l.eJ . ..inn;,
Ayes: Commi.saimuirs But:henuth, Irwin, Puetz, Chairm:t •. l!irahi;>ll
Noes: None
Absent: None
B. Application ll-TM-70, Me!IOut·ex Corporation: Tentative
Map, 17 .n acres in a l..J.ght Industrial .(MJ,) Zone,
lucated north of McCl.allan Road ber.11een .Imperial
Av.,nue nnd llubb Road, adj1tcent to antl west of Southern.
Pac Hie lillilroad. First Heariltg,
Plannin.g Directm'.' S,isk presented th:ls application aay:f.ng thae ehe. CHy,
Council had approved Light Industrial (ML) zoning and .a Tentative: Map .
for the Rubject propurty on September 15, 1969. This uppHcation. ilt.,
for: approval t<1 divide 17. 77 acres into thi:ee parcels.· He said thi>t r
the street pattern us shown on the visual al.d is substantially t!\e. 1
.,
,, .,
9-Z-70
Uiiilroved
. 10-'l'M-70
· appraye4.
•" ·,, ..
ll-TM-70
legend
same as that on the m.ap. Measure.x Corporation is contemplating the presentation
construction, ultiinately, of a 101,000 square foot building on Parcel
l and, in the futut·e, developments on Parcels 2 and J. · The .two ,11ite.
plan~ pres.,nted ax·e drawings of the proposed development on l'ai;!Oel: .:t ; :
by the Measurex Cci:poration. . . ·1 , ;r
City Attorney A1'de•rson inquired aG to whothet' or not the am.all sliver.
of land along the ra.Uroad tracks contain:!.ng .4 .aere.,aa sl)own qn the
Tentative Map wae actually a part of this Tentative Map presented fp>;
approval and, if not, should 1.t be included.
Planning Director Sisk snid it was not a part of this Tentativ61.Map,
although one of the conditions for approval :la that.a portion of this
sli.all pl.ece of lc.nd be purchased by the applicant and improv,ed f.;>r
Imper:t.a1 Avenue and Bubb Road right-of-way.. It was the consensu$
of the Commission thnt a study of the possible use of this ,4 ac.re·
of land should be made but this use was not to be decided at this
meeting.
Mr. Mike Splirntone of Ccorge S. Nolte and Associates addressed the
Commission saying that most of the conditions were acceptable to the
applicant. It was felt that two of tho conditions which were possibly
exorbitant Wf.':ra the f.fl.ct that thi:!y would have to acquire Bubb Ros.d
and improve all of it at tht.\t location and they questioned the neces-
sity and cost of extending Imperial Avenue. ne said that Imperial
is Countv property; it is a limited roa<lw and all that i• done by
',··
question
by City
Attorney
Conditions
reviewed by
Planning
Director
comments by
engineer
for ·
applicant
pagt! 4
conunents by
engineer
" audience
comments
commt~nts of
Planning
Director
connnents by
Mensurex
President
public
hearing
closed
ll-TM-70 ----appr0ved
subject to
conditions
Minut"s of the Planning Comnd•sion Mny 2o, 1970
Public Heari11gs Cont'd. -Applkntio11 ll··TM-70
· ; . ·· ~1 · ,' I d, .'.:
oxtcnding Imperial Av<nlue po'111ibly 250 f<!<11t into the pro1)erty is just
I
terminating it at nnother locaU011. 'fh1111 made it nt1c.es11nry: f0'<11·th•» ! • ""
davelopar to pay' for property, acquiT" .. nd 1 mov"' buildingia, if 1 it,' bil""'' / "J 5
comes neceMary a11d th~ app.ticnnt folt., that· t:hill canditi<>n was out : ., ,,,,,
of lille. He said this would not 3olve traffic pr'1blems and that in '• ,, .
the future an aesessnMtlt district could taka care of thia. ·,.
When Chairman Hl.rshon a~ke.d if there wore any m1dicncq comonontw con-
c<1rning th ls nppHcation, Mr". 'rr.,ible, a resident on Imperial Avenue,
spoke inqu.i.rin>l how this developmetlt would affect the people who own · ,•,\
homes ndjncent nnd what type of barrier would be used to make Parcel
1 more nttractlvo from McClt."!llan Rond.
Mr. Sisk rend Condition 15 stating the requirements for landscaping
and the separatfon of InduatriGl arnas from residential. lie 'said that
there would be a 50 foot setback required nnd that the oeparation could
be a mMonry wnll or other phyaicnl barrier. The type of barrier would
b.i ded dcd by the Architectural mvl Site Approval C<>mmittee.
Whcm asked what could be dotl!l about the heavy· truck trni'fic on Imperial,
Mr. Sl.sk rep!.ied that this was a County road and ha did not know what:
measures could be taken but: that if the improve.men.ts were realized-it ·
would make Imperinl easier to fitld and possibly alleviate soma of this
traffic.
Mr. David Bossen, Prosident of M~asurex Corporation, addressed .the Com-
mission saying that he thought that the -·reason Imperial Avenue goes.
through this property perhaps was because of the prior contemplated
usage for multiple sites. He said that from the standpoint: or Mensurex
they would just as soon not have it go through. Measurex would like
to develop this site as one site for Me,asurex and not for multiple
usage and 1 as a cons0qt1ence, t:hey did not have any need for Imperial :
Avenue to go thruugh_._ I1~ fact, he said, it detracts from th\? usage Of'
it as a site for their proposed devel~pment.
Wht!n a.eked about the number of employees, Mr. Bossen replied that at·
present thert? \Vere 140 1'1easurex employees and that the entire site
would support about 960 employees an-1 1-.C' expected tube'in that position
in about 5 years. He said about 300 square feet of building ws.s re~
quired for each employee.
There be.Ing no further discunsion, Con1missioner Invin moved and Commis-
sioner But.henuth seconded that the public hearing be closed. The motion
\.,ras passed unanimously.
Commissioner Irwin moved that Application ll-TH-JO be approved subject
to the 12 Standard Conditlona plua Conditions 13 , 14, 15, 16, 17, ,18,
19~ 20 and 21, as revised. Commissioner Buthenuth seconded the motion.
Ayes: Commissioners Bu thenuth, Irwin, Puetz, Chaitinan Hirahon
Noes: None
Absent: None
PC-10
•
•
' '
•
Mi\1u:ea of the Planning Corusnhdo11 M4y 25, 1970 PC•lO
Pili• 5
Application ll-TM-70 Cont'd,
Comm:l.aaioner lluthcmuth mo\•ed for 11 minute ord1>r for th11 staff to study the
a11U1ll &liv.,r· of lal1d th11c :ls tho bland bctwaen th<> railroad and Bubb Road
and McClellan Ro1J1d and come np with recommendations as to zoning and po111-
dblt> uses. 1'ha 1110U.on was oeconded by Commfaaionu· Xrwii:.
Ayu: Coll"'1issioners lluthenuth, It·wJ.n, Puetz, Ch.•irllllln Rirshon
Nous: .Nonl)
Absent: None
Chairman l!irshon called a r<icesn Bt 9: 35 P .M.
'l'he.re was no unfinished businasu.
New llu$iuQss -----
ll. Film: "Opan Space -C.oing, Going, Gone!" . '
This fil.m ~·a.s prcse.nted by the Planning DepBrtment.
c. Discussion of Sidewalk Standards
The Planning Department requested tbat this matter be continued to the next
meeting so as to allow additional time for further study. It was th~ con-
aensus of the Planning Commission that this item be continued to the next
meeting.
'l11e Planning Commission was asked by the Qlanning Director to define the
front property line on corner lots in vie" of the fact that this is not
pre.sently defilled by crdirumce. lie indicated tilat there had been discussion
with property owners relative to where the front setback would be calculated
from on corner lots of varying width. Mr. Sisk stated that from p1rnt experi-
minute
order
recess
film
shown
discussion
of sidewalk
standards
continued
enc<> the front setback was taken from the most narro11 portion of the lot discussion
fronting on the dedicated stree.t regardless as to the desired placement of on front
th" house. Mr. Siok also indicated that this was the lluilding Department's corner lots
interpretation as "'dl, although it is not specifically spelled out by
ordinance.
After discussion, the Planning Commission concurred that thie is a proper
interpretation and that perhaps in the future the ordinance should be amended,
d~tfinitely defining t.hc front. corner lots.
Adjournment
Upon motion duly ma.de &nd seconded, Chairman Hirshon adjourned ti.1e meeting
at 10:35 P.M.
\
•
•
car OF CUPEH'l'lNO. Sta to of. c.~lifon1in
lOJOO Torre Av~nu~, Cup•!rt.ino, CnH fornia
.r.!~·:;c't'_l2 2-!!.o5-<2~.
'f . ,.
c-9
MINUTES OF THE RllGUl,AR MlmTTNG OP THE .!'LANNING COMMISSlt>N'.." '. '" "d :· .
HELD t'.Ai .ll, l 9 70 rn r;m COUNCl.I. Cl!AM!lllRS' CJ.TY IW,L, '·.;
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Chairman Hirah"n called tho. ir.octing to <Jrddr at 8 P.H. and l•!d the
saluta to tha flag.
Comm:t.ssioru .. ~ra Present:
Alsci prest.~nt: Planning
Assistant City Engineer
Bu thenu th, Ind.n, PuP.tZ, Chairman HJ.rs hon.
llirector Sisk; Au.lstaitt Pl.armer Cownn;
Viskovich; City Clcrk-l'inance Director Ryder.
Jt: wae moved by Commissioner Pu.,tz, seconded by COllllllissioner Buthenuth
and passed unanimously that the minutes of April 27, 1970 be apprc.ved
as submitted.
P1,rnni11g Director Sisk advis<>d the Chni.rnum of requests by· t;wo applicants
to have their applications postponed i11deUnitely. The City Attol:'ney
adv1.sed the proper motion would be to have these matters taken off· the
calendax.·.
It was moved by Commissioner Irwi.n~ seconded by Col'DlJiis.pionar Puetz, and
passed unanimously that: A11plicntion 7-Z-70 from Dr. Joseph !'. Brown be
taken off the calendar.
It was moved by Commiesioncr Buthenuth~
und passed unan1mously that .Applicat:l.on
be taken off t~1e calendar.
Written Communications
Thero wer~ no written conununications.
' i
oecoljded by Commissioner. Puetz, ..
6-D!,-70 from Mrs. l~valeen Gregory
A. Fo0t bridge across Stevens Creek Boulevard
Mr. John Norris, 10441 Phar Lap Dc'.ve, addressed the Commission with inior-
mation ralating to act.i.vity to have a toot h:rJdge .constructed across StC-
vens Cri:H~k Boulevard in the Oakdell Ranch area~ He re.ctuested the Planning
CommissJ.on and tho Plann!ng Department to conduct :i study of proposed
bridge systems and -~ f a requent came be.ford the Planning Commission for JJ.n
abandonment of R City t·.i.ght-of~way, then he urged the Ci:nrunissioners to
deny such a request.
roll
all
rev:tous
1inutea
foot bridge
cross Stvns.
~reek Blvd.
~:
'
··" '
"
~
I ~
I
I
i
s.ign
require-
ment
2-TM-70
legcn~Y
public
hearing
Minutes of th" l'lannlng Gommissl.on May 11, 1970
Oral Ccmm1unic11t.ions Cont'd,
The Chairman advis(ld Mr, Norris that tho quetitl.011 of th.l.s foot bridge
1.ino before tho City CO)J.llCH and a puhHc hearing hn'I hcon scheduled
for tho .;unc 1 11u\ating.
B. Postit;,g: of ronl nstn.tt~ brok~r' s sign requj.rement
1'he City Attom•y referred to comm<1nt:. of n previous mooting having to · ·
do with whether or not the poatinn of a rn11l t>Atate broker's sign was ·
required. He enJ.d he had "ritt:en to Sacramento to ascertain the status
of current legJ.sl.atlon and had bnon inforn1ed the bil.J. in question was
defeated. He Sll:f.d, tht!rcfore, that the old law still was operative and
that euch a sign was rcquir(~d co b<'! posted.
A. Application 2-TM-70, Salvatore Marchese: Tentntive Map,
npproxJ.mat:ely 1.4 ac1·es located westerly of and adjacent
to Mount Crest Driv•" First Hearing continued.
Planning Director Sisk prestmtod the applicatimi to the Commission,
saying that it was a conti.nuation of lhe same question th<1t had been
discussed at prevJ.ous meetings. Essentially, it was that the applica11t, ·
Mr. Marchese, wished to' build a house on n lot but found that the partic-
ular type of houss did not fit on it due to required setbacks. Accordingly,
a Tentative Map eppl.icntion had been filed to realign the lot linas and
permit co11struction to take place, There was a question having to do with
the legality of lot B as it now existed. Because Lot B was also ioeluded
on the application, approval of the Tentative Map 1.-ould be an approvnl for
an illegsl lot which wae not under the owu.,rsh:T.p of the applicant.
Conuni.safonc,r Irwin asked the applicant H th<> orobJ.mn had been solved dui:-
ing the inte.rvenfog two-week period anil was told that it had not. Commia-
sioner Irwilt then Raid that he could not see how the Planning Commission
could resolve this situation untler present conditions.
The original d•>V<>loper, Mr. Chase, said he had a legal problem for which
an answdr i3 needed and be~aus1.~ of that he had attempted to discuss the
situatior1. w·ith the City Attorney but so far had been unable to do so. He
rf~it:erated that the mistake on the lot lines came from his engineers in
the first place, He also said that the previous planning director had
ruled thri.t only one lot needed to be 22,000square feet and not each one ~f
the three.
The City Attorney explnine.d that :1is services were not available ins a City
Attorney to any private individual. HE! could not give legal assistance in
such matters as he was employed by thi:! C.tty Council and must reserve such
services exclusively for th<! City.
To this Mr. Chase said that he had not wonted personal legal assistance
but c.inly to be given the opFort1Jnity of elarlfyi.ng: possible confusf\)n in
the mind of the City Attorney.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mh,utllH of tha l'lmmillg C<:vmmhdon May ll, 1970
i.ht> owner of Ltit: ll omd Lot lllO, ~1·11., Will.ir.'1'$, objected st;ronu11usly. ~11 ... , ,
All.egati.011e And iJ.Cc.usAtiona that !:he q!ffj.cult.y "'"·" lu•r rcapo1111~Ml~.t)',• ... ;:
She re.butt"d all contont.tons .of ~ha n11pl:lcnn~. llnd fot)'tler. dcV.<\ll)per.1,1. ,
It """ !llOV<'d by Commisdoner Irwin, SCQondod by Comml.asioner Puetz and
pHsed unanimoual.y to close th" pubHc heul.ng.
Commia• ione1· h"Will s ta t:ed that j ull t aa Mrs, Williems said sh" resent Ad .
bej.ng ur.ad, he also resented th(\ Planning Cornmisdon being used .i\i ~l.'Y~ .
ing to eet1.l.o som<'thing ovet'. whid1 th~! Commission hud no control,, ·.
Chairman llirshon sal.d that n11 i.11"gal situation <'xiated 'and nftei: several;
hearings, additional. discuss lo1rn d:ld not: solve anything, Commissioner
Puetz said thnt he thought there was no al.tcrnat i11" but to deny .xhe. lll'Pli-·
c"tion and suggested tho appHcants obtal.n private legal counseJ..•
It was moved by Conunl.ssioncr Puetz, seconded by Commissioner Irwin, ll!ld
pasa~d unanimously that App.U.cntion 2-TM·· 70 be d11nied,
Chairman Hirnhon advised the applicant of .his right to appeal· the a9tion
within ti ve dnys. '•J ,.-.
B. Applicntimie 8-Z-70 and 9-U-70, !\on l\:lfred:i, REZONING. , from ,
Rl-10 (Single-family Residential) to ML (Light Industrial):;.·
:md USE PERMIT. to allow retail sales of mix;id concrete .'aolll ·
in batches not exceeding one cubic yard. Approximately: .• ss . J,
acre located at 21677 Stevens Creek Boulevard, west of and .
adjacent to Southern Pacific Railroad and appi:oxim<\telY, ;?QO,,
feet north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. First l!ead11g .
continued. · ·
' ' 'J .: •, ,, • '
Planning Director Sisk presente<! the two applications and said .that .. these.:
~~k~~:·
h11arins:
closed
2-'.!'!1-70
enied
were contj.nut'!.d from a previous meeting. He preseni:.ed a revised plot ·plitn resentation
which had been submitted by the appl:lcant ebowin1t a proposed pay~d drtvt:-
way through the pro,1erty as well ns the proposed landscaping, fencing
and setbacks.
ColllJUissioner Buthenuth referred to pro;iosed Condition No. 20, calling. fol'. •
a 25 foot landscaped buffer strip to be installed at such time as the .. · "
existing use is extended in an)' way. He said it was his feeling that as· '.
long as other landscaping was to be done at this time, this planting should
be included so that it would have reached maturity and be effective in the
future when lt's to be needed.
Mr. Jest1 Aguilar addressed the Commission, saying that: he was the attol".ney
for the applicant for the Use Pennir. as well .is the applicant for the re-
quested chnnge in zoning. He pointed out that these were tvo separate
applicat.l.ons. In reforring to tho Use Permit, he sllid Mr. Ron Rifredi,
the applicant, is only a lessee and not the owner of the property. He is
doing business as the Morita Vista Rockery. Mr. Aguilar reviewed the sittt-
ation where the City staff had stilted the Use Permit might not be.required
tpchnically but that H ~·ould be a good :[dea to cleat• the matter and s~ii-·
mit an application, !le stated that the situation was only that the
applicant wanted to replace one mixer ~·ith ,; new one and. that the Q;l.d mixpr
ha<l been in use for at least: eight yearll. ·-·,. ·
> ,, ; ;
emarks by
ttorney
·\
,:-
P"'SO 4
remarka by
attorney
continulld
dust
control
inquiries
rem1>rks by
citi:t.t!!l'lS
Minutes of th" l'lnnu!ng Comrnissiou May lJ, 1971)
Public 1'1<011ring S-Z-70, 9-U-70 Cont'd.
It was Mr. Ai:ui.lnr'a contil!ltion thnt the requiring of a tlse'Pemit and .,,, ·
th<> Ord! ~irnce did not apply. The plnnt itself had b.aen · t!)ere !cit" ~eight '.1
years nnd thure ••ere no ulteratfonu contemplated to tli« J>hysical 'plane · '
itself. All that was bo:lng requested was permisdon to replace a gasoline
powered machi.1w with a smaller ole~tr:lcally powered machine., '
Ho said th~ t: although the Ord:l.nn11co did not npply, the appHcant was
willing to abide by the conditioM in the int<1rast of coml11\mity ber.ter-
mant with the excoevtion of Cor1dition Na. 19. Re then wenr over the site'
plan in detail, pointing out proposed lnndscnp:lng, driveways nnd other
item!! of interest.
As far as proposed Condition No. 19, Mr. Aguilar suid that it was not
fnir in that the applicn11t was not the owner of the property and the
Ordinance did not apply in tho first place. llut in a spirit of coopera-
tion the applicant was willing to expend considerable amounts of money
to remove objectlom1 as stated by neighbors 11t the previou>1 meeting. Re
nlso said thnt the improvement of Stevens Creek Boulevard was in its very
early stngeG and even the. City staff wnu not sure of what is to be
expected.
Planning Director Sisk said that the. existing uses on the property were
non-conforming and although not legally required to do so the applicant
had, nt his suggestion, fHed a request for a Use Permit to clarify the
situation. ·
Chainnan !Urnhon sdd that if this wes so, he did not feel it proper to
impos<! expensive and heavy legal obligations 011 the applicant. Commissioner
Puetz wondered if these were not now imposed, then when would they be.
Mr. Aguilar thought all property owners on the street should be treated
equally so far as dedications or cond,emnations were c,oncerned.
Conudssioner Buthenuth inquired of the applicant as to any past problems
on dust control and if there were nny prospects for the future. Mr. ' ·
8.ifredi said that there had beeio no real complaints on thl.s matter but
!that he did have a water wagon which was used and that the proposed paved
driveway also would help. Mr. Sisk said the City had received no com-
plalnt:s.
r. Sol Perez, 10068 Adriana Avenue, said that no complaints had been
ade on the dust due to friendship with the applicant. The::e was, how-
evt~.r, a serious problem ,,•ith sawdust in that when the wind "~as from the
orth it blew in his swim:ming pool and clogged the pumps, caus:Ln2 them
to burn out. He said these uncovered sawdust bins were r:.2'xt to -his back
ard. He d1d not oppcse the zoning but did object to the Use Permit un-
less tha b:f.ns were moved,
tr. Jerry Burt, 10084 Adrl.ana Avenue, said that he, too, has a swimming
ool and pl'lllpS but sawdust was not a problem to him nor to any of the
other neighbors.
tr. Bruce Went~eger n.ddrcssed the Corr.n1ission a.s the President of the Mon ta
1 ista Homeownern ABoociat:ion, naying thnt the resi1ents of the art"a were
•
•
•
.~.
' '
'
•
•
•
Mfoutes of the l'la1ml.ng Comro.hsi<l!l May 11, 1970· -·Li\,, :;"_,,~,in if. PC•9
\ page 5
l'ublic Hearing B··Z-70, 9-U-70 Cont'd. :1.·.~i\ ·.:11 d,:'..
\\
trying their. bt!St to upnre.d" the community. He then .r'l'<ad n liet.·of,, r\I,"'" ; t
quironiontfl the Commission should impose and as.id that if •thnae. were: 1101~ .. 1.1 ;,, ·
' \
complied with by the "PP:Li<.:1mt, then tlHl <i11tire operation ahou.ld b•L; "'\: .1 '"' t .• ,
closed down. !le an.id Mont11 Vi>Jtn wants t<l .improwa i1.:a appenrance but '
that this parti.cul!lr <>p6ration was :Ln tho City of Cupertino and they
had no control over :l.t:..
'·"'·
Mrs. Anger, 10185 Empire Av~nue., roforr0d to th" new subdJ.vision to the
North of this area, saying that "van though it was in Cupertino, it wns ·
a big ns!let to Manta Vista. She said she had occ1rnion to ask each of
the honi<iownera in that subdiv:!.sim\ if h<> was aware that th<1 tomporary
ac.cess ricross tlH? freeway right-of-way was nctually temporary. She snid
o.ach had answernd in the affirn11>tiva. Peninsular Avenue was the only
exit through St~vens Creek lloulavard and the residents qf Monta Viata
were crying to make th<l are.11 more attracti.ve o.nd thought Cupertino
should m'1ke this applicant cooperate also. She also brought out the
diffic.ulcy in the lack of enforcement as to the upkeeping of. landscap-
ing.
\
r~rks by
Commissioner Bl!th,,,mth pointed out that CondiU.on No. 21, if imposed, .
would take cara of thase arguments and that this was i·eally the "·first
time the l'lam1.it\g Commission had the authorization to initia~e a 'Public
hearing for rcvocatio11 of a Ust! Permit. ,,,,
Commissioner lluthem1th also asked the epplic.ant if the aawdust bins
could ba coverdd and the answer was no. He was told that it was , impos,.. ·
sible to cover the.m but that they would be moved to the far side of 'the
yard so 1f any WBS to be blown, it would go on the Southern Pacifi.c
right-of-way.
ci tili.en
-\
\
Mr. Aguilar then presented a ;>et it ion in favor of thb development which. · petition \i.
had been signed by 90% of the ;>roperty owners abutting the subject )ll"llSlmtad
property.
It was moved by Corr.missioner Irwin, seconded by Commissioner Buthenuth,
mid passed unanimously that the public henring be closed.
There then followed a brief discussion as to whether or not the Planning
Conunissi.on w·as taking a.\vay the functions of the Architectural and Site
Approval Committee in the area of landscap.ing enforcement~ This was
answered by both Chairman Hir.shott and the City Attorney that rather than
diluting that committee's power, this would strengthen it and that any
potent~ al overlapping of jurisdiction was not uncom.mon.
Comtnis9ioner But.henutn again brought up the suggestion for the deletion
of a phrase under proposed Condition No. 20 to require the buffer strip
to be landscaped now rather than at a later dace.
It was moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded by Conuniss.toner It"Win,, and
passed unanimously chat Application 8-Z-70 be approyed.
public
heitring
closed
8-Z-70 mroved
.;•,
·~'
'
page 6
.9-tJ-70
ap1n·oved
subject ~o
Ci..1nd:1.ti<Hll
Jjl_::U_ -7 Q
legend
pres ant a-
t ion
public
hearing
closed
1 0 .::!'.:1.2.
approved
subject co
conditions
9-·TM-70
legend
presenta-
tion
inutas of the Planning Cmmnissior\ May, 11, 1970
Publfo lloar:lng 8-Z-70, 9-U··70 Cont:' d. .. \ '' i : •"
It """ moved by Commissioner Puet2, aecond"d by C°"""isa:l.oner Irwin'•
that AJ>plicntion 9-U-70 be apprnvod •ubjccc to the 12 Standard :Cati.di•·
tions plua Conditiot<s 13 through 18 nnd Condit:l.011s lO and 21 as :aat
fonh in th~ n1emor1rndum from the1 Pl1m11ing Uir<l'ctor, dated May 7, 1970.
The llpproval also ia to be aubj11ct to tha rel"or.ding of Condition No.
20 to be "A 25 foot landscaped buffer stri.p, as nppt·ovod hy tho Ar.chi•
tecturnl and Sit:o Approval Committe<; shnll bo iirntalled along the
eocerly property line udjacent t:o the r"sidential nrM within th.trty
(30) days". 1'he motioll was passed u11animously.
Chainnim HirBhcll cnl1"d for " recess at 9 :1'5 P .M.
The meeting n'convened at 10 :03 P .M.
c. Ap!'licatio11 10-U-70, Yee Tay Dan, Use Permit for
conunercial growing of flowers at 10371 North Saratoga-
S1mnyvnle Ro11d (to the rear of Dr. Brovn' s Animal
Hospital). First. Hearing.
Planning Director Sisk brought the ,;pplication heft.re the Commission,
saying that Use PermJ.ts for this opetation had been issued in the past
and that this was merely a continuation of .. previous approvals. The
propo3ed conditions were the same as had he~n imposed previously.
There bei.ng no com."11el1.ts from the audience, it '-wa.s moved by Commissioner
Duthenuth, seconded by Commissione1· Irwil'l., and vassed unanimously to
close the public hearing.
It was moved by Comml.ssioner Puetz, seconded by Coll'Ollissioner Inrln; and.
passed unanimously that Application 10-U-70 be approved subject to the
12 Standard So'lditions plus t:he proposed Conditions 13 through 16 as
submitted by the Pla11ning Director and also that Condit:!.,on No. 17 be
added, requiring the area to be policed on a weekly basil\. and to remove
any rubbish and trash on that property subject to this Use Permit.
D. Applicat:'.on 9-TM-70, Foothill Inv~stment Company, T"nta-
tive H.ap, approx.imn t:ely 6. l. 7 acres located easterly -Of
Foothill Boulevard, between 'Alpine Drive and Salem Av~ue.
First Hearing. \
Planning Director S:Lok '>resanted t:he application, stnting that· it l"aS for
approval of a Tentative .lap to eliminate property lines in order to e~
bine four existJ.ng parcels into a sin,;le 6.117 net acre ·parcel. The
property is located easterly of Foothill Boulevard between Alpine Drive
and Salem Avenue and is zoned R3--2. 2. The applicant 1 s proposal is to
create a parcel on which to construct a 119-unit apart.n1ent complex~
Hr. Sis!-. ren1inded the Commission that at the previou.s meeting there i;~as
some dh ·""sion relative to ingress and egress to Foothill Boulev1>rd. As
-t result ... f this, it was thought best to have hut one exit from this com-
plex unto Foothill Boulevard nnd that it be to the. northerly portion of
it and be limJ.ted to a right··hand turn only.
•
,::<-
•
~-:
·'
\
'
'
• ltinutes of the Platming Cctnlllinaion May, .U, 1970
Public Hearing 9-TM-70 Cont'd,
Commhsioner l\uthem1th atresMed thnt this northerly egl'efi\J! 11hQul,d be . !.
shown on th" TcutatiV<I Map a1td bo n part of it. lfo 111110. Hid ... t)u1t the
minutes of th.is meeting uhou.ld t"c£le.r.t the d:f.acussiona that tl1e particu-
lar •'gr<>ss Jn qucstiol\ is to be .... de " right-hand turn only and that the right ,band
11pplic1mt is fully aw1lrc of this. It than was ""certained that the turn exit
appUcant W1'o ill the audience so thnt he would be mnde aware of this
discussion.
C'hatrm1m llirshon said that he had an interost in saa:lng the exhibits
re1"til1g t:o the internal driveway patterns. It waa his position that the.
Commission had reviewed tho.se ill tho past mtd that it wns not beyond. the
prero,\lltive of t:ha CnmmissJ.on t:o r"view this proposal.
l"hc rcnderl ng then wan pl.aced on the board and the J.nternal driveway
pattl~rn discur;s(~d in rclntion to the exit9 'shown and the one that had
bet'l.:n approved.
It was moved by Commlssion"r Puetz, seconded by Cmr.miasl.oner Irwin, and
pnesed unanimously to close the public hearing,
It was moved by Commissi.oner Puetz, seconded
recommend approval of Application 9-TM-70. ' .
by Commissioner. Ii:Wixi~· t~ · "':
Commissioner Irwin then said that the :not!on should be amended to .have
the exhibit which was displayed, the plot and site pllC.l which.· had. ,been
view<'d with the modifications as made by the City Engineer .and ,the City ,
Planner be attached to and made a part. of the application. .There then
ensueJ further discussion as t<> the wording of the motion and what· it was
to have included after which Chairman Hirshon requested the r:ocial}.to be
rt!stated.
public
hearing
closed•
9-n!-70
motion to
approve
Cornm:tssio11er Puetz restated the motion as follows after .which' GQtmPissi~ner motion
11'.Vin seconded it. The motion is to recommend approval of Applica!:iori·, .· restated
9-TM-70 subject to the 12 Standard Conditions plus Conditions 13 and 14
as recommended by the Planning Director in bis memorandum of May 7, 1970 9-TM-70
plus Condition J.5 requiring the development and site plan to be 1'pproved approved
by the Planning. Commission. The motion then was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Puetz said that while not a part of the iootion itself, he
'"-"i.shed t:he minutes to reflect that it was made with the awareness that
future improvement of Foothill Boulevard may require that the noi·therly
exit from this development be a r:tght-hnnd turn only.
Unfinished Businens
Planning !Jirector Sisk advtsed the Commissioners on the status of plans
for c~ttendance at the League of California C:ttics Planners Conference in
Anaheim.
Planners
Conference
page 8
4-Z-70 Fni=-7o
legend
present.a·~
tion
remarks by
City
Attorney
report
requested
Minutes of the Planning Commission May J.l, 1970
A, AppHcllt:f.oM 4-·Z-70 nnd 7-TM-70, Saratoga Foothills
l'1ivolopmmtt Co:rporat:fon; REZONING 38,1,9 ncres ut nouth..;
west corner of lfomeatend Rend 1md .Blaney Avenue from R3··2, 2,'
Rl-7. 5 and CG to R3C-2. 2, a1\d TENTATIVE MA? •.
(Senf: back by Clty Counc:ll to l'lnnning Commission for
review and 1·eport) •
!'la.ming Direct:or Sisk prescmte.d the applications and the situation
1·equiring tham to be discussed at this particular time. lie said that
the CJ ty Clark had provl.dod copies of excorpts from the City Counc:U ·
meeting ol' May 4, 1970 where tha CouncU hnd sent theae applications
back to the Planning Connnisdon for review and r~port. He suggested
that the Commissioners tak" thJ.a opportunity to rend these excerpts
1<hile the City Attorney related to them what had taken place at the
Council meeting.
City Attort1ey Anderson sai<l that these applications had undergone much
discussion which evet\tually ended up it1 a tic vote for the second read-
ing of the Ordinance. 'l'l<o councilmen had voted for what :f.!l effect was
the granting of the application and two for denial. Th~ Mayor had
withheld his vote and had confirmed his prior stand that he would no
longer consider the matter. · ·
Mr. Anderson said that upon his advice the Mayor then had agreed that:'
if this would bo considered and discussed ngain by the Planning ·conunis-
sion as to tho element of density and any other factor that U<>uld give ·
due justification or say it was a bad development, he then would vote.
Mr. Anderson said it was his .impression from the City Council proceed-
:lngs that den6ity, access and quaHty were the factors to be emphasized.
lle then noted the presence of the applicants in the audience and
suggested that they might be able to provide additional information on
their proposed development.
Mr. Anderson then said the actior. required of the Planning Commission is
1 to ma}·e a report to the City Council in any form which -the. Commissioners
may desire and t:o insert any conditions or stata.ments just as if the
Commissioners were appraisers and then to submit it to the Council for
its consideration. He stressed that this should be more than just a
dry vote and that anything the Commission could do to do justice in this
case would be ~1pprec:1a ted,
Con:missioner Buthcnuth then advised the City Attorney that the Tentative
Hap had been approved by the City Counsil at an earliei; meeting and the
only question before the Planning Commission was the Ordinance which
pertained only to zoning.
The City Attorney said he. always had gone on t:he assumption th.at: the
TentatJ.ve Map had not been approved. One w:lthuut the other was meaning-
less and it wns his suggestion that the Planning Commission make a report
on the entire matt:er.
•
•
•
•
•
:•
•
Minutes of the l'l«nning Commhs:ton May .U, 1970 l'C-9
•· .I .: J >~) c!".<.:'U,"1ti<J P.fli6 9.:;!i';
Naw Business, '•-Z-70 and 7-TM-70 Cont'd •
Ccmmissioner Uutlumuth snid he would commence tho discussion and
discussion
•.! ', on
poinud out th>1t pr .. ~ent •oiling 1<as a hodge podge. !one integrated<;:;:,.. ''·'•
devolopment was pr~for>lble. lie &1.1id that ·d011Uty was not tluat big ·4
factor and thBt this """'" had adequate <>l<its ft>r tro.ffac on Homoataad •·
Road, lllrm<"y Av¢nue, nearby Wolfe l\oad and the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Ro11d.
Chaitman llirshon asked the applicants 1f they had any new material to
prascnt. Nr .• Jerry Lohr said he had nothing new to present. Ila re~
viewed his npplicatio1,. saying tht>t the ,fol\Sity wns less than that
allowed by the ;1aoter Pl .. 11, The potential traffic would be• leau, A&•
well a• the number of school children, than if the preoent zoning was•
developed. . '
Commiasionor Puetz re.quested the Planning Director to recall if he
c.oulJ and cl orify some density figures. lie said the fir at time· this
was d:!.scussed ~ referenc.o was mnde to ~ome 18 units and somewhere along
the line a ch11ngc Wl-1.s made from gross acre.age to net acreage. He oaid
tho app.lic.o.nt claims that his t<>quest is for · G&h ~ban that allowed.··
under the present zoning but actually he is as> ~ fr -19.25 dwelling
units which is only 3/4 of a ut1:lt under the 2G '.t f1gur.-..
Mr. Sisk said on a ne.t basis tht> Ordinance refers to 19.8 units.: Based
on the 39, 6 gross acres, it is 19, O comps red to 16, 0 under the present
Ordinance. Ou a net ba•is of 754 units, it is 20.2 as opposed to 19.8.
Ile aaid the Oi-dillsnc:e requ:l.re.s the ts.king of the lessel:' of the two be-
tween gross and net and in this csoe it would have to be gcoss,
Mr. Sis:k continued by saying ther.e was some question as to Ylhat consti-
t:utes gross acreage or net acreage. The total property involved is
39.6 acrea. The actual bou11daries of th" zone call for 38.1•9 acres.
After provisions hnva been ma.de for dedications, this reduces it to
37.5$1 acres.
In answer to Commissioner Buthenuth' a question as to what caused th.e
change. from the initial 730 units, Mr. Lohr said that the initial pro-
posal had been for 758 .. When the access road w!16 put in, this then was
reduced to 754 nnd 01fter development of the child care center, it was
further reduced by four to 750. He said the number of dwelling units
per gross acre was 18.95 and per net acre. 20.02.
ColllI:lissioner Puetz asked the applicant what the difference was on the
computation of gross acreage. ~!r. Lohr ~aid that there was son1a
question on the computation and the Com:;r,iasioners had every r:ight to
receive an explanation. ?-ir. Lohr then requested and Nr. Sitlk replied
with a. further explanation of how the computations were made.
Connnissioncr Irwin askod if what waa then being discussed was only to
info cm them of what they already had known. He aaid ho doubted if any-
one would chauge from his previous vott! and that the information being·
given appeared to be only tiaH~ consuming .
Col,\1.1tsaioner Pu..;tz rebutted thi.s by saying on the contrary, there was.
some controversy. lie said the developt.~rs originally had coma in with
•'i dGnaity
'·''
·i
gross acreage
vs.
net acre.age
.~'.
page 10
4-Z-70
7-TM-70 ----mot:lon to
approve
tie vote
IHnut<'• of the Ple.nni.ng Commisai<>n May 11, 1970
Naw Buoinen, 4-Z-·70 und 7·1'M-70 Cont'd.
"" application that had said ;)8,4~ wl.th units per. 11cr.e o! only 11on10. +~ . .' '),
to 20 p<>rcaut :l.ncrti'1Be ov0r the Ord1Mnce r...quirement 0£ 16. Now aftetr
bl!inp bntted b~ck and forth be.twce11 th" Council and the l'la1ining Com-
mission he WQnted Home clad.f:l.cution as to the figures heina used.
CommissionoX' Puct:r. co11t111uud by say:l11i; he was disturbed bacaus<> it was
his <n·ig:l.unl improsdon that dbcuasions were on a bads of gross
acreage and now H iD Oil •· net e.r.rnas;e. !le found this to be confusing.
Initially, ha had diaagrned wHh the density but because ha liked the.
quality of the project, he had voted for it, hoping that the density
would ba reduced at tho Council level. lle oaid the oeco11d time :1.t .rod
c;ome back, ha had forc;warnod tlrn appl;Lc•.nt that it might llOt go through
bee a us" of the density. lie liked the development as fa<' as the quaUty
was concerned but hnd changed his mind ou voting for the density when
it had Mt b"en reduced at the Council level.
Mr. !.obr "xpla.inud fut·ther how th<a density gross a11d net had l•een
calculated. Ile su~d they now were just .2 unita higher on a net basia
but were 2.95 units per acra higher on a gross basis.
Chairman Hit'ahoo ascertained fro:n the applicant that t.he present presenta-
tion actually was " reduction in density from the previous one.
Planning Di· . .sctor Siak said that tha ame.nities of this develop~p.t, .l.n
his op:l.11ion, made it more desir!'ble at the requeste<t density. than any
other one in the area of J.6 unj.t:s per acre.
Commissioner ll'Win commented tlut the rnising of one or two un:l.t,ll per
sere for a development of this size was but a drop in tile bucke.t.
Commissioner Puetz asked if it was not a valid point for consideration
in the adding of density to a concentrated area was different than that
for a general area. Mr. I,ohr replied that if applied to this 40 acres
only, the answer would be "yes" but that tha Master Plan called for the
genet"al area and if thfa was so than the application was for the lesser
amount.
Mr. Sisk then reviewed the 11eighborhood seven zoning uses and dwelling
units. He said that one question was the credl.t to be given for density
in those areas of this naighbo:rhood se\len which ara not to be developed
as residential. He said that e.xpert;:s had testified that Homestead Road
could c:;.;i.rry the traffic e.manating from this dt:!velopment and still not
reach capacity.
It was moved by Comrnissioner Buthenuth, seconded by Chairman Hirsh.on,
thu t the~ Planning Commission u~ge the City Council to approve the re.-
quested change in zoning, and thiii devolopmont, with tho opin:l.ov of the.
Planning Commission that it ia a good project and vorthy of considera-
tion of «pproval.
Ayes: Conuniasionera Buthenuth and Hirshon
Noes: Cor:it:liss.icnors Irwin nnd Puetz
•
l'C-9 •
.,
•
'
•
•
Minutes of the l'.lsnn1ns Commisdon M.1y 11, 1970
Naw llus:lnORa, 4-Z-70 and 7 .. Tlf-70 Cont'd •
Chail·man llir~hon doc.l.a1·od a tio vote,
Th<> City Attorney aaid H w0uld bo in orJ01· for
this to the City Council with 11 tio vote.
· '1a Colllll\isoion to submit
It was movtld by Commissior.or Buthm1ut:h, aecond11d by Conuniss1onor Irwin,
and passed unauiroously that: this m:ittec· be referred to t!le City Council,
B. Discussion of sidewalk standards
Planning Di.rector Sisk presented slides of difforent types of sidewalk
construction, showing plans, landscHping and street trees. Ho said the
quto!Stion had been pra1i1entcd from the City Council as to ,.,hethar or not
.5' sidewalks could be acceptable in commercial areas, for example, in
lfou of thn 10' as now required. After a brl.ef discussion, it was tho
consensus of the Commission that this matter be held over to the follow-
ing meeting.
Adjournment
I.t Has moved hy Commissioner Buthenuth, seconded by Counnissioner ~Irwin,
and so declared by the Chairman that the meeting be adjourned at
11:30 P.M •
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
PC-9
page 11
refori-e.:1 to
City Couacil
discussion
continued
' .
l
•
•
CITY OF CU!'ERTINO, State of Cn11f 3<i i.,
10300 Torre Av<'nu~, Cupanino, C;d.i., rnla
!'hone: 252-li50.5 --
.,
MINUTES 011 Tiil!. !U:GULAR ME!l.'1:Ult; OF Tl!!i !'LANNING COMMIS510N
HELD APRIL 27, 1970 IN Tim COUNCIL CllMIJl!iRS, CITY HAL!.,
CUPERTINO, CALI.FORN lA
Chairman Hirnhon called the meeting to order nt. 8:00 P.M. llnd led th"
•111luto to tho flag.
Roll Call ----·---·
Comntililsioncra Pr!~Bent: But.he.nuch, Irwin~ Puc;;~, Ch~'!.rna1n Hirshou.; Alf.o
present: City Attornny Ando1·so1).; Planning Director Sl~;K; Assista1tl
Planner Cownn; Assistant C.lty Engl.neer Vl.skovich; R~c,irdl.ng Secretary
Betty Donio.
Chairuwn Hirehoi; naked the Commissionero if there were any corrections
or additions to the minute9 of April 13, 1970. Commiaa1oner. Buthenuth
c.alled the Comml.s3ion' • attention to Page 4, paragraph. 5, asking. if the
the public hearing on application 2-TM-70 actually had been closed. · I
Chairman Hirshon re.plied l.'1 tha affirmative aa;"ing ·this ~an be. remedied
when the applic!ltion comes t1p again by a mod on to reopcll the haaring • 1
Conunissioner B..it:ht:~nutt1· also quest::.oned thtt wording ot. the. !~th pnra.graijh
on page 10: "Cvmmissioner Buthenuth reiceived informatiot1 that the stredits
abutting the proparty were 60 t.cet ill width and even though tbey :dead j ·
ended, they were func.tional.11 He ;aid he did not understand thia para-
graph. Planning Dir.ictor Sisk explained that this concerned the re-
sidential streets behind Dr. Brown's zoning. He said Commissioner
Buthenuth had asked ~he question ~s to ;;hether or not there should be
a tum-around provided and Mr. Sisk had said chat he fe).t the s<:reets
<:eren' t very fong and that they funct1oned good tre way th~y are. Ha
said these strc·ets dead ended into the back of the property.
Commissioner BJ them;. th .isked that this paragraph 1,, page 10 be deleted
from the minutes of April 13, 1970 as it was confusing.
Con1missioner ~~athenut\"I mo\·cd, Commissioner Puetz secot1ded and it was
passed unn.nimL· J.ily that the minutes of J\pril 13, 1970 be approved as
corr1:~cted.
Chninnan Hirs 1 1t.."~l ndvl.sed the Corr.rniasion that the llipplicc;.nts of Appli-
cations 6-l'M-·o and 7-Z-70 hnd requested postp1 .. n1emt:.n.t to -rhe next re-
gular mtleti.ne :~1 the Plaun1ng Com.mission. P.i..ar.ning Director Sisk eX-
J'lllined that · ':o rcanon fol' postponement of Appl:loar.ion 6-TM··70 was to
give tbe.~r e .... ,,_:''1ee~· Ftddit:i.t•nal t:lme t:o re<lra .. • the Tentative }tap 8.ti the
one sub1,,:l.tt:u-rl h.id. not. b.e.e-f1 drnw·n correctly U,;..t.ording to the ordj.nance~
PC-II
roll
call
ciscuss.icn
of pre11i.)us
rninutes
pni;,.gr:,pb
;ieleted
minutes
approved
·;;. ..
•
'·
miilute ordeor
letters
rt:ferre<l to
Council
Donald
F1·ol:lch
cotnmend1~d
2-TM::_70
legend
public.
hearinp,
reopened
Miuutas of th~ Pla.:1n.in~ Coraini~lSl.On Apr' 1 2
Announc.<1mcnt of Postpon~rr.r.~nts Cont'd,
Mr. S Li.;;k riaid thnt Dr~ flr<.iwn had ,\'equastc~d }h')HtponenH~nt of his Appli-i::a-
U.on 7-z ... rn to 1.11.low him addit.io11'1:l tl.me t;o •o<m•t<le-r t:hB application na
he waa d:\acusdng lh~ dispos:lti<m of ch" proren:1.
It waq movtid by Com1;1i8sjoncr Puot;i:, doconded b~¥ ('ortrtd.gaionar Buthen11th
that Application. 6-TM-70 nnd 7-Z-70 b" potH.poned to tha next t•egulnr
me<!t.ing of the Plam1ing Commj osion.
Ayc•8: Co1n.m.isoion.11ra But:henut h • Irwin, Puet. :r., Chnirti\an Hirshon
Noos: None
Abaeat: Non<?
Chair1"11n H.trnhon •dvisod th()sa in nttendnnce that these two applicatione
would be before tha Connuissi.ou at its nieecing ot May 11, B70,
Chairman Hirshon advised the cc.tnmlssion of a communication received·'
from the Kenco Engint:~erinS" C()mpany, Mr. t._1tz 1 addressed to Cupertino
Planning Commission indlcating that his pt'operty apparently adjoias the
Maintananca Department and Cupertino City yard at 10565 Mary Avenue-and
he, apparently, is interested in negotiating with the: City to sell. the
land that adjoins thia property to the C:!.ty far additional space the'
City might cont<>mplate needing in the near future. He is disturbecl, ac-
cording co his letter of April 22, that t~is has never been COll!lllunicated
with anyone on behalf of the City. Chairmnn llirahon said that thh is
a matter tlrnt aho~ld be refonrad to the Ci.ty Council •.
Co1mn.issione.r Buthenuth moved, Commissioner Puetz· secQnded and ·it ·wadJ.pass-
ed unanimcusly that this be made a minute <>rder and the-letter of-April
22 and April 6 by Mr. Lutz of Kenco Engineering be referred· to the.-City
Council. ''
~~al Cotnrnunications_
Commissioner Irwi~ said that he had a few rernarks, :."Jore in the nature of
t.hunks nnd a pat: on the back to former two-time Chairman and now City
Councilman El~ct Donald Frolich for his serviceR to the Planning Commis-
sion and t}'O City. It was unanimously ug:.:-e.ed by the Colll!nissionf!r·s that
Mr. Frc lich is a 11 great guy" and his absence· vill be a loss to the Plan-
ning Commission.
A. Application 2~TM-70, Salvatore Marchese: Tentative Map,
upproximg,tely 1.1.J acres locaterl westerly of and adjacent
to Mount Cret.~ t Drive. First hearing continue.d.
CommiE>'J.ioner Puetz moved, Commissioner Buthenuth seconded and it was
pr.ssed unanimously thr;t tlli> puulic l11onring be reopened for Ap;llication
2-TM-70.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Commioeioners Buthenuth, Ir"'rin 1 Puetz, Chairman Hirshon
Non..:~
Non~~
r
PC-8
•
•
'
Milmta"' of the l'lnnni.ng Comnii.:aion Aprlt 27, l~7.0 ..
P11b1ic il<iaring 2-TI-1-70 Cont'd. \' i, ,_,
' ,,, "., ~
Planning Director S~sk ma<le th<> pr.,oenta~l.ou snying· that thi .. •·appld.uatioo
conceJ.·ned the posi1tion to be taken on the moving· 0!~1 ,prOpo'l*rt>y~ l!i£nea:\.ttll'J~'1 I
shown on this 1'encatlve Map. By mean• o( visual. nid" he poir1ted out ·
hrce.tn A, B, & C ~nd tho property linen involvad saying •that tha1:pro1ilem
was the 1'e11>ulting 11ize of Pnrc"l B which is approxi.Mlltuly 10,000 9qunt•t-J
feet •· much less thlln the ~oning of: 22 ,000 uqt111re feet for· thie propert ,
,J j :; .. , -,
Mr. Sisk sal.d that l'srcela A and C are within tho limits' 'lf the· 11oning
but, ir. order to approve Parcel. il, "" action would have fo be' ·taken' ccn~'
cerning th,, Aizc eHh<>r by Variance or b)' n change of ~"ning.;' lie' said'
the owner of Parcel C want• to trnnafor it to 1:mot:hm· pel:'aon··nnd"~he .,. ..
buyer would like to be surl'! he has a bu:i.ldabla lot, The entire map of
three lots is h1mg:lng on the divhion betwMn Parcels A and ll.·
; ! ' ' ' "; < ~ J
Mr. Sisk said he had discuosed thi$ mattet· with the three sap .. rate:.own«1'$
of the three parcelS and they have been urrnble to roach any kind of ·d,e~
cision as to <!x11ctly what will happen. 11" sr;id thie is a matte"t' that ·
cannot be negc>tiated by th., City staff and that it it goins to be up· to
the pr.opci.rty mmerfJ. ; ;-
.. ,._ :.' -, ·.I
pc ... a i.\ ~; ~ .. :; .~
page 3
i;cl t';·1r,: ·.~.,·.
i..,•i ·!·~H~ l n ·. F
proaentatiou
\•d :
Y• '), r
'· ,., .. · : ···.:·
opiUion of
Hr. Sisk then asked the City Attorney 'if the illegal division 'bet:weeri ,.
Parcel A and Parcel B could be overlooked until such tim~ as they in-
tend to build on thi.s property. City Attorney Anderson tceplied·lt:hat •"
the Subdivision Orditu•nce require.a that when a Tentative· Map is filed;"
th:ls leads to a Final Map signed by a City t;nginear 11'1d .he• verii'i..S : ' "
that all of the ot'din~nces. of tbtl City have been complied· with;.' •Tbis .. '
is an illegal lo~, he> said, and he woui.d l\Ot reco!lltnend· that'..the Cicy '·" .
City Attorney ,
Engineer «ign such " nmp. " · " ·. 1
-, : t:.
Comn1isoio1.er Irwin addr9.ssed a··question to Mr. Chase, thi.~ developer','
saying that, according to the minutes of the last n1eeting, it was in-
dicat<'d the original grade vns proposed at 22%, the City ·scaff 'wanted::
15% and it was compromised at 17?. which resulted ina·,.•'·<luo:.imir,.the si:u.n:t
Lot C. It was his ulld()rstat>ding that this' reduced tho ai~e of Lot A·:.: ..
rather than I.ot C. This was verifh•d by Mr. Chase.
Kr. Chase also cl&rified the fact thflt the $650 was io escrow for the
purpose of bdnging the grafle of the driveway to that: requested by th!\
Fire Departrncmt for better access J>y fire ~ruck.a when building is per-
mitted on the lot.
Commissioner Irwin moved that the minut•1" of April 13, 1970 be correcte
on page 31 in paragraph 1, to 'read, ''The compromise of 17% resulted in
the reduct:f.on in the size o.f Lor. A11 • Al~o. the't the statement on page
first paragraph, conc~l'<ling the money in eecrov, should be changed to
·read as follows, nne se:;i.d the coeit.s for the drivaway were in escrow for
the purpose of brinflitlg the gr"de to that request"d by the Fire Depai:t-
ment when building fa pe1"tnHted 011 th.e lot", thereby clarUying thllt
there is only o small change that would be brought about by the money
that is in escrow -nol the entire driveW3Yi street and curb as stated
in the prevtc•us 1i;i.uutBs,
requAs t for
correction t
lllinutes
'}'
·:
<
' "
page 4
corr~ctior\
to minut~n
rom'l rk!'i by
~t~Vt.· li.'p~r
comrnr~nts by
Clty
Attorney
Anderson
2-TM-70 -·---continued
B-Z-0!0
9-u=-715 ---·-legend
rtlnutes of the. Plnn.nit\g Commit-J:m.A.on A{!.r.cl 27 _ 19 tl'
Public He.a r.tng 2-l'M-70 Cont'd.
The l\loi:ion for a corrcctio•\ to the m:J.nur.:~s. w~~s eoconded. by.,C~·~li'~etl'.'
Puct1z: and passed una.n:f.ro.ously. .,,, : : J_.·: .... i·,; ;(,•·
· : l 1 u( ' ·i.
Mr. Cluian chen gave the h:l.•tory ~oncei:nJ.u.i thu trm:isfct· of. 1.0,r •. •. 100 IUll!
Parcel B saying that he. had sold the•c t•\> lot« '"' 0110 ~ui,l,11.t.i•s site .
to Mr•. WJ.lliam". lie aaid that by makl.ng thti change in 1.he sl,ze of ..
Parcel l3 and re.questing a Vux:in.1H::e. Mro. \olill.iama coul<l hn.ve two build-
ing sJ.tmi. Mr. M.urclH~•e wns w.1.lling t.o let her have 2,000 S<tll1.t.re
feet from hh1 adjoining parcel if she will coopurate. Mr. Chase said
th•\~ he did not beli<lva M:. Ner.chesu, and Mr. Willian1son ~hould be penal:l-
rnd and they 11rn ready to build.
I i ·\'•
Ci.Cy Attorney Anderson rev:!.owsd th<i remark• made by Mr. ChMe and sa;l.d
they .indicated to him thnt Mrs. Williams was to recei.ve a single build-
ing site out of this. lf. this is the case, he said, there is a coo:-
binntion of 114 and 100 in a single building ~ite in the owne:rship of
Mrs. Will.ium• and he could soo no problem. lie said the problem seemed
to arise in efforts to split the aalu mode by Mr. Chase to Mu •. Wi.lliama
as to give her two build.ing sites whi.ch was not conteir.p~ated in the .
original sale and he could seo no 'hardship if she intended to buy a
single lot "hen sh<i bought 100 plua ll4. ,,
Mr. Anderson continued that .if there was no hardship ndsi.ng .out of that
transacti.on, if she was not mislead by Mr. Chase thnt the.re we_r<I!\. two:,
building siteo, if she knew she h&d a single building site then where.is
the hardship arising out of tho zoning that would give rise to a Vari-
ance of either llif or 100?-Simply let the two stand as a si;1gltt lot and
she is taken care of. He sal.d that then the questioll comes as to where
does this leave Parcels A and C and, apparently, that is a separate. pro-
blem.
Connnissioner lluthenath moved, Commissioner Irwin seconded that Appl.ica-
tion 2-TM-70 be conti.nued to the ne><t meeting.
Ayes: Cow.missioners Buthenuth, Irwin, Puetz
Noes: Chairman Hirshon
Absent: None
D. Applications 8-Z-70 and 9·-U-70, Ron Rifredi: Rezoning
from Rl·-10 (Single·-fomily Residential) to ML (Light
Industrial), and Use Permit to allow retail sales of
mixed concrete sold in batches not exceeding one cubic
yard. Approximately .58 acre loca.ta.d at 21677 Stevens
Creek Boulevard, west of and adjacent to Southern
Pacific Railroad and approximately 200 feet north of
Stevens Cr.eek Boulevard. First Hearing.
presentation Mr. Sisk presented these &pplications saying this is a re:quef:i!t for a
Use l'crmLt to alloiv the continued sales of concrete and also, a re-
quest fen· a change of zonJ.n~ from Rl to ~n. on a pot'ti.on of the property.
PC-8
•
•
'·
'
•
Minutes of the Planning Cotnmi•sion 11prl.l 17, ! ,.10
Public Hearin& Cont'd. -8-Z-70, 9-U-70
Mr. Sisk showed aHdM of this pr<>pert• and· ""fJ~al.ated the existing sit.
tion. Mi-. Ron Rifred1, 10052 Adrl.an Av.mu~, Monta V1Bt11, said tl1at nl-1
though he was not the owner <>f thia pr•>perty there •~I'S no probfem :l11 re-
PC·8 a ,_. ,
page 5
remarke of
applicant
moving the billboard as r"'l"~sted by the l'lAtml.1111 CoounJ.soion. A.l~P, 1\0
told the C<>mmbsion he planned to put in a ,:ha in link .fence' with 4' inch
wood slate :ln place of the fonc" that ia in bad .-epair,' Thu· applicant
stated that h" had read th<. cond~.tions imposed by the Planning Commisdon
and thllt ho. would do evtlrythillg poudbl<' to compl,y. ·. . . . I
Chah"lllnn Sm«ll of tha Archit,;ctural and Site Approval Committee C8l!IO for-
ward and stl!ted that he did not have Any obje.otions to the uPe of this I
property. When it w,1s fira t pa•sed .:arca1n 1M1dacaping condit:lo!!i;, wer"
laid dawn for this aren which have not been k<1.pt becauae. the business hn
1
d
changed from one operator to another. The Architec.tural and. : S:lt<i App. rov,-,
al Committee would lilrn sou1e 1wn ot condition in the Use Permit which
e.nhrces the upkeep of the landscnpi.ng wl·,en thurn is a change of ·operator.
remarks by
Chairman
Small
Members of the ,•udien.:e who spoke in oppo~ition to the use and zoning 01 citizen
this property we1:a: Mr. Martin Hammond, 21297 Me.te.or. D.i:;ive; Mrs·. "nn. "'. opposition
Angur, 10185 Empiru Avem1e; Mr. R. D. Koenitzer, 10060,Phar Lap Drive;
Mr, Martin Jacobsen, Sh,mnon Court; Mr. Bruce Winninger; 10298 M&nn Drive.
When asked if anything had been done to prevent hfa tn1cks from sp,~11:1.nJ
concrete on the streets, Mr. Rifredi replied that back splashes w~r" be.ing
inf:ltalled Gn these trucks x.,..hich would corr..act this. Other objecti.Orui"
mentioned were the lack'of llpkeep on this property and the dllat created
' I', by the concrete operation.
Conu:iissiotH'r Irwin moved to continue Applications s'...z-70 a:.id 9-U-.70 to 1he
t:he meeting of May 11 which was seconded by Commissioner Puetz.'
Ayes: Con'!llliss:!.onerl:l Buthenu th~ Irwin• Puetz, Chairu1_an l{irsh.on
Noes: None
Absent: None
Chairman Hirshon cnll~d a recess &t 9:50 P.'-'.
The 1n<.~eting was recon'1en1-~d at 10:00 1,.1-t.
Chairman Small asked that conditinns aet down by the Architectural and
Site Approval Conunittee be a part of the zonil1g ur the granting of the
Use Pe:nni t 1 poJnt1.ug out again that enforcement was a problem be.cause
of the changes of ownerships of businesses within the City. He said
that in the lldoption of the Architectural and Site A.pprov"l CommittM
and the Planning Commission m:tnutes, or a com.binati.on of both, it
would give a little more 11 '::at~th 11 to enforcement of the conditions aS"ketl
for. Under Use Perini ts, he said, thert~ would be more of a chance to
enforce conditions recommended by the Com.inittee.
City Attorney Anderson said that the City has che power of site control
which covers drainage, the rlght par.king areas and the various elements
thac affect property. This is provided for in th<> Building Code with
proviuions that are permanent so that even the zoning itself could be
8-Z-70
'§::U-70
con tinned
request by
Chairman
Small
page 6
oprnJ.on of
City
Attorney
Andcruon
remarks by
Chairman
Hirshon
Member
McLaren
spe.3.ks
\. 'I' !I; i'~
Ci.ty Attorney's ramal.'.'kS cnnr:1 <1.
revoked. Also, the lluil.diob ll•l·"' :mont "'"'· "n:<>r~ema11t pow<>rs to, .cnfqr<~e
Building Permits which ar.e pasa•>.d upon alt., :.:onr.rnl' which "are a "part'O£
the Building Code and, therefot·o, they Jrnv~ 'i'''.cnty of teeth. ·Mr. Anderson
said that he was always l.n fovor. of tho Archlt~~r·iral and Site 'i\.ppi:ov111
Committee leaning heiw:lly on site control b<>c11~sc they do have power'. ..
through tho Jluilding Inspector and th11t was tl,.,· d1nn11elhaHon. that we
originally plnnnRd. ·
Mr. Andm·son continued, saying thnt :lt is not on all building a that we
have Use Permits or all uses -only a limited number, say ten per cent.
Be ccmld not see any reason why, in this ten petcent when it is known
a Use l'nrnlit is g0ing to ba required by ordl.nance that a condition of
the Uoe Permit cannot be recornme.nded and i.nserted in the Use Pem1tfrom
a department and the :tnaertion of this condition would give an additional
1·emedy, The other remedies on control.lihg private property meet a tre-
mendous amount of resistance by private property o~'Uers because they do
not want to spend tl111.."l: 1noney to get rid vf weeds, etc. Under the special
act for weed abatement you have the'power to ~o in and enforce th3 us~
of people's property. In many co,;es, however, it will not come up to'
th<> stcmdarr!s thac we would want ·" "" were the tenants. He said two
n1Athods of controlling this nre. >nc, site control and two, Use Permits.
Also, the City can impose any condl.tions to a Variance. He suggested'
that these powers should be used carefully and never abused. If a use
is conunercial t!oe fact that the upkeep is not done :tn. the manner. we like
is pretty hard to enforCl": in any court.
Chainnan Hirnhon remarked that the City Attorney's opinion seemed to· be
that the Planning Commission should try to help the Architectural' and
Slte Approval Committee in imposing conditions whenever possible. The
Planning Commission is a11 official body created by the l'lannini\. 'J\ct' of
Srate and this would bt~ an official net. He said there is nO ·r·eaS011 ·
why the Site Control Committee can't refer any condition to the Planning
Ccmmission end a.>k that this be mad" a condition of their reGommendation.
Mrs. Juanita Xe La" en spoke briefly saying that there definitely is a
n£-ed for stronger en:orcement as there are many violations. She said
the ArchJ.tectura~ and Site Approval Committee had appealed to thOI. Coupcil
.3.Bking for assistance on t!i.is. _, ·
City Attorney A•>derson stated that occasionally the City nlight take legal
action on a flagrant violation w:f.th substance tvhi.ch would warrant the
e>..penditure of City funds but the success or failurtl of these bodies and
this City dapends upon the willfol cooperation of the citizens. He did
not think a hdt .. i policy is in order.
There was no unf!nished business.
l'C·S
•
..,_.
•
•
•
Minutes of the Planning Com.111111-f;i• .1 •\f'' ll 27, .• ~11U l'C-8
--:·:a.';•,·,l};1 page!.
New· Busin.nas ------: .' 'i.
A. RAE LANE: Prop(IBC<l a.lignm<mt for futun• extension.
Plrannins Director Sisk and Assiata1.1t: CHy I~nsioeer. Vl.$kovicl1 prnen;e{'
thh prnpaiaal, poi1'ting out the locutl.on by a1eana. of ·v;lfl\llil., ~;ld~.· .,; , '"'
'; ,·
Mr. DJ.ck Willots, 1241 Weymoth Drive, San Joo.,, spoke in opposition to
this proposed nlignmcnt. a~~ qu~sti.oned the nccesaity that the proposed
exi;enaion had to be dictllted by the existl.ng buil<lings on. the, 11He in-
asmuch as some of the buildings hi>d been tc>rn down.
' '
Commiseionl\r Pue>.z moved for a minute order to adopt .th;:\ i:ecommendat.:ton
of the !'lnnnlng Department M to th• alignme.nt of Ro.e Lan" ,as p;coposed.
CommisBioner Buthenuth sec.onded and it wna p~1soed unani..1nous.ly.
B. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD: !Hacussion ot status of the
boulevard relatj.ve to d:.rect. vehiculi\t' access.
Rau Lane
discussion
min1ite order
)_; .·.
presentation
by
Pla;1ning
Plannj_ng D:Lrec.t:or Sink pointed "ut. the t11:Cil involved by mean$ of' ViS.ual
a.ids saying it contained appro:x,j_mntBly J. I+ .acrt?s currently zo~ed R·J .. ~~t~
16 dwell Ing uni ts per sere. He siud s developer has presented a plan to
the City for construction and a Tentative <-lap will be betorq the Com-,
ml.ssi(,.)l'l. at the next me.eting. He said the: Ci.ty lul6 been interested :Ln thtl
past in maintaining Foothill Boulevard as a rastrict:ed access .<oad<~<IY _,,
and this property does indicate a number of driveways exiting oqtp , .,.
FoothUl Boulevard. The reason for bringing this to the Commission was
to get a definite position on the matter.
c ·Director
' Barnard Ponsegi of 22350 Cupertino R1..1ad indicated his concern over .the,
dU1,,eing of additional traffic oni:o Fo<>thill Bculeva.rd and asked U any'~.
thing was going to be done with the access uf Cupert:ino Road onto Foot-
hill Boulevard.
Cha:inuan Hirshon l"C'plied that what was under cons:i.derativn now was the
possibility of channeling the flow of traffic.
Mr. Bruce Winninger, 10298 Mann Drjve,also W8S concerned about the
ingreBs and egress of Footh:l.11 saying that in Sunnyvale the development:s
were now being built with the back of the development facing Highway 9
and thought something similar might be done here. Ile did not like the
idea of having four entrances and exits for tl1is development leading
to a main thoroughfare.
Mr. R. D. Koenitzer) 10060 Phar Lap Drive, als0 was concerned about the
drlvE~ways facing onto foothill BoulevarC and thought that sooner or
later these pE>ople would havc to use Alpine and Salem to. ge~ to-their
developments a11d tl1ought these streets should be ut:l1zcd tnste2d. · ·
}Ir. Gary Johnson of J. Cyril Jol1nson Inv~sl~011t Corporation of 125 Willow,
Menlo Park a11d Mr. Leroy Johnson, the 11rchitect, explained their site pl~n
say:tng the·:J.."t~ intentton was to create a desirable and healthy atmosphere
tor the people in this development and \1Jd plan£1ed it so as not co heve
Foothill
Boulevard
discussion
pas., 8
opinion
stated by
City
Attorney
Anderson
Minutes of the Planning Co1nmission.Apri. 27, 19.0 PC-8
' . : : '"-'•
l'oothill lloulevard <liscuosion c.ont 'd, . ,-.,
row houming along Foothill Doul.,vard. Mr. Leroy Johnson, the Architect.
nt11ted that h .. felt much of the 11roblem ot ttaH1c on Foothill.cwu1du•',
t.'' the varying ":ldth• and Uken"d it tu na .. com Avettu<t in Campb•ll ,,:n•d;
his off.ice, where the sudden narrowing <ii th« stteet craates a bottle-
neck.
City Attorney And.,rson stated hi• opi1'ion that the staH ~hould·be :•: ••,
diroctod to conduct n stud.y of accaoses along the complete Foothill.· .·r,
and a resolution ba ndcptod. To adopt a policy ot accoa& of an express-
way should take a wtudy of that expre&SWRy, he uud, ·nod a resolution:·
by thrt City so that we can 1"<'n on future applicant• whet> they come:in
and so we don.'t go through th1s typ~ of discussion e:.o.ch time4 We are
judging a Tentnt:i.va Map when lt iti not bl~iore us~ he said.
Commissioner Puatz moved thnt the staff bo directed to roake a study re-
stsf f direct-gar<ling access to Foothill Boulevard, the study forming the basis for
ed to mak" I a resolution. Thls motion was seconded by C0mmissionor lluthenu~h and
study passed unaniniously.
':;'
c. SlDEWA:,KS: Discussion of sidewalk standards.
postponement It vas the consensus of the Co1~nnission t:o postpone discussion of side-
wlllk standat·ds to the follow.ing meeting.
~~ ournment
It was moved by Commissioner Buthenuth, Geconded by Commissioner Puetz
that the meeting be adjourned, and the motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Hirshon adjourned the meeting at 11:30 P.M.
ATTEST:
4£1~~2 -~~---'-'[;7"--------
City Clerk /
•
• •
•
•
•
i
l
•
CI'!:Y 01' CUl'J::RTINO, Stat:e of Californ.li\
l.0300 Tot·re Av,\nue, Cupertino, Calif.;irnia
l'honri: 252-4505
MINll'niS OF ~'ill! REGULAR MEllTING 01' THl! PLANNING COMMISSION··
HELD APRIL 13, 1970 IN Tl!E COUNCIL CfWfllERS, CITY l!ALL 0
cun:RTI!IO. CALU'Ol!NB
,,,,·
Chainu:rn Uirahon call"d the ma<>ting to orde·c lit 8 :03 P .M. and led the
011.l.utc t:o the flag.
,;,,
Commissioners prMeut: lluthnnut.h, l'rolich, Irw'in, Puet•, Chairman
Hirahon. Alt>o prese!lt: City Attorney Anderson; Pla1ming Director Sisk·
Asoiatant Planner Cowan; AaHistant City Engineer Viskovich; City Clerk
Ryder.
~J...!:12~t£~~__re.vioua Meet:f.ngs
Commissioner Puetz comme11ted that during the mMtfog of March 23, i970 1
during the public hearings on Applications 4··Z-i'O and 7-TM-70, there had
been amne rebuttal comments that were not included it\ the written
tn:i.nutes. These conunerits 'Were made 1.n reference to the density :as pro-:;
posed by the Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation. He !'aid· that ..
he would like the record to reflect his thought that the City'Cou11cil'·"
indicated it wanted a l<!sser density tha11 that proposed by the 'applican
It was moved by Commissioner Irwin, seconded by Commissioner Buthenuth
that the Minute8 0f March 9, 1970 and March 23, 1970 be approved. The ..
motion was passed unanimously with Commissioner Frolich requesting that
the minutes shO'J that he abstained from the vote on the March 23,·1970
minutes.
It was moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded by Commissioner Irwin and
passed unanimously that Appl.tcation 6·-TH-70 be postponed to the meeting
of April 27, 1970. This was in accordance with the request as reported
by Plannillg Director Sisk.
Written Corn.munica~J.~
Mr. Siok report(.->.d a letter reccivt~d from Intersil who asked for pennie-
PC-7
roll
call
addition to
minutes
minutes
approved
6-TM-70
postponed
s ion to use trailers for off1"::e purposes during the time the new build-
inz :Ls under construction. I
Cc.1m1J1isBioner Puetz moved that this matter be carried forward to the Ne~
Business portion of th~ agenda, The motion died for the lack of a second.
I On the assurance by Pl1mning Director Sisk that this requtist was reason-
able it was moved by Commissioner But!1enuth, seconded by Co1nmissioner f
Irwin nnci pasG1ed unanimously that the Planning Director be authorized to
grant this re~uesc until August lr 1970.
Inter ail
request
approved
<£-
pnge 2 1-linutea of. P l~u.t1lnA,
,1 r '\ 1·, .. '!' •"'' ;'/, IT:
Written Communications cont'd. .: !
It thm1 wan the conacMus of the Commissionors that future decisions of
/ this natur" could be nu>d<> at the ~tnf.f level pr.ovitlins:,~l1&, .i:M~e&tm were
re.neon.able,
There ~'10t'(~ no oral conm1un1cationa.
A. 2-TM-70, Salvutoro Marchese:
l..l-1 acres located wastorly of
Cr.eat Drive. First Hearing.
Tentative Map, approx.
and adj act>.nt to Mount
The application was presented by Mr. Sisk who used visual aids to depict
the subject lo cat ion. aud problems involved. He said that there were
three parcels involved in this Tentative Hap but that there were t"1o dif-
presenta tion ferent zonings iuvolved. The zoning for Parcels A nnd B required 22,000
squnre-fooc lots while Parcel C required 15,000 square-foot ,lots. The
1,nanige <>f thn othct" parcels ill th;!.s area wae ona-balf acre ::.'o'ta.
zoning
problems
review
requested
He described the difUcul.ty as O!Je having a, ,sanctioned ~ap which 'had
been signed by the City Engineer irnd recorded when the lot splits did
not conform to zoning requirements. The .present proposal is fo1· l'arc;al
B to ho reduced in aize bJL approximately ·1,450 ~quare feet and Parcel C
to be reduced by approximately 2,020 square ft:l.et. The resulting size·
of Parcel B wol.ld then be less than permitted by the zoning on the pro-
pe tty.
The proposed prop"rti: Hues have been recorded, Ly reason of sale, ,however,
until a Te.1'tative Map has been approved by the City, the lot lines 'arii 'not
legal. The previous zoning occurred in July, 1967 which established a
minimum lot sJ.ze of 22 ,000 sq_t•We feet. A Tentative Map was approved in
August, 1967 dividing the property into two lots. The parcel ma.p that
did not coi.fonn to the approved Tentative Map made Parcel A 26,136 square
foct and Parcel B 13,068 square feet.
It was reported that the F:ire Department had registered 'its opposition
in 1967 to the propo•ed grade of the street but the street had been ac-
cepted by the City.
C.:ommissioner Buthenuth requested that the condit:ions previously imposed
be made avaUable fer review. Conunissioner Puetz was in favor of post-
poning thl.s application so that the engineers could :nske a proper review
for drainage requirernenLs, slopes, etc.
Mr. Salvatore Marchese, the applicant, said that he was a victim of cir-
cumstances not of his own making and the problem could be co!"rected be-
cause Lot B p,lus the indicated Lot 100 which adjoined it was 01.'ned by
the sruno person.
PC-7
•
•
•
opinion of
City Attorney
comments by
owners
Minut"s of che l'lann.ing Comru.iGBion April 13, l.970
page 3
Applic11t!on 2-111-70. cont'd.
Chnirroan Hi rs hon then asked . tho ci»cumstancea as to· how' 'c;ha ma\l''woia' ''t'e;..~
corded. To this Mr. Neal Chauo idontili~d hituelf au th·e devElloper' "iind' i
said the original gredo h.ad bean pi:opooed at 22%. The City staff bad ..
wanted 15%. 'l'h~ compromise of 17:t roault"d in s redu~tion in the siZe
of Lot C. !le otreued that all of this had bMn done in conjunct:ton' · ··' '·
w.tt h the City a ta ff. l!e nddod; howev1>.r, that a dvil cn11ineer did' "
not properly staka the lot: li11r; and n cut was 10adn accordingly. This
was not discovered unt.U tlrn new owner hnd made 11 survey. He said he
then sold Lot 100 and Parcul ll a• one pac':taga to make up for the smaller
parcel. He concendod he had made <I commitment to Mr. lfar.-:hesa based on
the comprombe and word of the CHy staff, nnmoly the City Planner a11d
C.tty Engineer. Appt·opriate pli!.na t1ere made accordingly. He said the··
costa for the dd\•eway, street and curb were in escrow to bring the
grade to thnt requested by the Fire Depat'tmc1lt when building is permit-
tlld on the lot. He gave his Msurance that all constructio1l would be
to City standards.
Commissioner Irwin said that i.t would appear the Col1l!Uisafon would have·
to make the beat of a very confused situation. Unless it chose to ig-
nore the situation, something had to be done. In answer to·his"qued-
~ion if Lot B never had met the minimwn 22,000 square foot requfrfln\ent,
Mr. Chase said the interpretation by r;he City staff did not ·make :this
necessary.
After Mr. Chase reiterated the buyer h.e.d purchased two lots for-one
building site, Conunissianer Ii:win suggested that these all be brought
up to standard by Co!llbiriing the two.
Conuniasioner lluthenuth asked the City.Attorney if a Tentative Map
could be passed when it ;ms no~' in accordance '1ith the zoning to
which Mr. Anderson repli•'d that it could not without a Variance.
Chairman Hirshon asked if exceptions could be made by the Tentative
Map. Mr. ;\i1deraon said that this could not be applied to lot aizea.
Mr. Sisk answered Commissl.ottex· Frolich' s questions by saying Val'iances
were applien co ordinances and not to rezoriings of property.
At this point Mr. James Williameon idendficd himself as the owner of
Parcel C and said he had a buyer for that pa.rc~l and was cancer~1ed
about gettins a declnion on th1'1 application. Mr. Sisk added that
the sale could not be made without a decision affecting Parcel A be-
cause of the lot lines inve>lved,
Mrs. Juan~. ta Williams a aid ahe wao the owner of Lot B and Lot 100 11nd
thought that vhen Hhe had purchased these she could bu:lld on both.
She stated she had no intention of combining the two lots. She re.-
plied to Comr:iissfoner Bu tho.nu th' s inquiry that she would not condder
any adjust!ll•>nts between Lots B ond 100 to make both bul.ldnble without
fir.ct hi~ving a s.,Jrvey and al.-chitwctural plans.
•i-
;:.
page 4
suggestion
of
commissioner
ruling by
Chairman
Hirshon
2-TM-70
cc;;;-tlnued
Minutes of Planning Cc...i..m!a!i 1 1,, · 1 ;, .. , 19.7C
'' Applicatfon 2-TM-70 cont'd.
, , :";'.·I.•'.\'. __ ( !'t•iJ!::: .. if'li:'/1
Chairman llirahon impressed on the peopl1.< pr.iaent that the 'l'entative Map,
could .not be. approved as subrnitted b.acauae it,.d;id not, 1neiit;,,t)\e, i;e-i11;Li::1>r,
• ' -··-. ' ,J, l '.," ;,.·;.,, lt.'J'"'''" ,,i._,,,;,, ...
ments of ,the C:lcy ordi11ancas. , , . , , , , , " , , . . , ., • ' '. . ·, ,. .. ,., • .,~ 'i .,.,.•,, ,,,_.,, ,1,_ ,._,, '; ··~·,:-· .c;,
CQmmisaioner Frolich suggeac'ed that' tha 'staff meet witli all1 'of t;lie' a!':-."
fected owners to try an<i ~cioi:dinate .some :reso;J.ution of thl.'a,,problem.,''';'
He augeeated the poasibiHty of combining Lot B and Lot 100. on a, .tempo.-
racy basis and then later. splitting them into .t.wo valid lots·.. · · ·
, , J ' _> , • ., ) '' , ' • , ' .,, L; ', "j J
Commissioner. Buthenuth. said the, Commiaaim< had on.ly one alternati:~e',,; ': ,'
either deny the application o,; contfrme it.
It was after the applic.ant, Mi. Mar.cheae
relative to o::fern of dedications, sale,
ruled that private negotfationa were not
mission.
and Mr. Chase, 'made statements
etc •. that'· Cha:trm11n' Hirshon .
a matter for the. PJ.snning c"o1n-· . '• i' -' '
' ~ !
It was moved by Collllllissioner Irwin, seconded by Commissioner
and passed unanimously th.at the Public Hearing be closetl .•
• ,· ': ",' ' i
, I . . .
Buthenuth ·
It wao the contention of Commissi.oner ~uetz th'\t. ,the .·st~£,(:s,l~ou'l~,;~,;~, '.~:
vestigai:e poMibilities of compromise b.ecauoe of the .in,volvell\ent ,of .th<1 ·
' '' ' ,·_ ._. J ·' ' 'l•j . ' CJ.ty in being a party to improperly abed lots. 1 · '· 1, · · ·: ., ;: ·
It was moved by Cummisaioner Puetz, seconded by Commissioner Irwin and
passed unanimously that ApplicatJ.on Z-'fM-70 .be .continued to April 27,,,
1970.
B. Applications 19-Z-69 & 18-U·-69, James G. Boghosian:'·
Rezoning from 1'1-l.0 (Single-family Residential) to
'; ,' BQ (Quasi--PublL Building); and Use Permit fo+ .·. .
fraternal lodge. · l. 603 acres lo.cated atso.uthwest' ,:
corner of Homestead Road and Maxine Ave1iue.· Second·
Uear:!og.
Planning Director Sisk reviewed the patit histo1:y of these applications'
presentation and efforts for the Moose Lodge to obtain llfJproval of a Use P';'l"1lli.t ,,to
uti.lize the existing facilities on the property for a fraternal lodge.
With visual aide he deacribed the sito location.
possibilit.y
of swimming
pool in the
futu;:-e dis-
c:ussl~d
Mr. Finkenbindec, 924 Henderson, Sunnyvale, re.precenting the applicant
and the Moose Lodge, offered that when approved there vmuld be. a Solid.
board fence to replace the existing chain fence. Windows in the exist-
ing building would be removed and boarded in solid to reduce any poten-
tial no:tse. He said parking facilities were more than adequate. ·,
To Commissioner Uuthenuth 'a question on the possible' location of a
swimming pool, Mr. Fillkenbinder said that ther<' were no p11'ns at pre-
sent for the installat.ion of "pool, however, sh<>uld this ever change,
say in ten years, it would appear the moat logical place would be that
near Max:lne Avenue~ Comrnissioner Puetz requested that a condition· re-
gulating this be added to those already suggested. Mr. Sisk replied
that th1s w0uld constitute a rnajo,-charige and would have to be brought
'f!C-7
•
_.,-, -
i -..
;·,
•
•
petitfon
introducad
opinion by
City
Attorney
complaint •
explanation
by
applicant
liqu.c.r
lJ.cense
p:ing
r
Minutes of P 10:.nlk· _,, ,,· -~·
Applications 19-Z-69, 18-U··69 cont'd •
back before the Planning Commission.
. . , ' ' c; . < :-i·, ii-' :·:i ·. i · 1(:";' :
Mr. SiE!k. then introduced a petition he ,h.ad received which wall .11·.to)!:om ,;f,µ
opposition to the total project and fo par~icular in. oppqaition' 'to' .. rhe .·.· '
granting c' a liquor license b:• the Alcoholic Beverage Control. Com-
missioner ~uetz naked~£ tba aales of liquor could be· made a condition
only if accep~able to residents of tha area. Mr. Fint<enbinder interjected
that this was not to be a bar -· just a club room Dpen only t<' membei-s of
the lodge. · · ·
Comm:l.saioner Puetz requestc~d and Mr. Si~k
the Cupertino Swim and Racquet Club which
those suggested for this app.tication,
read the conditio.na
had not been made a
imposed on
part "of
Chairman Hirshon inquired how the City could be more restrictive than
the ABC. The City Attor11ey said this w<>uld be possible only to the ex-
tent if such restrictions applied to all activl.ties.
Mr. Finkenbinder assured Commissioner Irwin that Lot l WM not a part
of this application and no knowledge of its possible disposi,tion was . .'.
avaJ.lable.
Mrs. Fecht of 20331 Caroline Drive objected to the noitle from ,the p•e..,
sent lodge site. She said this sounded as if it came from a jj.\ke~o" ·.
1<nd usually occurred on Sundays. She said that last summer a ·childr41n1S
drum corps had practiced from 8:00 A.H. until noon, She also said that'
illcress and egress on Ma>tine Avenue would become a problem a• that,.
ntreet. was very narrow.
Tw•J other reoidents of the area t\ien spoke of their objections to, .h~ving
a bar adjacent to their back yards.
Mr. Fiukenbinde·r replied tlu1t the music complaint was over two yeai;e ql,d .•
A!: that ti.me they did have outdoor speakers by the a1.r>.rrniting pool but · ·
thi-'3 was no looger the c.ase. The drum c.orps disbanded over a year and
a half ago. He pointed out the difference hetween a bar and a private
club.
1'l answer to Chairman llirshon 's question 011 accesaibLlity, Assistant City
Engineer ViEkovich said that it was adequate in that the street was 32'
.:urb t.o curb.
The question of a liquor license a.gain l.J.as raised by Commissioner Puetz
and the City Attorney said that :-egulation would be simple if no license
wa8 j.nvolved. I! t'here was a license it would be difficult to prove that
t:he imposed regulations had not been so 1.fnposed only in objection to the
liquor. This area has been preempted by the State.
Mr. Slsk then .\nforme~ ChaJ.rman Hirshon that the parking requircmenl;s.
wex·e for one space for each four members and that a provJsion haJ been
made .for the increase i.r1 the minl.mu:n of spat:l!S as the lodge membershj.p
inc:cea.scd.
PC-7 ·
page f
page 6
19-Z-69 ----approved
18-U-69
approved
minute
order
5-Z-70
6-U-70
legend
joint
hearing
It was moved by CommJ.ssioner Irwin, seconded by Commissioner l'uetll aiut;:,
passed ununimously that the public hearing be closed.
T!1e Commission then entered into a discussion of how the vording should
be for the motions t:elative to theae .. pplications. Several tentative,'
motions were made and aubeequently withdrn..-n. ,, ":; ,
<.', ' , It then waa moved by Commissioner Puetz, ser.onded by Ccmmise:lonerFrolich
that Application 19-Z-69 be approved subject to the 12 Standard Conditions
and Conditions No. 13 through 16 as suggeated by the Planning Director.
Ayes: Comm1ssionera Frolich, Puetz, Ch.airman llirshon
Noes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Irwin
Absent: None
It was moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded by Chdrms.n Hire hem in the
absence of another second, that Application 18-U--69 be approved subject
to the 12 Standard Conditiol18 plus Conditions No. l3 through 17 as re-
commended by the Plannfog Diruot<>r with the addition to Condition· No.
17 that the Application wUl be subject to x·eview after one year..
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Commissioners Frolich, Puetz, Chairman llirshon
Commissioners Uu,thenuth, Irwin
None
Chairman JU,rshon advised those present in the audience that any appeal
of the Commission's action must be filed with the City Clerk within.five
days.
It then was suggested by the City Attorney that shou!d an appeal be filed
f;he public hearing on the Use Pennit would ha held at the same' time the
application for rezoning io heai·d. Thia then was placed in the form of
a mi.nute order by Commissioner Puetz, seconded by Commissioner 'Buthem1th
and pn.osed unanimously.
Chairman Hirshoc called a recess at 9:35 P.M. '£he meeting was reconv'!ned
at 9:50 P.M.
c. 5-Z-70; 6-U-70, Horst and Hannalore Kldmann:
Prezoning from County RL (Single-family Resi-
dential) to BQ (Quasi-Public Building); and
Use Permit to allow construction of rest home.
lot 80 on north slde of Almnden Avenue, wester-
ly of Orange Avenue, First Hearing.
It was moved by Commiosfonet Puetz, seconded by Commissioner Buthenuth
and passed unanimously that these two applications be combined iu.to on.e
public hearing.
Planning Director Sisk presented the applic,1tion through the use of color-
ed slides and visual aids. He referred the Commissioners to hJa memo-
presentation rnndum on these applications. He also reminded them that it had not
•
::·'
•
been too long ago that both the Planning Commiseioll and the City Cou1lcil
had held extensJ.ve heari.ngs on a General Plan for Old Monta Vista. •
•
•
•
1:.·. ,;'JJ;,rn.f.Y1 PC-7 t• 'J·~~~·-_ '.i
Applications cont'd. ' .
The plan calle.J for this portion of, Old Monta. Vista to retain its. r.eM•.ii'' '
sidential character. He said the existillg streets had a right-of-wayiL~ ·
of 40 feet but that the improvement made a 25 foot street.
page 1
. "
Commisaioner Puetz said that parking on \loth sides. of the a~reet would i'
not be possible llnd tt1aL any guest parking in the .. street t.'ould immobilize .. ,, ,
the area. Mr. Sisk said that on-site parking was requir•d in the ratio parking
of one apace for each six beds plus one space for each th~ea emplo,ees. ratio
Mr. Horst Kleimann the applicant, said that fears on parking avail-
ability were unfou11ded in that nona of the guests of the home,drive a
car. He said the building could be moved to make mor~ apaces.,availa.ble.
if that is what 1" wanted. The only service vehicles to come to,,tha,, ..
location would be the garbage truck and the milk truck. All other set"'1ic-
ea and facilities would be 1,y passenger car including the. delivery c.f
foad. ·
Mr. Dumont asked if this would be a nonconforming
that it would be if the applic<!tion wa• grant<1d.
that the proposed building would upgrade the area
present structures were rather d:llapidated.
use. Mr, Sisk .•aid
Mr .• Dumont. contended,
in that some of the
Chairman llirahon contended that the proposal does not comply witli the.
parking and setback i;equirements of the City's ord:!.nancea, Commissio11e
Irwin commented that the Genei;al Flan was for the x:ee:ldental character ,
to be maintained in that. a:i:ea and that this proposal was not in !<e.epi~g
with the decisions resulting from the previously.held public hearinge.
It was his opinJ.on that one exception leads to another and t.hia compounds
difficulties, Mr. Dumont's rebuttal was the.t within a four-block area j
all types of zoning could be found including Commerd.al and Light Indus':'
trial.
Mr. Ken Dray of 218/il Almaden Avenu~ presented a petitiop. ~gairiat· thi$
proposal signed by children of the neighborhood. Mr. II. L. Farnsworth,
21830 Almaden Avenue said that a rest home should not be in a i:eaidential
area. lt was his contention that this type of a neighbor~ood created
too much noise for the comfort of guests of such homes.
Mrs. Evelyn Repetti, 21800 Almaden Avenu~ sai.d she lived in Manta Vista
by choice. She said it upset her to hav" references made to dilapidate
housing in Lhat she did not consider hers to fall within that category.
It was her belief that rest homes create congestion in the area regardless
of what others say. She asked that if there was to be any typ~. of an-
nexation that at lea.st she be given n chance to i:efuse.
It was lll(Jved by Commisaioner Frolich, seconded by Conunisoioner Pue.tz an
passed unanimously that the public hearing be cloaed.
}:
nonconforming
opposition
It was moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded by Commlssioner Frolich.that 5-Z-70
Applications 5-Z-70 ar:d 6-U-70 be de.nl.ed. The motion was passed mumi-6-U-70
mously on a roll call vote. denied
Page 8
6-Z-70
8-TM-fo
legend
Mi'Jlutes of the Plannin6 Como. 1.eis:t.on .ip.ri.L 13, 1!170
Application• cont'd. -S-Z-70 and 6-U-70
ChaiTinan H:l.rahon advised the applicants of their r.:1.gh.ts of ap1ieal .to •the
City Council. . • ,.,.,:
D. Applicati.<>na 6-Z-70; 8-TM-70, Tom Traeumcr, Jr.:
trezoning from A-us. (Agriculturnl-Recreational)
to Rl-7.5 (Residential Single-family 7500 sq. ft,
lots), nnd Tentative Map 2.67 acres located south-
erly of Riverside Drive, between Foothill Bouh·-
vard and Dr-ea Roacl. First Hearing.
(),
It was moved by Commiosioner Puetz, aer.onded by Commbsioner Frolkh a11d
pasaed unanimously that Appl:lcations 6-Z-70 and 8-TM-70 be conao1idated.
into one public hearing.
Planning Director Siok presented the Applications by means of colored
slides and visual aids. In anawer to Commissioner frolich's question
presentatio11 he se.id that Riverside Drive as an acceaa to this location is 11ot too
good. He referred the Commisa:!.oners to his memorandum which suggested'
thl? possibility of a cluate.r development to a conventional 7500 aq.
foot lot development.
app lie ant 1 s
comments
discusaion
The applicant, Mr. Tom Traeumer, said that the proposal contained lots
averaging more than 8,000 square feet in siz~ and that they are more·
contiguous with River.ide Drive thnn any other access to be. He pointed
out that De Anza Circle was a one-way street. Residents of these new
lots would clrive down the proposed Avenue A and turn left around an
ieland thua being able to exit without using De Anza Circle.
Ref~rring to the suggestion for cluster development Mr •. Traeumer point-
ed out that his first proposal for the Portal area had been deftiated
by the Planning C..i!1llllission; hia sec.end p1·opoaal had to do with De Arum.
C!.rcle but this was defeated due to financing this type of developent;
the third propooal for the Hox·se Ranch crune to the same end.
He offered that he could not speak for what was to become of the balance of the
property ae sho'm on the exhibits. He said t.hat he would try· to pre.-
serve tree., wher~ver possible and also the view from each house. Because
of thl.s he had mad~ each lut approximately 115 feet de«p.
Commissioner Irwin aske.<l ~l the proposed houses would be two-story,
split level, ranch style, etc. and Hr. Traeutnf!;:" said that this would be
a lot-by-lot decision.
Chair.man Hirshon asked if any survey had been made for n southerly ac··
ceaa to t:his area aa sug3ested by the staff .md Mr. Traeumer said he
didn't own this property in questi.on so could not make such a survey.
To this :-tr. Sisk said th~t the proposal had been made contingent on the
development of the balance of. the property.
Conuni.saioner Pu<>tz thought that this developmeltt ~.11 it.self incicatcd the
need for a study for the balance of the area. Co~m!aaioner Buthenuth
thought the applicant had done all that was needed in that the appJ.ica-
•
•
•
•
. ..;,
tion shows poaeible futtire ua~. lt Wb8'llP to the City to ina:Lsc Qn
proper ecceas if and when the balance is developed, Mx<'s:!.sk replied
to Chairman Hirahon in the affirmative thet the Use Permit'!or horsea
issuo!d to Hr~;' Keeter would need to be reviewed H this'ap~l:i.catior.
was approved. · ·· · ... · .: · ·.: _,.~_,_. . . ,\.':'
Hrs. Beverly Weintraub, 22384 Riverside Dl'ive, commented ,tha,t sh,, ap·"
preciated the concern of Mr. Traeumer for the preaervadon <)f the view
but this w-as no g!.larantce t;hat it: would take place. }'!·t: Traeumer re-
plied that there waa no guarantee but th1>ught his past performance
was the best crit~ria. He said chat there was a deed restriction for
architectural control on each lot and that the integrity of the'· area
was e. matter of trust. 1
•
ComJniasioner Buthenuth asked if the applicant w~uld bo' adverse'to'a
condition on the zoning of no portion of any structure being higher'
than that of a six-foot fence, on the rear of the property line.: of' the'
existing homes. Mr, 1'raeumer said this would not create 1my problem
whatever H there w11a adequate' slope along the rear property line.'
' ');
Mrs. Norma llradden, 22234 Riverside Drive requested and recoivi.td'
clarification ao to the specific location of the subject property.
Mr. Traeumer assured her .that there would be between· twenty and forty
feet of setback for each hoi,rne from its property line ~dth thP. exist'"
ing residences.
q. __
:;•1
Mr. Bob Humphrey of De Anza Circle contended that the corner of, Droa
Road and De Anza Cixcle would create an access problem'for,the'twenty-
aeven homes involved. He said the traffic· now fa a prob km aiiil would'''
be even greater wJ,th additional houses. Mr. 1'~.rnumer pointed' out the ·
proposal for a traffic island and the left turn af~ an egress without
the ne.ce.asity of driving through De Anza Circle·. ''; ··
Hrs. Stella Kester said th'at any d~velopment by Mr. 'l'raeumer would
improve the area. She offered thst she now paid mor.e taxes than the
PC•7 >\!
page "
s.udiem:e
comments
golf course. She objected to other people wanting' to keep' her land JC'' collllllents by
from being developed arod if other people wanted protection of view J '" ' owner
sites or di,ffore11t acceaaes fr.;m the property they coulci buy th« land
from her.
It: was moved by Commissioner Buthenuth, seconded by Commissioner Irwin
and pasaed unanimously that.the public. tlearing be closed.
It was moved by Comoiasioner But.henuth, seconded by Commisoioner Puetz
and passed unanimously that Application 6-·Z-70 be approved with ·the
12 Standard Conditions plus Conditions No. 13 that buildings wHl not
exceed the hcl.ght of a six-,foot fence on tbe rear property line subject
to lndtvidual problems being worked out satisfactorily by the Planning
Director.
"'t was moved by Commissioner Buthenuth, sec0nded by Commissioner Irwin
and pa,.aed unanimously that Appl.icatJon 8-TM-70 be approved subject to
the 12 Standard Conditions plus Condition No. l3 that 11 temporary tun1-
.around l~e provided at the west end of the proposed Avenue A, subj_ect
turn~·11rol\nd to be constructed to the e-atisfaction of the City Engineer·.
6-Z-70
approved· with
conditions
ll-TM-70
approved with
conditions
pago 10
7-Z-70
Legend
presentation.
com.mentA by
applicant
audience
comments
E. Application 7-Z-:-70,, D:r. Joseph F. llr.ow; Rezoning:""'" '":'~,;
from R3:-4.2 an(Rl-:-19 (Multiple Resident~al an~ ,' : '', ,',:': ,,,
Gingle-family Reddential) to P (l'lanned Oevel•>P:.. :
ment) with intended uae 'of ML (1,ight Industrial). , '' i '·" ,,,.,
and CG (General Co-inmercial). 15 .l acres located -' ' "·'"''i•;n ,,,,,
west !Jide of Sarf'~oga-S1<nnyvale Roa1, approx;!.mete~y_".,
2000 feet north' of Stevens Creek Boulevard, 'First· ' . ' ; ' . --) ; . ·:.;
Hearing.
Planning Director S:iak presented th" application using colored· alides.: ..
and viaual aids. lie review.ed the past history of applicatio11a·,~iinilar'. ·
to this which had been &ubmitted fo-c this property by the appl:t~11nc;"'
lie said thAt this same area had been before the Commlasion in '1967 and"'
<he Commission had requ,asted a planned development approach. He said
the street pattern was as propose~ by the applicant. As e Planning·,
Diractor he thought the p1"nn.ed deve1opinent: approach was good but tha't
he did have some reservoltions for ti1is particular plan. -He questioned
the advisability of having a commercial area opr,>osite of what 'could be
a rei;ional commercial center directly across the street. He aal.d also
he was not convinced that the I.i.ght Indt1$tr:tal zoning here was proper.
Corr,miaaioner Puetz. reminded the, Commissioners ·that th.e City now had. two
Ught Industrial Parks, and if this was approved would tbe.odginal,in-;-'.,
tent of the City be destroyed? 'ae a,lao questioned the need ·for an.other
gas station.
Connniaaioner Buthenuth received informatfon
the property were 60 feet jn width and even
they were functional,
that the streets. abutting .
though they dead ended
The applicant, D<. Brown, aakerl if the Conuniasionere, had any queatio'ris::
of hiin. He saJ.d that he had a ccnsiderable personal investment· 1n this
project and while he could not specify the kinds of industry that You.ld-
go in he assured the Couunisaionera that it would bti eomn,thing .that wo.u;Ld
not detract from ~xiating b.usinessea in the area. ae t1>ld Corninieaioner'
Puetz that he had receive,d many inquiries for a smaller service type of
industry such as plumbing shops, dectrical shops, etc. ·
Commissioner Buthenuth asked if the staff had had sufficient opportut>ity
for revieVI nnd was told no -the application before the body tonight
was primarily for direction, Mr. Sisk said thnt there was no great
cause for conc~rn as to indtlstrial businesses aa a Use Permit would be
required.
Mr. Burrell Leonard of Vall.co Park sal.d he h&d no intureat in thi& de-
velopment, however, he had no objection to its being approved. He kn"w
the City always has had problems of finding the right area for certain
types of businesses necessary to t:he functioning of any City. He
thought the City did have a need for this type of zoning.
PC-7
•
•
Mr. Ray Green, 10109 Mello Place, offered his opinion that the traffic
pattern should be 1·eso.lved before the granting of aily changes in zo11J.ng,
It wa" hJ.s preference that the west s:'.de of the proposed road be J:_?,si-•
d~ntial and the east side be col!llllercial. ·
•
•
•
MinuteP. of che l"1.lannJ .. 1;, (. .. f. •11 "'· s.tvn · .'lipr .Ll lJ, .1970
pcge 11
Applk~tion 7-Z-· 70 cont'd. . .J;,.,; «1ciil !
i
Conm1isaione;.-Buthenuth 11uggeat~.d and then· put.· into motion, fo:r:t!), tbi;;r.,1tbt.11 :
application be continued to the n"xt meeting to. allow.•mo-re, tifl!e;,;€pi;.,i;A,,.: i 7-Z-70
view. The motl.on was seconded by Commissioner •Puetz ·&nd. passed unai~[,,., .: : CO::C'inuaci
moualy.
F. Application 7-U-70, Syscope, Inc.: Use Permit ·for,,
inatall..ition of a self-aervi<"' remote. controlled
gasoline dispenal.ng system at an existing Short " ..
Stop Store at the northeast cor.ne:r of Richwood
Drive and E. Estates Drive. First llearl.ng.
., ,·r; ;•
7-U-70 · _ , .
. , ,, leg~,.,
. '
Planning DJ.rec.tor Sisk presented the application again through the use
of colored slides an:! visi;al aids. H<> referred .to hi~ memorimdum to
tbe Commission and said the basis for his recommend~d denial had to do
with the U9l\B rwt being compatible, the estabHahment of an undoQi;r!lble
prer.edent and the queation of safety.
presentation
Mr. Jerry Klivan of 61 Avenida De Orinda, Orinda, Califoi·nin, . repi:e~ent
ed the applicant and cont'i!nded the uses are compatible. He said that
of the seventy ·Short Stop units :!.n existence· apprmdmat3ly si11ty ,IJ.a~i>"
a facility ~omewhat si.milal" to this. lie. sa;f.d the objections ,of 'fi;re. L
departments usuall.y were carx·ied over as conditions to the 'Ulle P¢l'.llli1;,;,
He was not lookj.ng for any hazards and wanted to have a amooth-t:unp.iiw.
operation •
•,: ;· '.!!.
Commiss1one1· Puetz agked if he was aware that the area now had ·aome .. _,.
32 gas stations and juat· rece11tly 3 of ·those. hnd become defunct·, Mr •. J
Kl:lvan Baid 'that their experience indicated this E1elf service•had .been
good for convenienc.e type opera.'tiona. , :~,··
Commiasione" Irwin said this a.pplicatl.on shoulc.! be considered in the
same light as other multiple uses. These created clutter which in turn'
craated problems. He contended that parking and traffic with ·this · ' '"
?articular convenience market was already a problem without. the.intro~
duction of self service gasoline pumps.
It was moved by Cornrn.iasionet'.' Frolich~ seconded by Commissioner Inr:in
and passed unanimously that the public hearing lie closed.
"ti':.
applicant's
comments
.' t; 1
It was moved by CommJ.asioner Frolich, seconded by Commissioner Irwin ·I 7-U-70
that Application 7-U-'70 be denied which motion passed unanl.mously. denied
Chai.rman Hi.rshon advl.sed the applicant of his rights tc appeal tha de-
cision to the City Council.
G. Application 8-U-70, Vallco Park: Use Permit for
expansion of· Hark-Systems t ln'c. on 3 .1 acre. site
1.ocateci at the southeast corner of the intersec-
tion of Hc:nestead Road an<l Tsnt;;:iu Avenue. First
llMring,
Planning Director SiAI. pres<mtad the applJ.cation and sa:ld that no problems
8-U-70
legend
page 12
8-U-70
approved
3-V-70
legend
Minut<!s of th• Plannin'.i Commhsici. April 13, 1970
Application 8·-U-70 cont'd.
had been experienced w' :·n the· first phasi; of .this development Jlqd.,i:e~"'' :•
commended thilt it be a,,,,roved.. In the absence of· nny.;quHt:i.01111 · ij; "''I'll,,,.
moved by Commissioner Puetz , .. seconded by ·C1ommissionar F~ol.ich a:qd p~~sr ·,
ed unanin.ously that the public hearing be closed. . <, """
It was moved by Co1Umias:loner Puetz, . se.conded by Commiadon'!r Irwin and.
passed unanimously that Application 8,.U-70 be approved subject to the
12 Standard Conditions.
H. Application 3-V-70, Allen Bergmann: Vada>1ce to
exter.d height of fence in side yard of reeiidence
from 6 feet to 8 feet, 21130 Gmrdena. Drive.
First Hearing.
Planning Director Siak pre.sented the applfoation for r.he requested
variance and after relating the situation causing it 1:0 be made, said
presentation that it was his opinion the ordinance requirements fot' hardsh:t.p had
not been met. Accordingly, he recommended denial.
remarks by
applicant
remarks by
neighbor
3-V-70
·denied
Commissioner Irwin offered that th2 situation would appear .to .. ba, ntor,e
of a policing or child care problem than a City problem. He thought.,
that the addition of 2 feet to the top of a :fence would not de.ter MY·
enterprising child.
' The appHcant, Allen B"rgmmm, 21130 Gardena Drive, thought that the
elevation of .the two subject duplflxes was different and this, made the
actual height of the existing fence lower than the 6 .feet.,peX'll!:L.tteq;,
He tiaid that all he wanted was privacy foi: the pat.io .area .and ·some
safety factor from the intrusion of foreign objects being thro).m civar'
the fence into this area.
Mrs. Phyllis Brewex said she was the owner of the property on the le.ft
, and that the only proof the applicant could e·,•er give to aubst.anti~;e. ·, ·
his complaint of garbage was one child's rusty hammer. She said she.
did nor want to have problems with her ne.ighbors but she di.d object to
a green plastic fenc~ which reflected green light throu~hout every
room in the house. In res1:.ionse to the allegatiCJns that there was
a jewelery making operation in the horre, she a aid this was discontinued
quite some tim~~ ago.
It \Vas moved by Con1missioner Puetz, seconded by Cownissioner Buthenuth
and passed unanimously that the public hearing be closed.
It was moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded by Conunissioner Irwin th.llt
Application 3-V-70 be den.Jed on the basi.s that no hardship had been
shown. The motio:1 was passed unanimously.
Chairman H:lrshon advised the applicant of his right to appeal ti.is de-
cl.oion to the CHy Council but that the matter would be heard by that
body at its meeting of May 4, 1970.
•
•
•
• 8-TM-69
legend
presentat.ion
8-TM-69,
approved
home
occupation
cons:l.deration
appl:Lcantts
comments
Minutes of thf! Pl~.,,.:l.ub ,., .. i.i:;..:11' ,i. j',.t'.J .. ~ l.;. IJtlJ
, ... "I
f Unfinished Business
Application S-TM-69, Claude :r •· Linds~y, '11\6'.'i .;';:: }} I
Request for extension o{ time. on Teni:a#•;e 1'.ap ' · ; )··•
A. :: n :_:· Jn~:.11t'"'
·\:J.°'l(itf1l;-; i
for Tract. 472J. located. easterly. of. North Blaney . ,
Avenue, approximately BOO feet south of Junipero
Serra Freeway. (Approved by City Council on
'1:::. ' i
May lS , 1969.)
;,\:
Planning Director Sisk said that this particular application lia,i ~een ,,,J
approved May 19, 1969 and that as with all other similar. appl:ic11tfons
they ar.e filed only for one year. The e.pplicant now reque,sted',a!\ ad-
ditional one-year ext¢:!ne.lon which received the staff 1 s :i:e~·ommeridation.
,. ' . '·•'> '
It was rnoved by Commissioner Frolich, se.conded by c;runifasi,~i1ei;-"iiu.r.henuth
that Application 8-TM-69 be e:<tended for a one-year period;" The'J,;otion
was passed unanimously.
New Business : ,i
A. Helen L. Nelson: Consideration of home occupation
(real aotate office) 1081.0 ·FiirBllone'Drive., "' · ·'
Planning Director SJ.sk reviewed the appiic~tion and the situat:lon'lead-
ing to thin hearing. He sdd that the Plani;1ing Dir,ector has <l:lacrQtion
to grant permission ,for home occupations when cuch. cl.early ''fa11 ·:,:,,1thin.
t:he requirements of the ordinance. lie Raid thore waa, eomf!. que~t':l.on &B ·
to this particular application which' is why it waii brought 'before t.he
Planning Commission. The question had to <lo with there being a re-
quirement of no access exc:ept through the resi<lentia1 structure. 'Xhis
residence does have a separate entrance to, the t"es:ide.ntial ar~a..
' ' . '··'
Commissioner 3uthenuth said that in viewing this site he noticed''another
similar operation just one black away with t.he same t.ype of entrance.
He wondered what treatment would he gl.v•m. that situation if this· one
was denied on that basis. He thought both shou:d be treated the same.
' ' Mrs. Nelson said that the doorway had been installed prior to i:he
creation of the :eal estate office as a necesse.r.y part of the structure.
She said that there was no advertising or. that door. At one time she
did have a slgn wh:Lch she removed when in.fonned that i:: was contrary
to City ordinance. Parking in itself as well as trq£fic generation
could nol be a problem in that at most there would be 01~e or two people.
per day. ~he pointed out. that there were two churches in that same:
block anct' oci:a.sl.finally there would be cars parked along the curb from
functions at those places.
Mr. Sisk cautioned the Commiss.ion on setting a precedent for realtors
opentl.ng out of their homes. He said though that if the side door
did not exist the requirements of the home occupation ordinance would
be satisfied. It also had been ascertai.ned there would be no employees.
Mr. and Mr. McCarthy, residents of Patric Court, sa:id they had seen
'} .. ':
page 14
couunents of
neighbors
comments by
spouse
ruling by
City
Attorney
Chairman's
comment a
home
occupation
approved
adjournment
Minutes of the Planning Colllll!is;;~ou
New Bua1.ness cont'd.
~i '!J.1!\!t}'ci
:
i
illegally parked carr, at this location. The telephone n1JJDber liata~ a
Bollinger Road address -not 11 Farallone Drive. 'The house ;I.a on Farallone
but with the side door entr1mce being on Bollinger' this' lends itself to
wondering if the commercia,l aspect wes not more than h~d been indicated.
Mr. Nelson, husband of the a;,plican~, said that one or two customer&
do not g1merate traffic and that hi.a wife's business was by appointment
only. He said the oign was a requirement of the Ree,l Estate Boar.d but that
it was within the a:f.ze requirements of the sign ordinance and had been
placed as far away from th<> entrance as possible. He sa:l.d'that'at one
time there had been e street number on the subject door but''th:is was done
immediately after the house had been purchased and before they knew that
lt WdS a Farallone address. The street number had bean removed but they
could not retract the listing from the telephone directory of last fall.
Commissioner Buthenuth moved to recommend that the Planning Director ap-
prove this application. The City Attorney said that this was an improper
motion and requJ,red the decision of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Buthonuth moved, Conun:!.asioner Puetz seconded that this ap-
plication for a home 011cupation be approved· for the existing use at this
location and such use shall not be expanded or altered,
Chairman Hirshon commented that it was his personal-preference to have
the si.gn rnmoved and the listing corrected, He though·t: the· existenee
of the side door, plus the sign, was too much.
l'he vote
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
on the motion
Commisstoners
Conrmissioners
No:ie
was as follows:
Bur:henuth, Puetz~
Frolich, Irwin
Chairman Hirshon .,
ChaJ.rman IUrshon advised the opponents of this application of thei_r right
to 11ppeal the Commission's decision to the City Counc:Ll,
On a motion by Commissioner Frolich and a second by Commissione.r Irwin,
Chairman Hirahon adjourned the meeting at 12110 A,!1,
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
•
•
• •
•
•
CI'!Y OF CUPERTINO, State of C41ifornfa '•'.:" ' '·'' "' ' ..{;; 'h, ,,,,,,H,,l(
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California
Phone: 252-4505 ·' : ;,u ! ·i: t''t! i ·) 1 I. d:!'}
MIIHJTES OF THE !lEGutAR Ml':ri'rING OF niE 'PLANNWG 'coMMXGS!.ON 1" ,,,.
llllLO MARCU'23, 19'70 Hf T!IF. COWCXL CHllMnEttS,' C:tT'l' HAL:C:; 1 '' .:· '·
CITPERTINO, CALIFOR11IA , , .·, ,,
Chairunn Hi rs hon ca lle<l the meeting to order at 8: 00 P .M, .~m! led "the·
salute to the flag.· . : ;
_I'.
Commissioners present: lhithen.ith (8:04 P.M.), Irwin, Puetz;''C'na:l.rinan·
Hirahon, Commissioner abeont: Frolich. Abo present: City Attorney
Anderson; Planning Dir<:otot· Sisk; City Clerk-Finance:Diiector Ryder; '·
Assistant Pl.armer Cowan; Assistant City Engin<ler Viakovi.ch. · '•·'' · .,.,.
Minutes of Previ~us Meeti!!a
Commissioner Irwl.n moved, which wa6 seconded by Commissioner Puetz and
passed unanimously by the three Commisdon,.ra present,· ·that the minutes
of March 9, 1970 be continued to the next meeting: t''! ·a110.T"sll Commis-
sioners a chance to e:Y8presa t:heir comments. r:) -i -
A!il!?Uncement of Pos tP•!!'•llll<'nt ,' '
Chairman Hirshon announced that che applicant· for· 2-'fM-70 as weu·.·~s. ;the;
applicant for 6-TM-70 had requested a postponement 01: the ·p';'ba.c: ~q,ff:l,uga
to the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1970;,
Written C'2mmunir...e.ti::>ns
There were ·no written cotrlfflunicar.ions.
Oral Communications
: i
Mrs. JuanHa McLaren requected ""d received permission to distribdte to
ti.e Commissiuners materials she had gathered on the disposition of .iban-
cloned service stations, which materials she thought. relevant to the at;ud:r
now under WllY oa this subje~t matter. ,•
PC-6
roll call
,,1 .• -1'
(,
! •'· "''•
minutes
i continued
2-TM-70
and
6-TM-70
postponed
Public J!earin$E_
A. 11-·TM-70, Mathew N.m>g: Tentative Map to .:tdjust
property line at 10301 khar Lap Drive. First
hearing r.ont:lnued.
14-'l'M-?.Q.
legend
The applicant, Hr. Mnthow Nnog, redewed for the Commisdion the circum-
otancee rt>quidng the submission of this application, A previous owner
of the property had purchased land which han been recorded b11~ which was
d0ne without the approval of the Clty. This fact was not brought to
light 'lntil the present own,,r, t:11, &pplicant, had requested a Building
page 2
3-Z-70
legend
Minute& of the Planning Coinmiaaion.March 23, .. 19.70 , .. 'i>:FJl'!'l\;:l ·;0.·cr1::i
Public Hearings cont'~.(4-TM-70)
Permit for the installation of a swimming ~ool. It was at thia time that
he discovered his J.Qt was illegal. ,Subaeq11ent. to,;.thi.'\I; !)"'; ;h.~<\;!'PPUed for
a Tentative ltiP• ~he rtrat hearing cm which was ,con~iJlued 1t.0:1this meeting.
' '
Planning Director Sisk said that the Santa Clara County Flood Control had
been advised of this application but had not as yet taken any action. It
wae Mr. Sisk' s opinion that. there .would be no .requirement by th.e FcLqo~,
Control D:lat:rict and he recommendec! that the Planning Cammiss:io.n ,take .ap-
propriate action at this meeting. · · · · '·
1t was moved by CorumiDAioner Irwin, seconded by Commissioner Buthenuth' and
passed unanimously that the public hear.ing be cloaed, . " .. , .
It waa mov.:>d by Commissioner Irwin, seconded by CoJ1lllliaaioner, l':uetz. •. that
Application 4-TM-70 ba approved subject to the 12 St11n'c!ard ·conditiorui.
The tnotion WE\8 passed unanimously on a roll call vote. " · ·
B. 3-Z-70 Pacific Gaa & Electric Company: Rezonin&.
fro1u Agricultural-Reaidentfal 1-acre .lqta. (Al.-43) ., ....
to Light Industrial (ML), 2.0. 67 aq'ea: loc~t~(f .~.a''!'ri::,u .
erly of Blaney Avenue, south. of Homeatead::Ro11d ,and .. ,
north of Junipe.ro Sena Freeway. F:f,i;at Heaiio,i.:' ".
' . I .. ; , ,. r ,,
. -, . I
PC-6
•
The applic.at:lon was presented by Mr. M. Clm;k Mlllliner, Lan<jJ.~el')i"l!.en,tative
for P. G. & E., 20065 Stevens Creek Boulevard. M:.".·Mulliner·gava a ·lJiotox·y •
of the existing use of the property saying that ,j·lf.,l.954 ~!)": Vae,,r,e.m;lt. was
obtained from the County for. a service center. ;rn.1960 an adm;lµia~ration
building was constructed for engineering. )n 1966 the build;l.n!!:'w~~ en-
larged with a Bu:Llding Ptmnit from the' City of Cupertino: · In '1968 it .. had
been dedded that the requirements for power by VaHcv .Pai:!~ necoaaitllted
a m.~jor trunsmisaion line which necessitated bringing ·this' powei"in 'from
another source or constructing a nentby suhstati,on .• , , ; , ..... ;,,
Mt'. Mulliner said that: the representatives of the City of Cupertino at
that t:lme had suggested rezoning this pc.rticolar area to i:.i.ght Industrial
for tile erection of a substation .in preference to bringing power,in from
the nearest station which is at Stelling m1d Hoinestead )l.oada~, ··
The Commission was told that r. G. & E. was advertising. for bid,s .for the
landscaping of a 25' strip along Homestead Road to screen the site. Trarui-
missi"'n lines and distribution lines are scheduled to be underground. 1'he
structure would be a low s1.lhot1ette one similar in design to the Saratoga
substation off Cox Lane,
Planning Director Si
0
ek said that th~ City of Sunnyvale had been advised
of this application and that an objection had been received indicating con-
cern relac!.ve to Industrial Zoning along the Homestead Road .frontage, .
Co1lllllisaioner Pu<:.tz expressed his opinion that the existing buildings .in
the araa already had established it a1J Light Industrial and that ·the re-•
zoniug was merely to ratify that which was i:l exJ.qtence,
In response to questions and di.scusgior-..B relative to dedication and im-
• Minutes of the Planning Commission Mi<.rch 23, 1970
Public Hearing a cont'd. 3-Z-70:
P".>vement Mr. Mulliner said that full dedication for liomest:e.ad Roao had
been made in 1966 but sidewalks hail not been inoulled. The raason,,for
l'hia was that to put in sidwalks P. G. & E. would have'had ,to pay, $1200
an acre for the antire parcel as atonn:drain ·f'd.es;· This cost·madet·the
sl clew.ill< eco11omical1y prohibitive. Mr. , Mulliner continued,.· however>, by
saying that the present Director of Public Works had thought,,the.st.o=
dralnage fees could be paid when th0 development took place which would
pemit the construction of sidewalks I.It the present time.:.
It w.;~ moved by Commissioner Irwin, 8econded by Commis"1oner Puetz,and
passed urumimoualy that the public hearing be closed.,
It waa moved by Commissioner Irwin, seconded by Commiseioner·Puetz that
Application 3-Z-70 be approved subject to the 12 Standard Condit:l,ons,
that <> dev.olopment plan be submitted to Clnd apprnved by the Planning ..
Commission prior to any development or substantial uee of t:he pro ....
perty and uubject to the installation of sidewalks on l!oraestend Road
on approval of the rezoning.
The motfon '"" approved unanimously on a roll call vote.
c. 4-Z-70 and 7-TM-70, Saratoga Foothills Development
Corporation: Rezoning 38.49 acr9s from Multiple Re•"
sident:l.al (R3-2.2), Single-faniily Residential
Rl.·'7. 5), and General Commercial (CG) to Multiple.
Residential Cluster (R3C·,2. 2), and Tentative Map.
Fire t !leering,,
:,.}
t •• ~
Mr. Jerry Lohr of Sar.1.1toga Foothills Development Corporation, 1741
Saratogb A•..-enue~ San Jooe, presented both applications '• ... Z-70 and
7-TM-70. He addressed th<; Commission saying that basically th"'1e. were
the oame applicat:lona that the Commis!lion had approved aftt<r earl.1.ei:,
hm1rings. lie noted, however, that there !lad been a mi>wr change in,
dedication on the site of the property a:>ci that some improvements had
been made j.n the park fog.
Mr. Lohr Mid thl! reason for th<> hearing on these new applicat:LoruJ was
rore a procedural i:equirement than any~hing else to accommodate. their
request for a rehearing befc»<e the City Council.. He sai.d that as 'ap-
plicants they had been remios in not adequately presenting to the City
Council facta on density as it relates to the Gen.eral Plan.. He then
dted some utatistic:s from the General Plan saying that 1,388 units
were pemitted for that general area and what with those d<!velopments
already in existence and what had been proposed in the future, the num-
ber of units would be 1,022 if their appllcation was approved, He
aaid that his de~elopment probably would be the laat one in the 175-
acra parcel pointing out that the balance ia made up of P. G. & E.
property and what had been prcposed for incluafon in the Marillni Mall.
In argument for npproval of thei-Je applications waa included a request
for the oppv ..... tun.ity to present to the City Council more of the hif!tory
l'C-6
page 3
3-Z-70
approved with
conditions
li-Z-70 and
7='""TM-7o
lss,en<l
page 4
audienc~
comments
Minutes of the Planning ·Commission ·March 23, · 1970.: -.: f; ( I i ~-':
Public Hearings continued -4-Z-70, 7-'l:M-70:
of thi3 particular ru:ea on why it .was atlJl<!.Xe.d to C1,1pei:tino ·inBt·.,ad-.of
Sunnyvale and why the zoning is as l.t.is now. He said.,the.locatiPn of
the proposed Blaney l!igh School bei.ng Oii the north cs:l.de ,of. !l.oni~tead
Road in Sunnyvale rath<Jr than in Cupertino on tha,south cJOO:l.decHas .a fac ..
tor th~t entered into it. He al~ilY. sai.d that he ha<! raot:!l·.data to .pre-,
sent to the Council on school requirements. 'fhb ~had .been obtained from
the County and it co.i ncided with what Mr. Iglehart l1111d naid as it:. had
been reported by one of the Commissioners, , , ,
ln response to a question by Chait1llan !J.:l.1:shon Mr. Sil.\k sliid that the
number of units had. been changed fl;om 758 to 754. .The applicant replied
to another question from the Chairman saying that the 7 dwelling units
per acre computed from Area 7 in the General Plan was baaed on·prE<aent
zoning and included Vallco Village, d portion of Sunnyvale in Rl, the·P.
G. & E. property, the subject property of these applications 11nd the.re-
maining 14 acres or so in the proposed Mariani Mall.
Audience comments included that of Mr. R. D. Koenitzer who made the point
that the baaic ordinance requiremoot is fur 16 dwelling units per acre with
extraordinary conditions permitting up to: 20 per acre. He maintained·
there was nothing here out of the ordinary to justify a difference.
Mrs. Juanita McLaren said she had no interedt in the uale .. of this pro-
perty but asked what had been the diapoeit:l.on of a:mot:l.on"l>Y Councilman
Stokes to have a study of the density in. the City m11de, She cited the
lac\c of a buffe1· between the coDW1erc:1al snd Rl reaidences ,in the Randy
Lane area. She said that at the present time the:fe were. ~ome tventy
$40,000 homes vacant there due to the money market and inability to
qualify. It was her contention that more apartments were needed.
Mr. Lou Mariani paraphi:>ised previous remarks by the City Attorney.on
potential legal implications if the property was to l:>e.uni.ls.terally .re-
zoned by the City.
M,, Jack Mariani, a property owu.,r, odd that at one time Cupertino bad
requested annexation of this property 3.9 a counter move to s:tmilar move-
ments by Sunnyvale. Ile said that at tl:at time the City Council, asked.
what was wanted in exclrnnge. It was hie cont~ntion that the granting.
of 20 uni.ts per acre plus a 10 acre commerd.al zoning had not been too
much. He also pointed out that he had paid s001e $100,000 overthese
years in ddditional City taxes when he could have remained in the
County.
The City Attorney interjected that he was present at the time these an-
cornme.utB by nexation negotiati.ons were being conducted. He mentioned a lawau:J.t being
City on file at that tJ.ma whl.c~1 would have made the northerly limits of
Attorney Cupertino ending a.t Steveus Creek Boulevard. He said to not recognize
the seriousness of the situation at that time and th'! r.egotiatiol18 having
taken plac.e is n.:>t a practical matter. It was his contention that if
this particular annexation had not tnken place the geographical makeup
of Cuportino would hew been entirely different.
•
•
•
•
4-Z-70
apprOVt~d
with
conditionry
} .. ::) M -7 _()_ I
approved 1
with I
r.:ondi tiGns /
•
Hewlett-
Packard
revis1?d plan
approv-i::!d
•
Minutes of the Pl,.nning Commission March 23, 1970 ., ' '~ : _j i ';! ', i·'.;
i
· PC-6:;/r.'.;
page :l
Public Hearings continued -4-Z-70, 7-TM-·70: ·' ''' J < • i" ;' -' ... ·,)'
It was moved by Commissioner lluthenuth and seconded byComm1sa!<>ner 0Puetz
and passed unanimously that the public hearing be· closed; · ' ' ,., "<
Chairman Hirahon called a re.t.:esa at 9: 15 P .M. and the meeting recon'llened
at 9:30 P.M.
Unfinished Business
Planning Director Sisk advised the Commission that there had been a proposal
submitted for a slight moclif1.cation in the development of the Hewlett-
Packard .facility in Vallco Park. He aaid that a Uae Permit does·' exist for
the development of this property. The proposed change was minor in that
the original pls.ns cal.led for 685,000 square feet of flnor area which re-
quired 2,192 parking spaces. 'fhe proposal. was for a sma.11 differenc" in
the sire of induGtrial buildings resulting in a total square footagei of
681,000 square feet requJ.ring 2,180 parking spaces. The park;Lng·spacea
to be provided number 2,616. He said the traffic pattern was virtually the
same as before.
It was moved by Commissioper Buthenuth, seconded by Conuniesioner Irw:!.n and·
passed ur,animously thiit the Planning t:orrunission acknowledge. and grant its
approval to the revisf.~d development plan. The motion waa passed unanimously.
i.:·
Mr. Sisk then referred to two requests of zoning presently before the County
Planning Commi1Jsion on which Cupertino had been advised. 'l'hese are for a
change from Neighborhood Commercial to H.ult:f.ple-Family zoning at the corner of
Byrne Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard and Orange Avenue and Stevens Creek
Uonl evard. :Mr. Sisk said that the:.-~ was no disagreement in the proposed uses
but that there was a question of right-of-way. He said that previous deci-
sions by i.:i1e City for other developments :Ln this area had been based on a
60 1 street from the centerline. The County has always thought that the width
ot Stevens Creek Boulevard and built-up portion of Manta Vista as being 90
fe,·t. The City of Cupertino n<J.J <0nvJ.sJ.ons a 1311' street which, if :lt comes to
fruition, would t~-:!c.c half the lots in question .
Assistant City Engineer Viskovich thought that the 90' v1idth as established
by the County had to do with the cost of acquisition. He gave aa the reason
(
' ,
I'
page 6
authority
granted to
Planning
Dj,rector
home occupa..-
tion matter
continued
Minutes of the Planning Com"islll.on March 2.3, 1970
Unfinished Business cont.tnued:
for the c,hange ~o a 134 1 widt,h tbe potential participatiiin ,~y, tile lf«1dere.l
Govermnent of $500, 000 in urban eixtenaion , funds and ~lw.·,en11J.1l'11'!d111! ,.re-
quirements for the freeway off-ramp in this area. lie said the horizontal
alignments were fairly firmed but the ver.tical prof ilea j:qrJ!oo, !loo ·Hill
were still subject to change.
It was moved by Commissioner Ii:w:ln, seconded by Commisdo11er Puetz ond
passed unanimously that the Planning Director be permitted to discuss
questions of rights··of-way and widths of Stevens Creek Boulevard in this
area with members of the Cvunty Planning Connuissj.on as they n1ight pertain
to these applicatJ.ons.
A. Consideration of Home Occupation (real estate office)
of Helen !,. Nelson ·-10810 Farallone Drive,
Prior to the d:!.scua,aion of this pa+ticular application two of the Commis-
aioners stated that they had not yet had a chance to visit the. site... Mr.
Sisk said that the reason for bringing this request to the Collllllisuion
PC-6 •
was that there could be a possibility of noncompLl.ance with thl' ft111 in-
tent of the ordinance dealing with Home Occupations. If thie possibility
exi1>ted then it became incumbent upon him to subljlit thia to t)l1> Commis-
sion for appropdate act.ion. Mrs. Nelson commentl"d that the ,buain,ess •
tu be generated would not be that gr6at so aa to crea.~e·a ~rafiic pro-
blem. There would be no employees and a telephone .. exchange; would be used
for receiving telephone calla duri1"g her absence. .She said that the door
facing Bollinger Road, in actuality, was a side door to the building and
had been installed as a necessity to family living without thought to its
ever being used as an entrance to a Home Oc~upation.
It was moved by Commissioner Iri.;in, seconded by Commis~i9ner Buthenuth
and paascd unanimously that the question be continued to the next meeting
to permit all Commissioners a chance to vi.sit the sit.e,
Lt --., m<>vd by Conunissiuner Puetz, seconded by Commissioner Irwin that
the i.ceeting be adjourned.
Chairman Hirsho~ adjourned the meeting at 9:55 P,M,
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
t'
•
•
•
CITY OF' C!JJ'llRTINO, State of California
10300 Torre t_venue, Cupertino, CaHfcrnil!
Rh~ne: 252-450.5
,;; .: .. ,,,,,.'., I
Jl'. :
i i 11
MINI/TES OF THE,REGUL.AR MEETING, OF 'fl!E l?LANNBiG. COMM,tfiS:t0l11,,.,.,,,,,.)
HELD MARCH 9, 1970 IN THE COU!ICIL C!lAM!lERS, CI!Y, HAL!,,'··· . ; ; , :!
CUPERTINO, CAL1FORNIA
Chai man Hirshon called the meeti.ng to order at 8 :00 P .M,. and !ed the
salute to the flag.
Roll Call '.
Commissioners present: iluthenuth, Frolich, Irwin, Puetz, Chairman
llirshon. Also present: City Attorney Anderson; Planning Director. Sis!q
Asoi.s t.ant Planne1~ Cowan; Assistant City Eog1.neer V:t nkovich; City Clerk
Hyder.
filnutes of Prev.ious Meeti$_
Whan there were no corrections, addit:J.ons or deletions it was. moved by
Commissioner Puetz, seconded by Coinmiaoioner I;cwin and paa-Bed Unanimousl
with Chairman llirshon abstaining that the minutes of February 24, 1970.
be approved as submitted.
.·r,,
On the advice of Chainnan Hi.rshcm that the Applicant, Salvatore. M>ir.chese
had rP.quested a postponement of lhe p1Jblic hearing of Application 2-TM-7
to March 24, 1970 H wae so moved by Cornmiasi.oner Irwin, seconded by
Commissioner Frolich and passed unanimously.
Written Co_mmunications
Planning Director Sisk s.•id that he had received two requests from the
County Planning Department :tnquiring as to the change of zon.:Lng from
Neighborhood Commercial to RJ-2.11 for two lots in the Monta Vista area
being on the southwest cot·ner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Orange
Avenue and the southeast corner of Ste:l/ene Creek Boulevard and ;::,yrne. ·
He eaid there were no obj actions to this change of zoni!>g and that the
Multiple building for these locations seemed prcper. There was some con
cern and a question, howeve~l'.', on the width of Stevens Creek Boulevard in
this area. He said that the County plar.s indicated a 90' wide street
but that the Ci.ty staff' had been dJ.scus'sing the need for a full 130 1
street through Monta Vista aU the way to Foothill Boulevard.
In reply to Commissioner Puet.t' question Mr. Sisk said that the wi.den-
ing of Stevens Creek lloulevard would probably have to co1ne fr.om the
south side of the street. Ile also replied to Chairman llirshon that the
difference of opinion between a 90' and 130' width po•sibly could have
come frotn the need for condemnation proceedings if the wider street .'ia
to be built.
~C-5
tM~r,';.ltec
a;::J~rovnl"J
2-IM-70
~:Cponerl
'
"
Minutes of the Planning Commission March 9, 1970
Ccann.1saioner Buthenuth ut:att..~d that he r~called oc'D'le recent' cond1.tion.soif({
bPing attached to some upplicat.!.ons befer~ the Ci1;y ahd WOO:dC.-r~l:J"'i±;~·---------
thie had not indicated a width of 120', It !'as hi• feeHng thdt the
Conunission should determine ex~ctly wh.l<t. the City 's .. earl:lerraC.t:fon
had been before replying ~o the Comity i.nqutry, · u. '. 'Li:i'i
It was moved by Commissioner Puetz, sec<:>ndect by Commiaeioner Buthenuth
and passed unanimously that this matter h<t ClO·red to the New B11sinesa
portion of the agenda. ·' • .• J: 1
.,,,'
Mr. Sisk also reported a communication relative to housing that had
been recoived from the California Ct·npt"r of the American Institute
of Planners copies,of which have been provided the Gommissioners .
. '' l
Oral Communications
Commissioner Puetz reported on a forthcoming c.:onference involving both
youth and adult dialogu<' which ia bfl:f,~1r: c•)-apo.1::rox~~d by the P:trka and
Recreation Department~
fublic Hearings
A. 2-TM-70, Salvatore Marcheae: Tentat:ive,Map, approxi,-,
mately 1.4 acres located w"~t.,,rly of and adjacent. to,.
Mount Crest Drive.
The arplication had bee'1 postponed at the !ipplicant' a request t0 March
23, 1970.
B. 4-U··70, Pacific Gas and Electd.c Company: Use Pel:"l!\it
for temporary construction ynrd for t-wo-year .term,,.
on 3.13 acres located westerly of and adjacent to
Stevena Canyun Road, apprmirnately 1200 feet north
of the face of Stevens Creek Dam. First Hearing
"/;
The applicant was rei>resented by Mr. M. Clark Mulliner, Land Represr.ntative
for P. G. & E., who expla1ned that the request was for a te,nporary stor-
age yard to be used by construction crews building the.30 KV line from
the Metcalf Substation to the Mountain View Substatiott. !le &did that
this would be a. atagi11~~ area only, that no water or sewer was available
and that the use of it would be limited to approximutely 18 ve<iicles
and 1 watchman or clerk. The conditions as recmmended by the staff
were acct~ptable to th':· applicant ..
In reply to the several questions made by members of the Conunission the
applicant sald that the transmission 1ine would ikirt the pt>riphery of
the City but not: go t 11rough it~ It · ... rould be a conventional type of
tranam:lssion line but that tlte comp11ny ·wished to use as much of the
natural vegetation ae possible. The line is to be some 25 miles in
length hut lesa than 2 percent cf the tower would be visible on the
skyline. He also said that P. G. £. E. would do averything nec<Jasary to
keep dust and dirt generated from .. tis conHtruction to a minimum and
that the atorilge are:· was shir.:lder1 f:rom vlew of the recreatlot"Lal area~
PC-5
•
•
•
Minutes of the Planning Comll'lisaion March 9 1 1970 .. , PC-5
! i ' ~ ~-'. page 3 ·· ·
It was
passed
moved by Commiasfoner Irwin, aeconded by Comn,fasion+>r Frolich and
unanimously that the public hearing be closed. · · ., · ··:
·, i.
It w~.s moved by Coaunissicmer Irwin, aecun<led by Commio~1 .. mer nr:.thenuth·· . ,
and passed unanimously that Application 4-\l-70 be' apj>roved S\lbjeet to the·:
12 Standard Conditions and Conditions 13 and 11,· aa recommend.ad 'by tHe
staff. . · · .,. · ,.... '"
c. 2-V-70 Martin A. Kasik: Varbnce to reduce side
yard setback froffi required 6 fedt to 5 feet;
lot 39 ,,t end of c~l-d~-s"~ L:nl> Place, J!'irst
Hearing.
';·1'
1'' '··'''
Mr. Hartin Vaslk addrnase:d the Comm1$sion saying that,his appl:t.cacion re;'.",·
q•tf'btf!d a 1 foot repriev" from the 6 foot aetba.ck which was require\!. u.nder;
the ordinanci;. He se;id th:it the area inv;,J.ved. extended a lerigth ·of· 30.' · ·
' ' ,) : I' and that all. c•f the requiremomts for grancing a variance had been m.et, •.. )le
said the pad C'l w:lich to build was approxima.tely 3600 aqua.re feet ,end h.•-·:
plann called for 11 3,000 square foot house. It was his contentiOtl. tha'I: rio
ohjection hatl been received from owners Jn any of the adjoining land a(id .
that the »nly alternative to him was to cxoavate tor this 1 additiona:C foot
wii.ich he did not want to do. He said the pad to che north is .only, 1 fq,ot
•·4ay from the existing bGund,,ry line. · · · ' . ,.,·. , .. ,,._;'
~1c. Sisk pr~ocuted the at.af1 position en this as being a i' foot.. d:!.ffl'rl!llce·
W.<ich iB not ll great deal but that the provision• 01 the ordinance, werp .
eq,ecific Rnd these gove·rned.
ln rec.ponse to Commissioner Irwin's question the. applica11t staj:,e(I .th,~t,. p~ ·
had been aware of thest< ;;ethack. requirements when he purchased the .. l9t,s.i·· , ·
and that he cvuld buil.d d J,1ng narrow house ther~ but ,,referred to ]la.vi\
4-U-70
approved
with
conditions
1-V-70 "---
m,,rf! square or rectangular in desJ.gn. He felt that the narrowing .of. this··
lot presented problems iu getting an adequately designed home and that his
public rnp01'.t prohib:lted h.ill\ from hav:Lug a split level. He to.l~ (::orumiss:LP)'ler
Huthenuth that the pad could not be '""ved 1 fo0t: iNlthcut excavation ;Jh;i~.h.'
woe . .ld not bl.! beneficl.:Jl tv the aesthetics of tl1~ area ,. '·
' Mrs, ,Junn.Lta McLaren rem111ded the CoilUni.ssio11 that this particular .lot was in
the Candy Rock Mouni:.nin Subdivision and suid it was her feeling the area:
had undatgone too much i.o:.<cavation al.ready and could not see any-benefi;t
"'ould be: d~rived from disturbing the existing pad~
(..c..mmissioner Puetz stared he would like to hctvc mare information on this
·rnd moved to continue the applicati.on so that the appli.cant could have mare
Jo.formation available for presentaaon. Chairman l!irstwn advised that be-
cause there was no second the motion died.
Cc.rn...'llisaioner Ft,)llch U.fJked why the public report had prohibited a split
level to which Mr. Sisk commented that tliis was not "building restriction
tit ic cculd be• " deed restr:lctlon. City Attorney Ander:.:on commented that /opinion of
t ha udgi.nal zoning ordinance h1d created some conLsion as to interpret-:-City Att.:orne
.Lng what ·waa one and a half bt-Jry, saying that most .devt!lopers an~. e;ng:in"eers
<"-fer to thei< as two stqry. !.~ request~d permiasi.m of .th~ appli<::ant ,to
r~v i ow the puh l l c l.~oport and if te:r ha\·ii:i.g done so s.::ic.1 that: it was a .dee4
restriction. !l, '<tid that ph~ther or not the spLt 1 vel could be built
I
M'in1l:£."f of: th~ .t'"la.1'lni11g C"""mru~~· .. 4 (Ju :'1'.trch 9, 1910
I
: O(.rJ.,:;nded un,,··1. what.. ,n .... _; r;'~!i..~.1'"!':(' S<.l:id and ho..r 1.t W.lt"t ir.t::.rV:i.;l~~,l : . .;.,.·,_·.:
I l1ghr: of t:Jia deed reatricc.;..•_,, :-i.-. hi.i:tk int..orJet:tcd i.:hit'~ ,.e ... fd~;;i~ir{-'!.:~~·:·.i
! Ci'.y wo.t11 i.:oncerned two,-story builtlin~c; cov.ld be bnl; .. t and t-:cm.~. wer~ ·~1.i.
1 t~1e ar-:-1 now.. The City Attorney said that, the · ()icl1.11t•U~;! · ~-1-\llti '·fO:r i'sUhh
' •.• -on re•trictiona to be f:thd with thti City. so .thi•t t~ere· :·ould 1le"'iici;e' · r · -·· · ·' · · ·-·-r· •· ,_, ·
J ,. ·ir~J.'dinntion bet"Nnen such reatrJctions E1'ld require\11+:.n.to rJ!" che OrdintJ.~i9e
, :.ind because oi this diiference now eY.lsting De I&C')'!!i':iend 1.!d cgainat the
'.•::tty ''ausing any vi.:ilat.ioa of tt1e. deed rest·rictio11.
It was mo·-rcci b~· C'm:nisHion ?r :rwin, ,-w'J'tJnded b? Corntl•io :;io11cr Frol~ ch
that tl"'e µul.>li<~ hec.:·ing becloaed. 7"• mot~.on p.'1SSe1·1• ·wt1·h CC1!1~1esioner
Puetz vor:!.nc :i ··
Commisai.c.rier S·..:t:henuth ao.iG th.:i.t tht"•·: cvuld be t\..~1J ways <Jf-v:iewillg, .. thti
sit11a~ion; CJ'10 being that ~ ha"dship .J.ld exist and the "t"o>r being .the
overall d~ve '·"l'•"ent cf the h11:r.r.1ae ·.· ca. He suggested " r.,view of the
comrnc-n:--~ u. i pertinrnt or.d1n11.nces tta to \t.'hat cone·~ :tute,j cxcessiv~ &re.'lir.g. 'cotlli11is-
C·~·m.u.1..-.r,.i1>,.1-·.:'!,r aioner Puct:z .~r><:p"':es~c.d concr~rn as to i~ow action or~ i:hic. ).·t: could or
!:...".:!..:."':'
r" e'1i·• .. :
j would affect ~ '1,~ adj uin:lng lot a and .ro .. ttin reque9 ted ti.me i:or more' ·evci.J an-
f ;~:~ssione:· Ir ;in a? reed with rhe co· ..• ients on cute ,m,1 f:( Us but thought
: tl,at changin6 '·r.t:quiro~ setbacks was r.~ t the prop'er a:ppro3cr1 in-: i:h.at 1 you
1 c0uld not accept ccntrary to a valid ,,·,-dinance. Chair:n .. 1_n H!rah_on said
I r..hat he did not think l.1ardehip had bet::. proven but aJsc ~!.:.t he was not
J ir favor of any fJcthei: cutti11g. ·
I
Ccr:n.'1:f.ss:Loner Fr•JJ.:I cli r.111.d that to him t:ie ki.:iy statement: \>.Ti\.,, the poaafble
hllrdship that ·wnulC. b .. : ::xperif·nced by e<.J.ch. of the.• property owTI.ers. ·:He-.
1 oaid this com•r.0··1 baa.Lf' took i.t o:it of t\,e realn: of inc1Jvi'1,ial hardship ·
I
nnd out frum tJ.nrler the ·:n:ovisi.ons of th~ ordin...i.nce per.ro.:' tt.l.ng th.a g'rant-
in3 of a varli:1nc.e for i1 hardsh1p case. '
I It was moved by C0.nmi~o i.:mer Irwin, sec<•;i<ed ty Commissfoc~~ Puetz and
1passed unanin.ouol)• th•t Appl:tca'.ion 2-V ,0 be d'"'ied. · . ·
' ' . .
1 The applioaat "''" advial>d by Chairman ll•i :d1on on his rl.eht of appeal to I the City Covpc:ll. The ,'ity Attorney the.-interpreted the requirements
of the ordir~ar-:c ~or t.1·e aoplicaut and eY'Jlained that only the Council
could grant 01: deny a ::;i_r:iance, it being the rule· of the Planning· Corn-
miseion to rocD1nir1end. :te c;aid th~t thia .'l.:l.tter ·,.Yould be ;Jn the ·agenda
I of the City ,;ounc:i.l f , .. ~ts meeting the fellowing Monday ·oight.
' ID.
I
I
5-T."'f-i~U anc:· ";-1)-70 Donald Pri ·~k~r and George
Fernandez: 'l'c~nf:a:.ive Map t 1 nd \.._ e Pern1it for 181-
uuit a?art fnt pr·.::ject in a Planned Developtr.ent.
Zo:le, appr ,ximately 11.3 acres located westerly
of and ad~ .d~ent t;'\ Blaney .Avenue, 350 f-:?.ct sou~11
of Steven~ Lreek Doulevard. First Hearlng.
Mr. Leon;~:rrl Gcsenswr:-of Mo'J..1tain View but reprecduting J1?rorne wtrite and I Associates of Loa A-.1~(!1•:!9, t~e appl:! cant i addressed the C:'."J;nmissiori and
explained the reasc 1 fo-: the current applicutiono -· 1le s~i.i that this
was the GC'C0;1J f;Ll·' :;5 for the develo~•tuent of th:!.s rrropert:1; the first,
PC-5
•
•
•
•
Minutes of the P J annirlJ! Cominission March· !f; '1970 ' "r :-
having been for 5 condom:f.n.tum davelopme.n t, ·ha cl ··been· deriied.' ·1 'Tfo "itnd ''tlia't"'o;.
the intent of th•• applicant alYaye had beeri to'pr9v1.d2$,'.q'od''imtl~!:Jf'·''1:''~ '''.
r.ous!ng and that he had no. argt.llllents to present at''this · ti11l<l tlu1' same J.r:' '.' ·
ss he had no arg>Jmenta to present on the prev'iou's· app1ic4ti'qn;• •·H.e'told "' ··•
uf having had CO'laultations \.;1.th' the Director of Pubif.c'Worlia en ··ti]e.'"·" : .
traffic situation and would do 'his best to co11iorm'w1th 'al1 id thc'1' • .,
City' e pro.,eduieo and requ:f.; eruents. He said 'he kne" ·there· h.~d: been ·' ',. ''
much d1.acueai<m In thB past on the traffic on lllane7 Av,.!-.ue h~t ·that the·
o«tenaion of Rod.-igue.a Av.,m:e had been at t:he de111an·.1; of the Ct ty Council.·
He th<1ught that .hie proj "ct with its lakes ar.J op r. area wou ! ~ enhance
r.he neighborhood md was providing good t<JJ( b•.:rn f ·• the achoc l "'syste:n.
He offered to answer any quMtiona. '
nanning Director Sisk reported that the developm•nt involved ·J1.3''gioss'
seres and a net acreage of 1 t;05. There was a 60' ,fodicatfon ,: or the' "
i.1.1provement of Rodrigues bei~g constructed on the s •th pcirticn of' the
p rvperty. The Te.1ta tive Map, if approved, woe .l.d co, .. iine ~o ,,..,·eels into
'~11e with access to the deval<.ipment being by pri\1ate a.civeway o:-:' the·
t.out:h from Rodrigues Avenue and from the east from .· ·..i.ney Aven .. :y Ile
.-J,JE<l that the original ,,calcdations showing J8l un :s perm.iss.!.t·le had ·"
b '"n baaed on Rodr~gues Ave1rne being a 4o• street. ·.<hen tl:is·;".'• changed··
"' 60' widt"n the nr.'1lber of units bad been reduad t< 176. ·"lie e:-iicl ·that'''·
tl.c· parking waa for 362 vehicles and was at a two-t·· ·me ratici;· .,, .::,:
cu.,.,n,iesioner Froli:;h commenter! that the southe1·n pa· ~.:e.1 of the:·.~·,ioperty-''
1J<l not app.,ar to h<Jve been a part of the original '' .iAn Center :tan; · ·
l!e .:rnked if it was now a pert. when did it be.co<'le s; and what· w .. s' the
i~xlsting zo~ing on it.
Mr. Sisk saj d that •;he City f:i.les showed it to h~ve ::een a parF of: the·
tot a]. plan &ince 19f.4, which id ct was corroborated -::,,, .. Mr .. Gaotr.,e · 1'..-ernandez,
,3n ot-.'ne·r. Jt was tbt:.n affinn,,d thzit the norther1.y pSrcel to' th~~· ncrth~ Of· ·
the project was not a pa.rt of the Town Center pla1\. '. C..:Hr.Wl..,.qi0f1~~ .... Frolich-~
t>Sid he four,d the zvnlng on tl t...: subject property had bi.!i."n, .K.-21-t, i-1>1' i.C.b 'W8t:li.:
s lr.:ilar to the preai:"!nt: R2. 7 01 rf.1nance now. He saJd · the p:i."'opcsal-to' the i.
C:!.ty for th€. Town Canter plan hcc.! been called medju,n denaicj. M ..... Sisk
replied the R3-2. 7 onJinance i• the medilL'll density u··dinar LE· "r,u pre-
v1oosly it tad been called R-2.-H.
Comriit:tsioncr Frolich said he h::i.d reviewed the pre&entc..tlon ;r.1de ~':J.tl·. tho
Cui:-crtino Town Center plan but dld not have all the a..1tailo cieve:!.op:?ri
rlu c ;.ng the c:iurse. o ~ that re-zoning. The proposal, ho;Jever, lnd il'!;, tcd
tlH~t the zoning was R-24 medlun density. He said it ·w1!nt -ui:tl.e1· l1ncJ
staled that the prOi)Osed density there was 13 unitt per acre.
In .:-eferring to a c1py of that ordinHnce changing the zones f.Jr t~1e 'lo;.ro
Cont<:.r. to PC-H, Mr. SJ.sk said that the orig:tnal zon.i•1gs on the propert:y,
11H~.'.lni.nt~ the entire rown Center proposal, were _H-1-H, M-2-H, R-1:5-2,
R-J-r, and C-1-H, He said the R-3-H corresponded to the present: R3-2. 2
sitt.i"tion.
.·comments
Planni.ng
Director
011 zoni.ng
page 6
more on
zoning
city att 'y
on atree.t
widths
ortgi.nal
develop-
ment plan
stree.t
pattern
questioned
Minutes of the Planning Commission March ,9, .:!,970.
Co!tllu.issioner Buthenuth inquired if COlllIDisdoner Frolich had ,a,copy,,,o~.,,~~.:
original development plan to which he had be."n ref.erring •. ,,In· 'Pl'fY,.•;; ,, ...
Commiaaione:r Frolich said he wondered if the :brochure that ,was .llr.4.6<;:\l:ted.
with that application constitutes the p.:.ojlosed develop,IJ\"n~ .f\1"'1:·1''1-~ii :!,f;
it did, there is an argument on what the propose\\ dens:lty,"'.as,,a,I< t,l.\'ll;,,,.
time, lie said that regardless of what label had been.placed,.if 1r,epre..,
sentatione had been made al>o,ut the dens Hy. that becomes more :·o'r :.ie,,;a .'a·,'
part of the plan that waa proposed then, In the (lbsence of arp~civa~ :of .
a new development plan changing it, that old plan would still pr,ev!'iL.
Co1'l111isaioner Buthenuth thought that some provi.sion had .been ·m~de'.:i.~'.the
original dcvelo;>ment plan for high rise buildings' b!,\t, n.ot in i:l1e ,~'i"' ... ·,., "'
which would be R-3. Mr, Sisk said that from his limit,1d experience in
Cupertino the consideration for this area alvays bad buen for planne<I,,,. : ,
development zoning on the property with R3-2. 2 intent as ,fa~. ,as. a ,f ~e · ::,, ..
permit was concerned, He admitted .he had not completely.analyzed the, , .'
older file or that developmenc plan, the reason being he had 'no c.luse:"
to do so in the past.
Mr. Sisk was then asked by Coll'missioner Frolich if the davelop~.ent' 'plan
hac ever beer. changed to conform to Council action in relaqon t9 .,t;h,~ . ·
traffic. He said that numerous changes.had been um~e ... as,, . .fa,r ,ae.,~.~~ ".;
m·iginal developrnent plan was concerned,,. '!;he .. ba,sic.·c,hang'! h,ag 9a,~i;\·rt.1'
have l\odriE:;ueB Avenue a part of the southerly boundary of the subject'
prooerty instAad of going through a s:Lngle, family area southerly:rof., tjlis ,
propzrty. He s;;id he did not know if. l;his subat,.ntially cha11ges,,,th~,over,
all intent of the 1'own Center but it assn.res the City tha,t:. th~re."w;l..1l)>e .a
60·~foot street coming out on Blaney Avenue.
·•• J , I ":,
City Attorney Anderson voiced his understanding that if there w,as a 60-
foot dedication there could be 176 units, and if there was a. 40-foot
dedication, it r::ould have 181 units, This was confirmed by Mt". Sbk who·
reiterated that the 40 feet had been the original proposal, but after
bearings before the Council. l.t had been changed to a 60-fooc street whicb.
limi.ted the number of units to 176,
The question of what development plan had been approved with the original
application was raised by Co1muissioner Frolich. To this the applican~t
stated that t:liere was an existing permit for 100 uni.ts on a portion Of
this property --the northerly 6.05 acre piece. Mr. Sisk affirmed that
the penr.it had been issued to Mr. Pritzker in 1967 for the developmeµi:
of units on his particular property. He continued with the comment that
the discussion now caking p.lace relative to th·e original development
plan was the result of. 9ne .of the fallacies of the planned development
zone. He said in practice it h..ls never been as pure as it was origin-
ally intended to be. Wht.~n property was zoned for planned developme:nt an
elaborut:e plan was submitted. That plan, howevez.·, is not carried out
cor:1pletely as far as structures are concerned, but a street pattern
does emerge from it.
Commissioner Frolich interjected that in this case the City was not
getting the _original street pattern. He said he could see the advantage
to relocatinB Rcdrigues Avenue and perhaps the developer ie entitled to
some constderati~n for that, bu!: that has more than bee:i L'l"~· Cv ti:hat
,
•
•
•
•
•
• ';;! ; '.; i.n)_)f_!<f tpq-5
pag~ 7
Mim,ces of the Planning Cor.uniasion March 9, 1970"••"
:~ ,nnlJr.:.:.11.ti~ii' \
has happenetl to the reat of the atr;,et pattern. Ir was his 'opin:!.01>:,that:iu
thi '> was to the detrits1ent of the t:raf f ic · crri :Blaney _:Avenue .. :and: ·to .;the ;,ti.t ','.-J.1
advantage of this particul&r piece of property as well as to the proper~y
to the west of this. He said he was concerned 'about'·the'plennad.de!velop-,..-:
ment approaches, conceding that there· always would· be ·some .changeS'•lllaae:, ':«
He also said that after roadlng the brochure u~ed when'. the .City adoptedJ "'
the Town Center concept, he did not find in it the klnd of density now
being proposed. • • . ·
Thei City Attorney then commented that this wae the first parcel of land•:.•
on '11\liich the City had impuaed ita pfonaed community ordinanc.i; ·The· orig->
inal ordinance was based on what had been recommended by thri League of.'"··
California Cities and was very specific and ri.;:id. He said Mr.. Rodrigues
opposed that rJn the grounds that it was impossible to tel.l in adv&nca.
istory Gf
l•nned
COll\lllUnit~
what was going to happen and wanted a more flexible plan. The staff then
submitted another one which is what is now in e:x:iate:nce and requirE.d.·the,"·
setting forth of ~he locations for light industrial, professional,. heavy.•'
industrial and similar zoning, but as there was no problem with 1 residen-
tial, it did not have to be so·idenr.ified. After this i:he City demanded·
that soma change a be made on the orig'lnal plan; Mr. Rodi:igues felt;•. that. ·
it was not necessary to do this b11t at tne inaistence•of·tne·City•Attorney
it was done. It was the City Attorney's position '!:hat the planned' commun-.
ity ordinance and attached map had to be kept ·up·tO date,· Mr; Auderson ....
aairi that the City was partinlly at fault for n<>t keeping•on top of'·th•'"···•
situation. He said he did not feel, from his recollect!on, that· they were•
required by the otaff to identify residential and he did not thinkth"ord-'
inance read that way today. ·Commlssioaer Frolhh also. rev1•mej;.liis xecol.~,1·
lection at what had t:aken place tlien 0:1d
1
sa.id tl:at certain representot:tons
had been made and development planfJ ofier.;d as 11 pert of this in the begin~·
ning. He remembered discussions at grt•at length had t.•lwn place about whet1
the philosophy of thi• plan ought to·b~.
Mr. Fernandez then dei:.cribed what cou14~. h.?.1re be~n t:,xpected. in tha1we.y of·:·
traffic r,atterna had Himdy Lane been u•.ed as orlginal.ly planned;· and· com~·
pared that to the use of Rodr:lgues Avenue as ·w.s now required,.
area
,,
Commissioner Buthenuth asked if there was a mbYim1..:.m time limit ·t(lr develop-.. ime not a
men.ts under the planned community zoning J Fond ·J. t all the plannec;-stJ:e(l)ts oning fact 1.:J·
could be required at the same time, regardles;;.~ of the degree of aevelopmer~t.
To this the City Attoruey replied that time we r,~t a factor, a., this was
o. progressive type of £.ltuation. He sald the ~.itrcats could be required :f..f
the genern.l welfare of the City made it nccesf:!J.i:'Y, but the stref.1t plan of
the Ctty should be folL,wed.
Mr, Gesensway agai.n addressed the Commission~ snying the land h,t;.d J?een
purchased in good faith. He denied any contt uvr rey among the property·
owners, saying that it ~as the Ci.ty who had t..:quired t.he change in street
patterns, &n<l he considered the condi.tionr. it\i:o:.-ed to be unfajr. He asked
for direction saying thi'.3 was lacking, a:id fe1t tl'.'."-it instead »f t:he CitY·'s
being helpful, all that had been given wa•3 opf10sit1on. He cl;.!ir:led· that· all
written requirements had been foll·:>W1;;d but in ~·ach :::nstance arui at:. every· I
hearing changes hsd be3n :nade. Ht-poinr.ed cut" tbl t· this was c. ~teW-
j
pplicant' s
osioion
pagP. 8 Minutes of the Planning Commv•aion March 9, ,1no .....
application, a new fee had been paid, and he thought he should at least
get a new hearing on the n>:rits of the new app1iaation .rather .thtjn ... ,,,, ,,., ·i •
having it tiad into something else. ,, ; ,, :
audience
comment
' ' '
To this Mr. Fernandez added tha~ the applicant ,and propei;ty owners '!Uid.
agreed to every cha11ge Made by the Council, but s~id· he,was :at.:a,,l~~~"
as to what else could be dona. ' ' ~ ' '
J '' J
'_,_:
Mr. Raymond Green of 10109 Mello Place commented that while this. was,.a .. c:,,
new public hearing the same conditions were prevalent ··-the Blaney Ave.
traffic congestion was bad, it had not been relieved, and s4gg9s~ed.,.that,,
if the developer wanted to· use Randy Lane, why. not.make. use ,of i~1 t9. ~a)f.e,,;,
traff · off Blanfly Avenue. ,,. .. "
, r,. ,.
Chairr..~,1 Hirahon called for a recess at 9:28 P,M,
The meeting was reconvened at 9:37 P.M. by the Chairman who sgain'r~cog~i~~d
Mr. Fernandez. ' ...
J,!!'
applicant• 8 Mr. Fernande1 said he was fo a quao.dary. This program had start~d fi..v~;, .
position months ago and at one point had been approved. Th<!y. had ,agrLed •to the ,, ".
original street pattern; it was changed py the City Council •. , ,!le sa;Ld .~Ile.;
City at first wanted a '•O-foot street, then a ()Q-~oot stie"t., toyhicµ,,.~h$y
had agreed, Now h<! claimed there is "a completely, n~w, bp.l~ .. game.,'.' ·J !le .,. :.• i
referred to the statements of Councilman Stokes in pre11iou11,<;ouncil.min,UFllS
that stated he was in favor of a site development.yith a•. highe.r d~p.sity,. a;,,
higher coats, Mr. Fernandez said thP.y were trying to develop the .prPP!'J,ty,
but needed direction.
Rodrigues
Avenue
alignment
relevancy
quest:lons
, ,f,. -• '! :
Mr, Sisk said that he now had both the original street pattern and ,t!u;,: '"'"
revised one and, with the consent of the Corrmiission, dl.splayed them, !~,. ,.
commented that the initial concern as to the altgnment of l\<;>drigues {W"""~;
through the single family houses had stemmed fron: Lie potential costs to
the City under cond£;mnation proceedings, The final decision: W:<'IJ., that:,. ' ,
Roddgues Avenue be required to be a part of the southerly ,b9cuid!'ry _l;J.n\!.. oj'
the property. He said there were a couple of c thcr proposals as f.i'r, '1S, ~.he
street pattern in the general area was concerned. The only fixed portion ·
of Rodrigues i~venue was along the boundary of the property, with ita .eve1;\tual
tie-in to the present easterly terminus of Rodrigue~ Avenue to, be a .. m8:t.t:er.
for future decision. The staff had been interested in tryl.ng: to provide for
additional signalization for Stevens Creek Boulevard at Vis.:a Dr.i.ve.,. so it:
had bee·k1 proposed to line up Vista Drive, southerly of Stevens Creek Boule-
vard• to the existing Rodr1.gues Avenue to provide for that signalization.
He said the point of Randy Lane being a better proposition than Rodrigues
Avenue as proposed must take into consideration that it had been a 40-foot
street to the rear of the property and that it: would not connect any.where.
Traffic would still egress onto Blaney Avenue. ·
It was the feeling of Couunissioner Frolich that the. previous comments were
not too germane to this issue l~ven though it ~vas good-tc iiavr:! an exr;:.lana-
tion of how the sitc·ation got this way. He said that regardless pf. yhat
acti.on this C0llllnission took on this application, the suggestion s!lould be
made to the Council, o; to have some arrangements made' before thit:. at~,ll;· is
•
•
•
•
Minutes .,f the Planning Cummbsion Morch 9, 1970.,. .1:' -·)J1u1.t11Pf-s n i
p~ge 9
dcvel;.~ped, for Rodrigue~ Avenu~ to
to the existing Rodr.Lguei-i. Avenue ..
fs afl important matter-
. '
be extended co the west to connect·. ""''
Re· thought th.a egresa t().· th~ -.west' :.i.; _, ~-'-.\
';1 ;·;:
'
Mr. Dan Reardon o" 19945 Price· Road said he was confu~ed·as to th~ purpose audience
,,,· the development and the whole Town Center complex. He said if this' comment
p.:,Jyerty was a part of the Town Center complex, ·turning lt 'about and
d1. .. ;1t>ing traffic onto Blaney Avenue, a residential are-a, iP ·not in k.eeping
'-''; 1.h t:hat: complex r.onct:.'.pt.
-JC
Cba~cman l!irshon review~d and clarified th~ differences ~<!tween•. the rwo
s<r1.0<1~ p.itterns, CummiesJ.oner Butnenuth co,.r.,ented that actually thece
waH n~ basic change in them as both maps·-show Rodrigue~11 .Avanue extenaiog
to Hl~ney Avenufl as an eg):ess from the area.
Comm.I 9sioner Irwin maintained that study of t h•1Re maps was gf\rmane as
the)' ~.h-,w the history c~: what has tak~n place. He contendc:d that it tJ:aS
impor1 -.. r1t to know where traff:f.c i~ going and, unfortunately, the w-ay it.
is Mo' .:et: up without the continuation of Rr.>cLigues Avenue, 1111 tha·caa
are gr~ing out on Blaney Ave:r.1~e. He s,1id-the c~·)lnmission saw this -change.Ji
in tl1::. Town Cente.r conc£pt vfte.r it wns made bL the Council level·;.wheni·:
Mr. F1;rnandaz 1 property ·waa first heing discus.:;ed. 'fhe firf>~ dcvelopmt::nt
came tr. and there wer~· some problems ~,1ith it b·ut: it -was paBPPd on·J,t0'1-the:r:<
Coun<.1 i an<l then passed back form.ore r<t•Jdy on the traffic. !n his· "'"·"
opini<;n the problem was crer.t~d by '~he structure vf the ~row-.C-enter-'and,:
the 1.:..,·k of any way to get the road.9 back to where the egr.eaa could be
aomciwhl"'.rc othet• than on Blaney Avenue. He said th~ Commiasizyn'got:~· · .-.::.
sli.ghr Lesolution· on the t?:"aific prvblern <.H:> the l·t~nult of finding there;,1 ~
t1t-1e (;tht!r ways to accomplir,h wid·~n1ng t:he street to ·four··lane.--s.c;·.and'.: :),;,.
with ;. 1, .. 1,0ut lanes, to r<.•l Leve the primury cong~stion. '!11is w.:i.s' sent back:
to the Council with a 5 -u &pproual, ""Ying the Co:mnisaion lil.<!d the 136-·
unit '1·"!:nsJ ty aa opposed to what they CD1;,!JJ bu1.ld f.J'Cl it at '181: un1ts~1;,'., He'.
saic~ rl-i'°' Commission knew thc1e wex·e proi"~'ems but that· there wa...:.--nothing··:.0
with:f11 the constraints 8ppllf'.d to the C<0 r.1:nfss:Lon 8S well as other:.'18wa;··~.--
an<l there was no other we} !..•: go. The C:h.incil der.:f.f.d the appl-Lcc.-tion and
rctui r!.C:c: .lt to the appli1.c.nt, aay~P~. it "-'H-S becaune of the co1.st:-:uction,
the p · J.ce, dnd a few otl•er thingo. He ,;,,nt.inued by saying, that the appli•
cant 11:...w comes ln with r. 18i.-unit pi:oposLl which cc.uld be cons:ide'rcd
almo! !.: retribution because of thP. prev~.otJO denials and delays.·' Ccnuni.ssioneC
Irwi10 er.1phaeized that ho clid not 101,c tL<-density at 136 and he se.id he
dete:,1:LJ it at 181, but :.h~ Cor.imi..::si11r1 "t-.-at· attempting in their lnvesciga-
tionr. tu get -1 clear re.-,J~nr frci.l .~ht• cc~·1H.:il. He ~;aid the Co'Jn.::il has
done ·1 lot in !.:urning ir·_ b:i.r.k t0 t·hc Ccm<Ui.~sion wit;·1out giving any ti.rm
dircL·t:lc,n. H~ thought ~H rh,1ps c: ~oint me\.·::ing with the Council was 1ndi-
CH.te1~ .>L' th:!.s could be debated. :1L fuic!. ngain that 11ersonally he wa.s
oppoi.cd to the applica --:nn 1 but t'i.<= .... t: 'llnyh~ it shot(' d be passf":d on with a
11 no 11 vor'2.
review Clf
past ac:tions
Mr, N:.r'ri~1 Nathanson Cd. 10197 Co.1.{: P,.-:rbc"l .1venue sp 1 ke on the c:.int.inued au:Jiencc~
apprc· ... 1Ls o.f higher d,.;:.Eities r,£. c..!·1,,.ngir,}.:. :-he c:hara.':ter of th1~ .;1ty and cortment
the ,upleasantness of rct'lercun0o1.:-11: com1.r.~ therefr:,:n. He re1Iuostcd defcr-
meri .. f this applic2r·:Jn unci: ·ftz•· tht~ ~lAction.
paJle 10
audience
conunent
(cont'd)
implica-
tions on
rezoning
Mi1JUtes <Jf the Planning Commhsion March 9, 1970
Mr. Fernandez agdn commented on his concern for the City at the concept.
and origil'latloo of the Town Canter, reiteratj,ng the change •in. trf'~f;ic i •... •
patterns was lll4Q& by the Council, .iot the ownera .. H,e. ref:«'rrell1/;0Aii~.· .·
profession as aa indication of h'4 concern for acho9l11.; ~11.4 ppir,>te9,. 9ut.;
that t:he current proposal was for an adult development. He estimated
the revenue to tlw City from thia devillopment to be about,$75,000 per.:
;year. He contended that it was a1t unfaii:-loss. to. the. landowners. if .the
"ale could not l>4 conaumtnated after they had paid t•.xes all these year~ .. ,
and would not red..ize a fair, or i!JlY, return for it.
Mrs. Madeleine Na<hanson, 10197 C~ld Harbor, professed she represent2q
conc.,rne<i parentlll, students and teachers of Cupertino and poiµted out.
c:he impact on thl)$e schools which bad a mare transient enr0Ume11t aa
compared to those that did not. illhe expressed hope that the C;l.ty wauid ...
bead the dange.rs ti these higher d111nsity developments as they. r.elate to
the overcrowding &f school.a. ..
Mr. Norman BellsC'llll (sp?) of 1015a i!!ello Place said that if this was to
be an adult community, traffic would be the only problem, not school
children, He thought that what wes n'eeded was more. money in the t.ax base
without more chJ.ldren being added, and this d.,,vefopment couldaoower that-
portiort of the pt(;hlem.
Mr. Anthony Cook of 19689 LaMar J);N.ve said the previous denial had beell:.
baaed on the width of Blaney Avet>1re being unknown and that. he could see no
apparent change ~n the situation.
Mr. Eugene West, 10208 Cold llarbe>t Avenue, said the northerly exit of
this development onto Blaney was cloae to the store and the intersecr .. :f.on,.
and the congest~qn there was bad alreedy. He said that etreJ'lt:impr911e-
ments must be a1~ integral part ol any approval.
Mr. Butera of li°l'703 LaMa" Drive "".ld that in the intere.at of public :
safety no more traffJ.c should be allowed on Blaney Ave11\le, lt ,;I.a .I)OW
impossible for pcdeatriana as there are no sidewalks. He f<il,t tlw· firµ.t
consideration sl\ould be for the improvement of the stn1et •.
Mr. Vern Hosler (sp?) of 10139 Mel.lo Pl.ace commented thlilt the .Bl,a11ey AvenuEI
trnffic problera was s very straill;e situation. It seemed to him .that the
problem with the traffic signal« at Stevens Creek Boulevard hed. been
restudied and what has been corrected is now reverting to the eame situa~
tion that h&d existed before the first study was undertaken.
Hr. Earl Therrien, 10108 Mello Place, maintained t:hat the only alternative
in the present situation was to rezone the property. lie said if this was
not possibl<' then the application ehould be postponed for study on how
to handle the traffic resulting from this 11.igh density, He said i£ the
development is right for the. at'ea then the people have no choice but to
be for it:; an<l if the: Commissiqn felt that it was right, then they had
no chotce but to vote for i.t.
Commissioner Puetz inquirt'!a a1S to the implications on rcz.oning tha prf.?p-
erty and on what would happen if it was up to the residents to pay for
street improvements. The Cicy Attorney replied that the Cupertino Town
•
•
•
. :. 'i·\
Centt~t' plan shows it as a unif~cd deveJc-pmc.r:.t w~i.h a v.a~'l.$!.:Y· o! '-r,?rp~t:.:!.}Jle;;.'"
u~t·~. The Pl<lnned CommunitY Ord:l.nBnce says an E<pplic:int may apply for -
apar.tment hot•se dwellingd but is. Hmited to 16 u·c>Hs,pelf.,acre." .!le/,Sa;l.!i, ,,,;;
that buil.t int~ this, however, is the pcwer of the City tQ. v11ry .st&lldil.;r;dji:""'
wh••e it would be to the general interest of the City. This.:J.s.the'V!).l'i-,••;.)
ablP. clause ~:v:it found ln earl:!t,.lt'" ordinances .1nd is a key one. to the
pJ apned conununity ordinances, He also said t.hat if the applicant ha~ , : ·
applied for 16 units and it m.atdwE with tr.e original plan, the next.' · , ,
qc.e•tlon would be whether the applicant c<b 1 e forced to. devcl"P &>.drigt;e~,'
Ave,·ue. to the uest whern it would connect "'J,th th« .. existing Rc·<lrig11es. "'
Ave~~.ue, even though there is an egress al'-O to Blaney Avenue. He said
the answers to this ofi-sita street improve1nent queatio.P.:.are.,;found:..u:n.dt:!t'
the S•1bd:LvisiDn Ordinance· No. 1!7(a), from which he read pe+unent fi\lCCarpta,;
He cc•ntinued by saying the final detenninstion. of the.sti:ee,t patter11,:
w:•l :h was apprnved as 11 part of the zoning, proposal, is subject to. crange,.
Tl•<' l"«tter of Rodrigue• Avenue being ei<tended to the west is foi:;,.the :·"
l<•gi<:ntive beo:ly who, rn his opinion he sa:.d,. should· \le guid•:d by.,the
Rdvi1·i;o of the ~~ity traffic engineer. He rt•ferred to the con~t?ntion cf
the present owner who anic! he could not ae" the .ob,Ugatton to constru:::
off-o!.te stree• s, that thia area is the rafult ot qeveral. appl:lcantl'·'"
worki.ng together to for1n the planned couunuriity,, an,;: the· .~ignat:ure,,'?.f~,-;-./aJ..H.; .;.
person appears thereon together with eight othe::l:J. ·.''· · L i:/"..• .,iJ; •.i.:
Mr. A.,t.!erson al Jo remarked that the street :µat tern• llU8t meet !..he requjte"°:'. ·:
ments of the pl·1nned con-roun:f.ty ordinance, a·1d these r.epl_ace tiiose. r.eqt.1.i.r<.':""""
ment9 cf the •u1divisio:' ordinance. 111e Chy staff ll'Ust see ·hat there
is i:.~omr·.tinnco •. Ll.kewioe the queation o.f den~:.it.y. must: b.:=: ,in cor:£ormanc<~ ;0
aft.a:-··'1.at tho >latLning Coirurtission must dee::. de whether the a.p11lioatiQil, ! : ~"
ta:ls ~i.thin th·-general plan. If a rezonii.g is requested, wl,o~)ler by
the property owner or at City initiative, tben formal. action bhould, be s:i ··"
in•t1t•Led. Th<-City can hold public heari1'gs and, once h<;ld,. it.:haa ,.tlW;J ;,
power t v rezone. He gave his opinion that zoning :iH not.' a vaE•tad. pr.op~r.i.;,y~: ·
ri3ht. He said it would appear tha.t the present apr,lication rieets al.l,:oth~.
requl·:e.nents of the planned community ordin2nce,, T<aff:!,c, egress •md, 111g1i.!ll>B
se?in t0 be the 1·nly unresolved question 1 anci if the combined ,c:iwrieia .or.nr1)?t:: :-'
agrc~, ~hen the planned coillmt.nity development becom~~ an unwotkable plciu
or :1n ·1ndue bur1_!en on the present applicant. Com.mi ·~•lonor Froli.ch asked
if rhe ~ommissi n did net !vive jurisdiction in this i••stance lO requillt
the Wt!t=>terly ex ens ion c·f Rodr:f.gl:es Avenue as a ne.c·. i--sary pa:rt: of th' s
ov1.~t~.1. 1 develop· ieut,
Mr, Fe-1: 1andez. :f .• 1terjected 1'[ith the quest:lon as to w.'1'; then wa. not t:h·J
fL.11 J':reet incisted up0n when the City Hall was bL !~:.
Cl wmis~ioner Bi.thenuth csked the City Attorr.ey what ~ood is a planr:ied
dt•\c.lc1 mcnt if che City cannot get the necei:.sary st.·".'eet imprc vements .Eo1.:
tfH.' V;\·,le area. The re!J:Y v,.as thac the Cir:· .Attort·d)' wvuld ra)t argc.1
a~~nin1-c that qJestion; but he W9Uld state that the -'i.ty can :.·a.quire,
w'l e thr· r or not this was considered a part or the P-··d. -ined com· 11mtty t
ingre ... s and erress as a necessity in order :1ot. t:o Jadanger .t 1e welf.s.1:.a .... !
j t:~ c ... tizens. Commissi:iner Frolich said t:l 1 at because the Of'portunit,/
!or ",!fercndLll was lcng sirce past, perhap!: those L'.~tizens \.•ho are 1~·ro··
1 f~ .. :t· .. 13 shou~d take thP City Attorney's ad"ice a_n: .:-e.quest ·.he Coun.:i] . ,.)
re ~1J ... e this :.s one w.iy cf finding a solutiJn to t ··;' problem.
•City att'y
qpinion
« .: ' .
citf att'y
opi;i lon
(cone 1 d)"
:.-'I'
req• ... ::.;;-i.:r:ient
of 1.1.l,l'BSB
& fg1'(HS
page 12
rezoning
comments
reduction
of density
joint
meeting
suggested
chairman's
comments
Minutes of the Planning Commission March ~. 1970
Mr. Norman Bannett, 10435 Lindsay Avenue, objected to the previous comment •
asking if it was proper in coming from a member of the E'lanning' Co!lllll;!.ssion.,
~ , ·.' ! ' ~ '. )/ : . ;·
The City Attorney rep1i<ld that it ia a comment from, one:. member and not, thf.I ;
body a.a a. whole, and ev<>n if. it was improper, the person·. asldng: the· queG!:ion
was out of order. '"'
Commissionet' Buthenuth couunented that if the property was.· to• be rezoned, ''i
there is a total of 103 a.:res and this application cov•era• only 11: acres ab ·
bei.ng zon'.!d for R-3. If the rezoning wam to take place,the old Town:Cer1t11?'.·
plan would have to be rezoned and he was not 1n favor of. that• · ' "":"
The City Attorney said that once buildfogs are erected on the land; or· capi.'"
tal expenditures made, it is beyond the power of the Planning Commission ·
to rezone it arid, obviously, part of this complex is already built· up. · H.,
ag1dn said tha~ the ordinance does not state when streets must be put in.
'!'he applicants are here as individuals, not as 11 group, and ther<:fore it :Ls
an off-tract J,mprovement that ie being considered.
It was then ""ked by Commissioner Buthenuth if it was possible to reduc<e ·
the density w:tthout rezoning the property. The requirement b for· an· OVE1r-,
all avet•ag& of 16 unite per acre, and he wondered if that would not l'.lpply
to the entire 103 acres. 1'he City Attornoy said thflre never haa ,be.en :a.
case in the City where the maximum units have been :reduced. Ha aa1d his
answer would be "yes", but i,t would require concurr·ence of all nine owners
involved, not just one,.
Commissioner 1'1..1..rin off.erod that the Planning Commission had_ ..a legiti'ftll'lC.()1
application in front of it but had no guidelines on which to a.ct. He said
there had been much discusdon at this meeting and he thought much eif lt
was out of bound• for the Commission. He suggested that a joint mel!tin:g
with the Council, the applicant, and the Commission be held aa a public
hearing. lie added h"' would like to know what to do so as not •.ta ·be. ovflrP
ridden all the time on this application. He offered his thought that the
publlc wao as confused and tired of hearing the same arguments by both
sides as he waa.
Comn)isaianer Buthenuth concur~:ed on the necessity o:f guidance as to whether
or not the street would be going through.
Thu City Attorney said the ~ommissfon may request a meeting with the C:auncil
at any t:lme for cla=ification of issues, but it has no authority to br:tr.g
an applicant before the Council.
Chairman Hirshon indlcated his thoughts that a decision should be madE,
but in all fairness perhaps a continuance would be better. Commissic1n~r
Buthenuth suggested a 7: 30 P ,M. meet.log wHh the Council on the follc>wing
Monday and was advised that this was not possible under the Brown Act
without calling a sped.al meeting, which was not advisable. He was .told
that any issue could be brought up by thd Chairman of the Planning Coma1is~
afon and reported to the Council under that portion of the Council agenda
reserved for Planni..ng Commission repcrts. Co.1m1tssioner Frolich said the
•
•
•
M:f.nutes of the P.li~nnlng Commisaion·March 9, ·1970:. ·-· .'~';.:i;·-·1 " •',)d:J .,;'.;;1,1.p~~S
!,:· n:'.r'..~ ;:::.i;r;.'l~1<;,:•,1'r~~~~e-·lS
Council should have a.e much information on this: isStie ·as it ·waS posSib1G ~!,l.l J !
to give them and they should not have to rely en minute a a1oil1f> 'He":i<dd/'''"1 !
however, J;.hat: this then gets into the realin· o·f:a·public hearing Whidh .. ';1.J _"..\:·! i
already is before this Comrnias{on. · ·--1 '.'>:·.·i-d. ; . .\~' !i.:J·,,, i
' ·.)-, , f,' ''I: 1 :
' The CJ.ty Attorney then adv1.sed that the Planning Commission 'could ·pass
rcsoluti.on requesting inatructionfl from the Counci.1 and what is wanted
from the staff on this matter. lie said a decision must be''mlidc by the
Planning Commi•sion before it can go to the. Council.
i: ''' • : ptocedural
1,1dvice., ,
J"", I "' ...
Mn;, Juanita McLaren, 22101 Lindy Lane, complained to the Comm'ission
saying that there was a time element connected w'tth this) th.Ht it ·nlreS.dy
had been five months in process, and that large sums·of-mo~ey had'al::eady
' ' ' been expended.
j,",1![."JJ-;;·; . :
Chairman f.lirshon said that many ~spec ts of this application· hatl not 1 yet'· '· ' : " ~hairmen'"
been discussed, sur.h as parking and even the. mit!rits: of the project itself."" :;.omments
He indicat"'d he would like ~o have answer.a on these but due to the latc··11 ;;".'
nesa of the i1our, he l-lould hot be agaJ.nst a continuance. ·Ho 1 '<:ontehdc~d ·:i.i··--"
th'1t this was a new applica~ion of fairly large magnitude and thil.t it"ws.s '.rn.
not unusual to conduct public hearings.
'
It then was determined by genera.L dii:tcuesion that all memberi:i of: the, 1.· • i-'
planned community development had been niade aware of the changed street:; .. : '
patterns .
Cornm1.ssioner But.henut:h moved and Commissiont.!r Puet:zke se.cnnded to continue
the application for two weeks to permit the staff and the Chairman•to go
before the Council to find out more about the problem of· extQ11dfog ·Rod-·~
rigues Avenue to the west and to request guidance frow. the Council·~
The question of traffic and Rodrigues Avenue was dtsbussed again in rela-·--
tion to this motion and the City Attorney sai.d the Planning Director's
recommended condition was for the street to be as decided by the City
Engineer, but there was no such decision at this timt!, He thought
apparently j t wns to have been decided later after it had bee.n passed up:,
to the Counc.il. Commiss:loner Frolich said he hoped to be able to get
more guidance from the Council than just on traffic, because of thc·hist:oty
of apµrovals and denials on this property and the varioua applications.
The comment of the City Attorney to this was that it should b..c the Planning
Commission i;vho advises the City Council,
Commissioner Buthenuth then asked :!.f it was so th-;:.r: the previous denial Wc"=IS
bat1..:d on traffic. Commission8r Irwi1'1 rend frorn the City Council Minutes of
January 19, 1970, where Counc.ilman Noel hatl made the motion which gave. ae.
reasons for denial;
11 1. Bccatl8eof tle.;i.dditional traffic onto Blaney Avenue i..hat
would be generated from the construction; ; .
11 2. Because this City dops not have any e~~perience in prefab
construction; and
11 3. Because econom:lcs had never been discussed at P..ny time for
proposed houses under $30,000 in nn area "t-there there are
only $34,000 tc $40,(JOQ homes."
l otion fo~
continuance
traffic
questions
basis for
ear lie~
denial
page .!.1 If Mfoutes of the Pl 0 nning Co!llllliaaion March 9, l.970 <; :·. ,,f,y;:;~.il'.
Commisaioner !rwi.n continued by Baying this was the second time the applica-
tion had been before the Council. The fil:~t time was w~en ,i.t was,, i:efeff<;~,, ,
back to the Plann:tng Commission by the City Countil on Jap,uary .,5,, 1,9{0, i:,
for "the City staff • • , • • to submit a reporr. oo how best to P!'.l'~"e\J ..... , ... ,:
with the developmcl'I' of the eastern side of South Blaney, Avep,uf!',,,;:e,l.~"1.r.a,Hi;i.!l,
the efforts made t•> d«te, and which report i" to include comments by the
City Attorney as tu "he legal aspects of the. recommendat;f.ons. '!',a\le., :•, ., J:.
motion
withdrawn Commj ssionE:'.r Buthenuth w.!.thdrew his motion.
requc:?st
council
motion
dies
public
hearing
closed
?-'l'M-lQ
denied
matters
cont 1 d
Con:mi.,siunor FrC'lich ""id if there was a moti.on to deny th'e apr,li~ati:/;, · ' I than the r.ecord should show that in the event the Council df-c:l.d.~a to,,pyf'r'.", ..
to rldl\ "hat and approv~ iL, the Commission still :Ls concerned that R?d,riguea,
Avenue should be ext.,nd.<d to the west and the.t this conditio.n be, attached , .
to it. He. •aIJ this wo' an old problem --when a recommendation for denial
is made no conditio .~ arc attached or recommenued to the Council. · The City
Attorney int:erjf~cted wiLh the commP.nt that the. only way for the Cou1.mission
to get a streP.t plan put Jn would be to request the Council to ·amend the · ·
planned comn1un:i 1..y ordinance establJ.shlng a defl11J.t.e street: plan for._ their.
guidance in future zonlngf', Mr. Sisk interr.upt<>d and anid this alreaGy
hed bean escablished.
It was then moved by Com:nJ.3sioner Puetz that in order' to
ticulnr applica.fon that a d"finite study be made on the
changing the zoning of t.h:t .... particular area.
. ' re~olv~ thia pac-
P<'Osibil;Lty.,. of
Chair1.::i<:.i.n Hirahon sa.id tha.1; because there was no second) t:he n~otion died.
Ii: was moveci by Commisti:ior~er Buthen1J.th and seconded by C1o ... ni.1nisz;iion~r-''I.~~j,~'· ,_·:,:'.'
t? close the pL<blJ.c hear~ng, which IJ'?tion was adopted ununJ.mously.'on'. a''. ·,',.
l'Oll c.n.ll vote,
It wa.; 1.1ov~d by Commisi;ione:: Buthenuth that Application 5-Tl1c70 be den:!,ed
because the street pat~ert'I, w·as not connected to RodrJ.guc.;' Avenue:. cOllimis-·:
£1ioner Frolich seconded the .notion, The following rol:l call vvte was -... , '· r,, '.i'
taken:
Ayea: Conunissioners hu~11enuth, Frolich, lrwln, Puetz unc Hirahon
Noes: None
A.'Jsen t:: None
Coin1nlssioner Bt.tht~nuth ll'VVf~d tu LI.Guy Application 5-U-70 because the density
~s too high. 'l'h& motion w,1s secr,nded by Cow"m1ssioner Frolich. '£he following
r,)11 call vote ·...:as takeP:
A\•cs: Commissioners Butlienutb, Frolich, Irwin, Puetz ani Hirshon
N0es: None
/\b::;eut: None
Chairman Hirsh.-::in advised the lipplicant as to hJ.s tights of appeal and the
,;ro:::.edure for d'Jing so.
l'h·~re was no unL:f.nished business.
1 1.\ the reminder of Mr. Sisk it wag moved by Cor.un.issi.oner Puetz, seconded. by
~Oi.:nnissioner Ir•.fin, and passt!d unanimously tl1at the matter of the County
. 1:quest for clu.ages of znn:L.ng in the Monta Vistd area ar,J the .question ·Of
.~treet pattern for Stevens Creek Boulevard be. C{.lnt:tnued to the..,ne;x:t meeting.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Minutes of the Planning Commission March 9, 1970
It was moved by Commiasioner Puetz, aeconde.l by Co1nt1issioner Irwin. that
the meeting be adjourned.
Chairman Hirshon adjourned the meeti.ng at 11107 P ,M.
APPROVED:
A·-._ t::::::::::::-T~ L
Ch irmaa
ATTEST:
vfg_ a'-
City Clerk
PC-5
page 15
adjournment
•
•
CITY OF CUPERTINO, State of Californfa
10300 Torre Avenue, Cu~ertino, California
Phon~~Z-4505
'i' . 1 ·,r:· ·• •' .-rr
.,.,. 1 · 'PC-4
MINUTES OF 'fHE REGULAR MEE!ING O~' TilE PLANNING COMMISSION; <
HELD FEBRuAB.Y 24, 1970 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMllERS, CITY !!AL):,,
CUPllRl'INf.', CALIFORNIA
Vice Chairman Puetz called the meeting to order at 8:00 P,M. a.nd ;Led.the
salute to the flag. j
Commissioners present: Iluthe11uth, Frolich, lnlin, Vice Chairman P,uetz.
Connniasioner absent: Chairman llirshon, Also present: Planning Direc~ r
Sl.ak, Assistant Planner Cowan, City Attorney Anderson, Assistant ,City ·j
Engineer Viskovich, City Clerk Ryder.
It was moved by Commisoi.oner Irwin, seconded by Commissioner J•'rolich an
passed unanimouRly that the minutes of February 9, 1970 be approved as
submitted.
Planning Director Sisk announced that the applicant for 2-'£M-.70 h!id r.e.~
quested postponement of. the public hearins to· the meeting of· )1arc.h, .. ~ ... l97q.
It waR also announced that Applications 3-TH-70 and 3-U-70 had liaen with-,
drawn. · , l
It w11s moved by Com'llisaioner Frolich, seconded by Cmnmissioner ;Lrwin 'an
passed unanimously that the public hearing for Application 2-TM-70 be
continued to March 9, 1970. · -
2-TM-70
continued
Communications
A letter from Shell Oil Cmnpany wes introduced in which it was a.tated that
the teclmical services of th.at company would be av&i.lable. on a, r'\que,s,t ,l'ie··
ing submitted to the Real Estate Representative of Shell Oil Company. ,/
Vice Chainnan Puetz suggested that this was a matte::: for staff information
ai'ld did not require Conr...iission action. __ /
Mr. Raymond A. Grnen, 10109 Hello Place, addressed the Commission on the
statu" of the estimated costs for the development of the east aide of Blaney
Avenue which coats were not to have -Lnclu<led the proposed development on
the west side. -I
City Attorney Anderson cautioned that this was not a matter for prea~nt:ation
before the Plnming Commisriion as it was a Council action.
Publi.c Henringf!
A. Application l-U-70, George and Helen Piepgras: Use Permit
to operate an ant:i.que store for a period of two years in
a residence at ?.0085 Stevenfl Creek Boulevard.
The applicant, Hr. George Piepgras of 1635 Emory Street, San Jose, adv~sed
the Commissioners that he was cog11iz:1nt of ull the conditions imposed and
that he was willing to comply wit>1 them.
1-U-·70
approved
with con-
ditions
Minutes of the Planning C01lllllias1on February 24, 1970
,, ',,, '/",'i)
There being no f"1rther comments from the audience. r!::. public hearing ,was
closed on the motion of Commiasioner Irvin aud <ne second of C~ias.io_ncr
fTolich which then waa paesed unanilllously.
Commissioner Buthenuth commented that he would propose that.;Coru51t1on No.
16 be added to those prev1.ously submitted,, such condition, to TUd, ''No
merchandise shall be permitted to be displayed 011 the out&ide of the
buildings",
Comnd.ssioncr Irwin raque•ted th4t Conditio11 17 bo added which.would raad,
"The Use Permit shall be effective for a two-year period only".
It was move~ by CommJ.saioner Irwin, seconded by Conunbsioller Frolich and
passed unanimouoly that Application 1-U-70 be approved subject to the
PC-4
12 Standnrd Conditions plus Cond:lt:Lons 13 through 17 inclu.give aa submitted.
B. Application l-V-70, J, Cyril Johnson Investment Corporation:
Variance to allow 136 unita in an apertm<lnt project on 8.5
acres presently zoned for 130 units; locate,d scuth aide of
Homestead Road, approximately 500 feet west l)f, !:arrar,ca Drive.
Mr. Jamea R. Knittel representing J, Cyril Johneon Investment•Corporation
presented the request for t.hc variance with the explnnatian t:hat ,it' had
been caused becauee of the hardship developed through the r,.quired dedi'"
cation by Flood Control. He said that the property taken by Flood Control
actually was the most deafrable portion of the parcel and what he was now
requesting wsa not an :Lncreaae 1.n the total number of· units than what ha.cl •
originally been proposed but waa to request authorization for the same
number of unit• for that property which now r..mained,
Cl.ty Attorney Anderson offered that the Commisdon might con<i:tder approach-
ing this application with caution in that the City Council the previous
week had denied a similar applicatio11 which also strasned hardship. He
suggested the possibility of requast:l.ug guidance of the City Cowicil before
taki11g further action.
Commissioner Frolich explained that the situation betwaen this curre11t ap-
plicaUon and the one denied by the Council were different but that the
City Atcorney, nor. having been involved in earlier hearings, had not be-
come aware of all the facts,
Planning Director Sisk, in reply to Vice Chail:!Jlan Puetz'a question, stated
that the pre•ent zoning is R3-2, 2 and that , • 79 acres of the original par-
cel had b~en lost because of the action by the Flood Control Dietric~.
Cornmisafoner Buthenuth commented that the site plan b~fore them now was
dJ.fferent than the or.e previously submitted which was confirmed by Mr.
Sisk who said that there was a parking ratio of two to one and that this
was an apt.rtment complex, not a condominium development.
Commieeiot1er Frolich commented that the City used to have only one R-3
Ordinance but with t.he introduction of private streets, drives, etc.
these complications had resulted in the creation of several different or-A
dinancas. In ariswer to h:io quefltion "" to the dHference between the V
Minutea of the Planning CoIDllliSsion February 24, 1970
various ordinances, the City Attorney said that the clu'>t'»' ,concept wns
what caused the main difference r,ow from the previous typical R-3 Or-
dinance. 'fhia <:luster concept permits the design,to have ll!Ore OJ)an
space and the concern is more toward the units ·per· a.c.re .. rather ,than· the.It
stereotype front, side and rear yard setbacks but that jurisdiction ,.,
over private ways is nil in either case. After further·discussion•the
City Attorney also po;.nted ou.t his ideas as to the creation-of· possible
problems being encountered should a sale take place in future cyears and
he did have some reservations as to the woduibiltty. of a self-governing
committee of homeowners. He aai.d he had not yet se.en a aat:lsfoctory·,
substitution of private government for municj,pal government •. ·
After it had been pointed out: that the units in this particular appli-
cation were for rentals only it was then determined that the zoning
had been approved by the City Council which permitted 130 units but
not for the requested 136 units.
Commissioner Frol.:lch commented that this partkular application had
moat of the requirements for a variance.? but niost of the open space
would be taken up with auto1nobile par)d.ng. He thought that pE>rhapa
a review of the City ordinance on parking requirements would be. in order
as he felt that solving one problem for this application had created
another. He said he would like to consider a new site plan wi.th less
parking facilities.
The applicant expressed an objection to this saying that the first
site plan had cost some $1,500 which had been wasted when the Flood
Control took the property and he f eit that another site plan at this ·
time was not in order. Commissioner lluthe1mth offered that ::te could
not agree t.o the development plan before them but he was willing ta
act on the. requested variance.
Mr. Marvin Nathanson, ic.L).97 Cold Ha·cbai: Avenue, presanted aome informa-·
ti.on he had gathered as to the density of the City 1s land use, com~
paring the originally adopted master plan with the intervening zordng
decisions. Previously the density was for 8 ,000 <lwulling units and
that now this had riseJ.1 to 12,761 dwelling units. He said this was
fifty percent more units for the same area and conceded that only
about one-half of the area had b<ien developed and that two-thirds of
this development was in Rl. He suggested that it was never too late
to remedy a situetl.on and that the requested variance of 6 dwelling
units per acre was no1: too little a quantity to start with.
Mr. John Thompson, attorney for the property owners, sa'ld that the
sale of the property was a matter of economics in that the acquisi-
tion by the Flood Control resulted in no compensation. He viewed the
requested variance as a substitute payment f 0r the tsking of the pro-
perty by Flood Control.
Mr.. R. D. Koenitzer of 10160 P!'iar Lap Drive, disclaimed this argument
pointing out that the total price realized was considerably more than
would have been available to a smell property owner. He said that
perhaps the taking of twenty percent could be considered a hardship
pgi• 3
PC-4 •
•
•
page 4 •
_1-V-70
approved
with
conditionq
•
Minutes of the Planning Commission Februar7 24, 1970
but certainly that only five percent of such " large parceL '""','not.
Commissioner Frolich interjected that monetary values wore' ,not ,pert:!.-.
nent to the decision making by the Planning Commission as, they, were ; '
under mandate to consider only hardship. He then reviewed the pert:!.~
nent sections of ord1,nancea relating to this. He offered that if the,
Flood Control District had not ,taken the land the requested 136 units'
would have been acceptable. He thought it would be the least: respon-
sible action all the' part of the Planning Commission tu deny this re-
quest on any basis other than the ordinance requirement. If the or-
dinance was bad then it is what should be ch'\nged. ""'
Cammissioner Buthenut.h moved~ seconded by Commissioner Irwin· and
passed unanimously that the public hearing be closed.
It was moved by Conunissioner Buthenuth, seconded by Commissioner Irwin
and passed by 3-1 vote that Application l··V-70 be recommended for ap-
proval subject to the condition that the site plan accompanying the
application was not approved and that a s1te plan wculd.have to be ap-
proved by the Planning Commission at a later date. Commissioner Irwin
voted no.
C. Application 4-TM-70, ~.a.thew Narog: Terttative Map
to adjust property line at 10301 Phar Lap Drive.
Mr. Narog presented the application a ta ting that it was not until he,,
had made arrangements for the construction of a swim1ning pool that, he
discovered the installation of it was not possible due to a technicali-
ty of property lines. He said he had purchased the property, in.good
faith and that the fault rested with either the City or pos~ibly·the
original developer.
Planning Director Sisk explained that the final map for this area
had been recorded in 1964. The original owner of Lot 49 (currently.
owned by Mr. Narog) obtained a portion of the ad;Jacertt Lot No. 52
from the original developer but without the realig:um.ent of the pro ....
perty lines haV'ing been properly processed and recorded. This act.was
Un illegal division of property and would have to be corr~ct::ed before
the pool could be installed, Mr. Narog said that to make thi.s correc-
tion would cost him approximately $400 which money was not in his bud-
get plans and the City should remedy the difficulty.
The City Attorney expressed hiB opinion. that a purchaser buyfl property
only after reviewing the title report and the restrictions imposed.
He said the City is subject to State law and does not have a. choice
as to what H can do. He suggested to the applicant that he had a
choice of either clearing the title or not paying taxes on it and have
it revert to the City or the County. His contention of bei11g able to
do what he wanted with his property, regardless of imposed regulations
was false in that community welfare is paramount. The expenditure of
public funds for prJvate bencfHs is not permitted. Hr. Anderson said
that it was quite possJble the applicant might have recc:mrse to the·
seller but this question should be referred by him to his attorney.
PC-4
•
•
Minutes of the Planning co ... iasion February 24, 1970.
With the agreement of the applicant Commisaionar lluth.inuth·.!llo .... liand.:.:
Commissioner Irwin seconded that. tha ·firdlt .llioal:'in.g. of Application "''·'
4-TM-70 be continued to the Planning Co1mid.a"ion me.atin11 of.•Mai:ch.:·23.,,.
1970. The motion passed unanimously,
D. Application 2-Z-70 llterna Builders, Inc.: Rezoning
from Multiple Residential 2200 sq. ft. lots (R3-2,2)
to Duplex R~sidential 4250 sq. ft. lots (R2-4.25),
apprc.xb1at~ly 22,000 square feet located west o:l.de
of Greenwo•,d Court, adjacent to Calabazas Creek,
Mr. Charles Pickens, repreaentj.ng Eterns. Builders, Inc., presented
the request for a change in zoning, explaining that the prsaent zoning
was for R3 but that the lack of available financing .to. dPVel.op. it as
such prompted the request for the change to R2 zoning. He commented
that this was an unusual request in having the density decreased.
rather than increased but had been advised the change of zoning was a
better approach than requesting a variance, n ,..
There being no further comments it wee moved by Commissioner,J.111thenuth,.,
seconded by Commisaioner Irwin and paased unnnimouelythat ~herpublic
hearin~ b~ closed. · · : '·"
'' :.
It was ed by Commissioner Buthenuth, seconded by Commissioner Irwin .'
that Appl~cation 2-Z-70 be recommended for approval and passed unani-
mously. "'
Unfinished Bu~~
I l •J
There was no unfinished bus.iness.
New Bua"inesa
' l ·,' 1: 'J
Planning Director Sisk displayed an area inap and. related the rallu.lta.
of consultations that had taken pluce among the adjoi.ning cities of
this area and the Local Agency Formation Commi.aaion as it related to
the latter's requeat for a mutual agre"1l!ent as to boundaries,o~.aphores
of influence. He said that th1a was bein.g p:rnaented to the. Planning
Conuniasion only for their information and to keep them E!dvised ae .to
what the oituation was in this regard. !le said that substantial ag:cee-
ment already had been reached with Cupertino and the cities of Saratoga,
Sunnyvale and Palo Alto. The City of Los Altos had requested the de-
ferment of any set boundary pending the. land use study of the hill arec.
The City of Loa Altos !!ills had disagr.eed with the original propoaal
presented by Cupertino with the explanation that the N,,ary and Perham
prnperties were nearer to the City of Loa Altos !!ills. '!'he counter
proposal b;-that City ouggested that the boundary line bisect the
Permanente property which was rej~cted by the City of Cupart:tno. An
alternate proposal wau then prese.nted to the City of Los Altos Hilla
that the boundary follow township lines which was a compromise h<h, .
tween the two stated positions but that thitl had not been 1>ccapted by
the City of Los Altos·Hills. Mr. Sisk said that the City of ·Cupertino
was to appear before I..AFCO on Harc.!1 4, 1970.
page.,;;
PC-4
4-TM-70
continued
2-Z-70 approved
page 6
minute orda
minute orde
Minutes of the Planning Commiasion February 24, 1970
Collll!lis&ior1er Irwin reported on t110 resolutions adopted. by' the ,city JOf
Los Altos Hills and in<1uirad if Cupertino had done anything 11:!.m:l.lar"
to which the answer wae in the neg11tive. ' "· . · · ,,\ ... ,.
Ir. then was moved by Commi.saioner Frolich, seconded by Commiesioner
Irwin and paned unanimouoly that the following Minute Order be enter-
ed 1.nto the record 1
"The poeition of the City of Cupertino Planning Comminion
is that it i.a in agreement with Resolution No, 582 of the
City of Loa Altos Hilla urging that a land use ntu~y of
the Black Mountain, Montebello, Skyline Ridge are£ be,
made by the l?lanrdng Department of S"-nta Clara County in
conjunction with the cities involved,"
It then was moved by Commissioner Frolich, seconded by Commieaioncir
Irwin &!Id paaoed unanimously that the fellowing Minute Order be enter-
ed into the record:
"'rhe position of the City of Cupertino Planning Commission
is that it is in diOll.greement with the City of Loe Altoa
!U.lls 1 propoo11l that sphere of i:1fluei1ce determiMtiona be
delayed until the subject ares study is completed and that
the Cupertino Plarmlng Commission opposes that position,"
Planning Director Si.ak reported that pursuant t.o the Commission 1 s
request made at an earlier moo.ting for a review of the 11ituation re-
lative to factory-built hooaing a meeting had been held .that day .with
representatives of the State. lt waa reported that the State does
occupy th<1 field as to inspection of auch construction but a city
controls the land uee and the aesthetics normally considered under
architectural control. Inapection of foundations and electrical hook-
up will be about all of the conatruction 11ork left within the provence
of the CJ.ty'a jurisdiction.
Commii;oio'1er Frolich inquired whether or not there WM a poaa1.bi11ty
for the Clty to limit ouch construction or lend use to planned commer-
cial zoni1 ISB wher~ Use Permit conditions may be :imposed and asked .if
the St.ate was going'' to adopt the Uniform Building Codes now used by the
citiea. nr. Sisk eeid thut the State intends to adopt these codes by
April 15, 1970 al\d offered that the League of California Cities and
the Home Builders' Association had supported this measure in the
Ll!gialature,
Commieaioner Irwin commented that it wae quite obvious the State and
County would be getting more i.nvolved in the housing business. He
thought that the best approach for the Cl,ty to take was not to say it
could not be done and have it forced on it but to realize such was,
PC-4 •
•
in all probability, inevitable and to develop plans to meet the situa-
tion. lie auggeated the poeeibility of a joint meeting of the City · ·
CouncJ.1, the Planning Commiaaion and Administrative Staff for a.ge11eral
diacuesion of this aituatiun and to plan and receive general direction •
for such preemption by the State and County for low income, moderate
or factory-built housing.
•
•
Minutes of the Planning Corumiesion February 24, 1970
page 7
l'C-4
Commissioner Duthenuth aommented on having read in the local paper that
a proposed commercial davelo1>ment waa pending for the Mariani property
along Highway 9 snd inquired if the Cit;r had any further information
available. Mr. Sisk stated that this had been zoned for planned de-
velopment with comn«?rd.al intent since 1963 but that the City did not
have any specific information yet on the latest proposal.
Assistant City Engineer Viskovich offered that thera wa• a possibility
for the io· .tallation of traffic signals at Foothill lloulavard and
Stevens Creek Boulevard aomotine in 1971 with County participation
and the Engineering Office was working toward this goal.
On the Motl.on of CommiRaioner Irwin and second of Commissioner Buthilnuth
Vice Chail·man Puetz adjourned the meeting at 10:10 P.M •
•
•
•
CITY OF CUPERTINO, State of Califo:rnia
-'300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Califorr>ia
.... ne: 252-4505 · · , ' ; 1 r .. ~
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING or THE PLANNING. COMMISSION HEW
FEBRUARY 9, 1970 IN 1'HE COUNCIL. CHAHllERS, CITY HALI.,.
CUPERTINO, CALIFO!UIIA
Chairman llirson called the mect1.ng to order at 8: 00 P .H and led the
salute to the flag.
Commissioner£ present: B\~thenuth, Frolich, Irwin, Puetz, Chairman
Hirshon. Alsc present; Planning Director Sisk, Asaistant Planner
Cowan, Asi:::;istant City Engl.nee.r Viscovich.
It was moved by Commissioner Buthenuth, seconded by CommisL1ioner Puetz
and passed unanimously that the minutes of the meetiug of January 26,
1970 be approved aa submitted.
ChaJ.rman llirshcn announced that the appll.cant for Application ·2-TM-70
had requea ted postponement of the public hearing to the. ~'ebruary 24,
1970 meeting. Planning Director Sisk announced that the applicant for
Applications 3-TM-70 and 3-U-70 also had requested postpon"l"•mt of ,t)leir
public hear:lng to February· 24, 1970. Chairman .Hirshon then. requea.ted.
of the applicants for the latter two .applications the reason .for. the,,
postponement aa there were a number of people in th<? audience who. were
interested in these applicati.ons • I Mr. Leonard Gesensway, 840 Alice Avenue, Mountain View, stated that they
had not as yet been 3ble to complete all. of the necessary aspects hut
assured the Commissic,nerB that these would be ready by the next,. meeting
Commissioner Frolich suggeste.d that the staff contact the City Attorney
in regard to reapplications of the same order to determine .whe.th<i>r or
not the Commission has jurisdiction over. these ;-eapplication& or whether
there. had to be a time interval before they could be he:at'd. Chairman I
Hirshon requested that ii.:he staff 1nake the proper inquiry and report .b.ack
at the next meeti.ng. I
It wil.f.i. rnoved by Corn.1niosioner Buthenuth, seconded by Commissioner .Frolich
.::.ud passed unanimously that the three subject applications be continued
to the meeti.ng of February 2l1, 1970.
At this point in the proceedings there was an audience objection to the
granting of continuance a.nd the need fo. interest:2'd persons to cuntinu-
aJ.ly reappl~ar at each of the meetings. This was answered by Chainnan
H:f.rshon that unless t_here were strong rt..hsons to the contrary it was
Commiss:i.on policy to 'grant the first 'continuance as a matter of courtesy.
lfo also ,. ··id that in this partic•Jlar situation the Commission had not I
yet reviewed the application and there was no way of determining whether
or not what would be presented was the same development or was one that
was sufficiently different than that pi:<,viously submitted. He al.f;o ex-
plained the reason for granting the continuance was due to the absence
of ~he City Attorney because the question of jurisdiction had to be ob-
PC-3
2-TN-/0
3-TM-7C
3-U-70
continued
page 2
1-TM-70
Planning COW!!liasion Minutes h'ebruary !I, 1970 .,, '·~::·.·.:· .• '·JC. ~':: :.J
, ·; ·rd·;· 1.F;':·. !°•.!.
tained. 1••••• 'i''J:,•··i
----·"··
Written COtlllllunications
Planni11g Director Sick advised the Collll!lias:ion that no written communi-
cations were to be presented.
Oral Cornntunicnt~~
Thei.·e were no oral connnunicat:lons per se; however, du·a· to the CcwJlUis-
sion 's consent to hear statements made out of agenda order, there were
comments which wer~ received thr<~"..lghout the meeting· by· the-·commission·~
A. Application l-TM-70: Saratoga Foothill.a Development Corporation:
rezoning 38.49 acres from CG (General Comn1arcial} R1~7.5 (Single-
family Residential) and R3-·2. 2 (Mult:f.ple High-density Residentlal)
to R3C-·2. 2 (Multiple Fa•nily Cluster Residential.) : and TENTATIVE
MAP to divide said 38.49 acres into sJx parcels, Location: South-
west corner of lfomestead Road and Blaney Avenue. First Hearing.
M~. Mike Splitst:one, re;wesenting George S. Nol to and Associates for., the
Sa.1:a toga 'Foothills Development Corporation commented that: :the·: i::ont.inuance.
previously granted this application was due to the need•for the Tentative
Map to reflect i·evisions which had been made to the site plan.'' ·lie· stated
t 1ie Tentative Map had been revised to aha.1 nine lots which waivto per-
mit: the dividing of the common area into three separate lots as ~t would
be developed in three sepa.r:ate units~ 'He said the improvemenCa;:for .Unit
1 would be put i11 at the time Unit 1 was developed. He compared· this'
development with that, of a subdivision which "'"" divided into· aepsrate
stages of construction.
Planning Director Sisk said that there was an unresolved problem. on thls
unit concept and suggested that whe11 the Commission ·approveR a -Tentative
t1ap for the entire parcel that s•Jitable bonds be required for all the im-
provemm1ts even though the development i.~ to be completed, in stage~.
The City's concern, he maintained, was to have some assurance that there
would be a continuation of the project beyond the. first stage or, lacking
that~ the improvements would be put in ..
There then followed so1ne discussi.on as to the adequacy of the internal
traffic patterns within the first stage for the 285 dwelling units. and
the vehicular access to Blaney Ave.nue and Homestead Road. 1'1r. Sisk re-
iterated that he was in favor of treating the applicati.on as a whole
rather than as units with the improvements and dedications for future
streets to be determined at the Council le~el.
An audl.ence comment inquired as to the impact of the density of this
project on the school system. Mr. Sisk explained that the School
District had been notified and to~d of the procedures used for notifying
them and requesting comments for all similar applications. No comments
had been received. He said ft ·was his .lnderstanding that one of the
PC-3
•
•
•
•
•
Mfout es of the Planning Pommiseion February 9, 197,0i
CD!lllllisoioners had discussed t!iis· personally. with t;,., schooJ.QU1.c:f.i;ils~
. : '. ,·;;' /J· ! ~!, .. ' . ':: '·.
Conunisaioner Irwin offered that he had visited with Dr. Iglehart,
Ass:f.sttmt Superintendent for. Lusines11 0 · and had been toliliby.Dr. lgleha>:
that only the araa around Moorpark. was c..using the District:· any 1 serious
probl<.'lll at this. time. Ile said that ,each development had .its .omi pro,-1
blems for the school, some bei.ng lergar in scope than others •. Co.mmis~ ·
sfoner Irwin quoted Dr. Iglehart as saying that in many cases the ·
apartment complicxes :in Cupertino have more .. than paid their, way,w:tth,
ratios being something like one child for every .seven apartmentn •.
After other comments pertaining to this subject had been mudi>·.Chairman:
ll:l.rshon cautioned that: soma of the points being discussed by members
of the audience were not appropd.ate, to a public hearing f<'r a Tentative
Map which should be addressed to the· council when the matter of zoning·
"'as taken up. -"i'' -'i · ,r·
Planning Director' Sisk then recolmllended that Condition 15 be added:.tDi
the Applic:ation so aa to require the use of the storm drain easement '
adj scent to Blaney AvenuEl shall be subject to the approval of thp. Santa
Clara County Flood Control District. ",, ,
-r:
Chairman !lirshon recognized Mr. Eugene West of:10208 Cold !!arbor Avenue
who raised two questl.ons, 'fhe first was whose responsibili.ty it was in
the School District for evaluating the impact of proposed apartment.·com-
plexes and how di.d the City receive assurance that notifications .. to the I
Di!ltric.t did not go astray. The second issue was as, to the.i:esp(:lnsibili-
ty for architectural and engineering control of the constru<;t;l.011 and,for
the quality of proper 'V1orkmanship. ..,, ', ; ·.: ~·.,,·i·_.;·; J
In the first: instance he suggested requl.ring positive wrtttc,;: comments,
by the School DJ.strict to avoid the possibility of disagreement o-r:over
sight by default. He also said his concern on work:nanahip atem1U<1d,£rcm
hls own experiences. He claimed he had lived in his own. house fo.r: ,one
and one-half years and which had s•1ffered water damage as a result of
"inadequate architectural planning and substandard workmanship." Ile
related this concern to what was often a la.ck of maintenance on apart-
ment conf:ltruction· which eventually led t .. 1 sJ.umlike conditions. ·
Chairman Hirshon explained the City's procedures of notifying all in-
ter.ested persons aad agencies and that.: th.a staff takes their replteo
into consideration when making their recorr.unendations.
Assistant C:lty Eng:l.neer Viscov:i..ch said that pri.or tv the acceptance
of new lmprovementB by the Council the Engineering Dopartrrient. reviews
the project against the checklist which includes all the letters from
various agencies. He said the only one which does not submit a reply
in writing is the School District.
Mr. West then said the reason the School District does not sent lette.1·a
is there stated policy of not recorru"ending for or against any parUcula
project. Mr. Sisk interjected tlnt th'<re was a probabilit)' .for a chang
:ln tb:ls policy ~n the near future which would permJ.t such recommenda-
tions to be made.
page 3
PC-'.l
page 4
l-U-70
l-U-70
continued
2-U-70
Minutes of the Planning Comutissioti Feb1-ua.r9, 1970"''" 'ri' ·,o "'"JHni,:~
It was moved by Commissioner Butl!enu,<h,' seconded by Co!mnis!J:l:oner>,lJiN:fo
and paaaed unanimously that. the public headng be closed.
··,1 }:-ic~ i ;;;;.• i.i)JJl'iOJ
It was moved by' CO!llllliasi m1er Buthenuth ,, seconded by· Commissioner.> 'ltwii1
that Application l-'l.'M-7,J be approved with :the Twelw" Standar<1•:1cond:I:-'
t,,fons pl.us the 'hree additional Condit:ions numbered 13,· tl.4> and 1l;5i •a1W'i
uubmH ted and recommended by, the <Planning Department. •, ri 1 '"' ' :, d
Ayes: Comrnissione.rs Buthe:nuth, Frolich, Puetz 1 Chairman: 1}1i'rshon· 1 ·" ,; r:'
Commissioner Irwfo ",. , ; , ,. 1 Noes:
B. Application l-U-70: George and Helen Piepgras< Use, Permit "'' ''·
to operate an ant:i.que: store for· a period of two years ini·qi; · ·,
a residence at 20085 Ste<vens Creek B0ulevard. First: llear:!.ng,: ,
Mrs. Piepgras presented the application and expli;ined that ·the purpose
of it was to obtain a means of offsetting the cost of ownership for thi&
property until such time as it was possible to• de-,elop it.•: Sha said ''
that w1.th the dE!dica.t:f.on for the street iru.provementa it wnB"· not: pOss:tble
to get good tenants in this residential structure and wanted· at· this·~
time a ptlrmit to sell antiques for not more than 'two yeara.-.·.··When she··
professe,cl that she did not know about or understand what the recommended
conditions were, Chairman H:lrshon had them explained in detail.•"
Mrs. Piepgras objected to any con<lit1.·:>n wlr:l.ch would requiTe the: ·outlay
of money. To this comment Comn1issioner lluthenuth, recalled the opinion
of the CJ.ty Attorney some two years ago that it was unreaaonable on the
part of the City to requi.re any expensive improvement for' a: limited use
pennf t when the only question involved was that of' recommended· pa'rking
facilities.
I! "J:'
After further general discussion it was 'll.oved by Co1nmiss:l.oner lt"Win,
seconded by Commissioner Frolich and passed unanimously that, the public
hearing be closed.
'.([,' ·I!;,
It was moved by Commi.ssione,r Irwin, seconded by Commissioner Puetz that
Application l-U-70 be continued to the next regular meeting ,to give the
staff and the applical't time to work out: the recommended cond:ttions•·to
their. mutual satisfaction.
I Ayes:
I N,>es:
I c.
Commissioner!' Irwin, Puetz, Chainnan Hirahon
Commissioners Buthenuth, Frolich
Application 2-U-70: Marianists Province of the Pacific: Use
Permit for Archive Research Center (an additJ.on to the
Marianists Prov:tncial Residence) lncatPd on 3 acres at
t1estcrly terminus of San Juan Road in an Rl-10 zone.
First Hearing.
I Mr. Leo Ruth of Ruth and Going, representj.ng the Maria.nists Order, pre-
' senterl the application explaining that the original Use PeJ:mit granted
I to the Order had been granted by the County in 1961; but, subs<iquently,
I the property had been annexed to the City. He said there had been· some
I
PC-3
•
•
•
f
•
•
Minutes of the Planning _.Corwnisa;lop, Februru:y,~, ),nP.11;i'; ''"' -,0 ?.<>WrolH
PubHc Hearings -Application 2-U-70 cont'd •
doubt in the minds. of SOllle of the me)llbers "'" to ,w)Ja,,t,,t)Je, re11q;>};i:;h .-AAPl'Ct
of the appli•".lltion was b1.1 t, a re<:e>1t .meeting wi.t)J, ;t:l•"!l>. save . j:}le; 1MP;+~fll'
tion ti:> their sat:iafaction that it .refe.rred,,to. ·+;l.i:e:q1ry resf!J1'1iel!.,._anfl,;. ·
compilation of documents only. ll<H•aid. the _app,l;l.cants ha4, np; o)>Jf!!=t;l.p~
to any of the suggested conditions, ·
l i'>i. . ... :,·i:.·
Mr. Leo Skinner question00 tho appl:tcabUity .of, _th. e ex:lstin.g ~_P_._i:: .. i. µg C:1-!!,imt
ing the property was not in the City and _that. C1.ipen,ino, difl nor,, ha,v.o, ,an
jurisdiction. Mr. Sisk responded th"t the City does have the Certifies e
of A11ne.xadon from the Secretary of State and _that thil'.\ Yil."' _th•~ 1l.11ga,l
document on which jurisdiction was claimed •. Mr. Skinner said .. th11.t, .t;he ·
Attorney General had -had n request sir1ce :j.ast,,April ,to grs,nt' P.'ll'.m).,ss;f.on
for the annexation to be taken to court but na decisio11,had..-as,.y,j,\,t b'i',en
given. He said he was merely providl.ng information for the Planning '
Commission so that the Commissioners could.avoid possible ,em,barrllssm'!'nt
at a later date. He suggested the possibility of checking:this.out-i.rith
the County.
Mr. Ruth said that the annexation had been 11 con~ern to b,~d;tir'iu'~~4,'to
the applicants and offered that his research Indicated th1<t once certi-
ficated by the Secretary of ~.cate the annexation stands U!ll'ilaS .S.!!d .until
it is invalidated by the cou;rts or the Attorney General.
.,.,,
It was moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded .by Cmcmissioner Irwin _and
passed unanimously that the public heari.ng be ·closed, 1 .. _,,,,,
It was moved by Conuni.ssfoner Puetz, seconded by C(l!l!Jl)issionel': .Irwin, eµd
passed unanimously that Application 2-U-70 be approved with, the; .+welye
Standard Conditions plus Conditions No. 13, 14, ancl 15 aa subm~tted,_4nd
recommended by the Planning Department. . i, ,,
It was moved by Commissioner Frol:!.ch, seconded by Couunissioner ,~µet;,.
and passed unanimously that the staff advise the County l'lllnni11g,D11p<jrt-
ment of the action tak<Jn on this applic,,tion and to request cpncun:e11ce
of them in ca.se any court ac!tion in th£~ matt.er of. annexation 81...'BB-rCQn-
trary Lo the City's position.
UnHnished Business
There was no unfinished business.
I
Comm:I.soioner Frol:f.ch stated he had an issue to bring up under new husinrss
or some other appropriate portion of the agenda. It waa his suggestion
thnt the City, through its appropriate administrative am, research the
reoently m1acted State Assembly BJ.11 1970 as to what the City ia permitted
to do in the rilay of inspection and regulation of m.odula?' construction. I
Following this it was his recnramenda.tion that action be initiated for. the
protection of the C:f.ty's interests. He stressed his concern wns not agJ:f.nst
prefabricated housing but that the City's ordinances and buil<'ing codes I
would not be circumvented throiJgh the manufacture of these ,mod ·Jlnr units
elsewhere.
page 6 Minutes of the Planning Commission February'9, .'].970"''! ,,,,, 'io ;;~1u1.w· PC-3
Nei" Business cont'd.
Ci:nnmiss:!.oner Buthenuth pointed out that the Architectural '!Itta 1Sire:1d1
Apprm•al Committee· did not bave jurisdiction over single-family 1.ri.!IJi:.•
dances and as' such could not be concerned with structural.' \leta:l:ls •'" ,' '
He said he was in favor' of some appropriate regulations being<·:utiOpi:ed.
Comm1ssioner Frolich requested that the previous discussion go into
the record as a minute order which motion was seconded by11Corrauissioner
Irwin and pa.ss&d unanimou·aly. · J l'·i 1\·11:! ·--.;:; '1::
Planning Director Sisk presented to the Commission an outline ·as .. to a
statue report for a service station study and requested .the1•C001misaioners
to review it and :nake comments,' lie said he had hoped 'to have ·soma !<ind
of paper prepar'.'~d and diatr:lbutcd t:o the member.a by the ·nex:t:•meeting~'.
. :1.,· .. _;
Commissioner 1''rolich con•nented on efforts of the Cornrnission•a ;few years
ago to establish a criterion that service stations be raquirod to be an
integral part of an overall development. Ile said he did not see any-
thing rel.adng to this in thi.s present outline and thought its inclu-
sion would be a good idea.
Cornrni•sioner Euthenuth suggested the possibility of requfring s®"" re-
novation of existing buildings. Commissioner Puetz added 'that it: wao
his understanding that oil companies normally somehow or another re-
linquish control over the initial at~,t'lon sometime after ten :i.-ear.!> and
this made compliance enforcement difficult. · · .. ,
Commissioner Frol.1ch thought the i.ncluaion of advantages for having ·, !
stations at particular locations >:Ould be holpfol as a guide::as :well as
includi.ng the negati.ve approach as to disadvantage". Chairman ·11'.1rsl1on
commented on the difficulties experienced in the past relative to·ac~
cessory uses and pointed out the need for more greater differentiation
on what is snd is not so confJider<id. Commiasioner'Puetz sa1d he·bad a
personal ohjectl.on to the ·aesthetics or the lack of such created by
disabled a~tomobilea parked on these sites. He thought that 'the re-
pair or renovation of cars was not a proper uae a11d it was the ·c!rncensus
of t:he Connnission that this was a policing function:
On an invitation from the Chair for any other general comment:.:~ appropriate
under the heading of New Business the following topics were received and
discussed:
c. The question of the adequacy of school facilities in the
aren of new developments and possibj.lities of requiring
dedications from developers as is and has been required
fl)t' streets, ;,parks, storm drainage, etc.
b. The question of how the sign ordinance is policed and
who is re.sporH·Jihle for checking: compliance by violator.b
of it.
c. The question of a probable timetable and the methods tCJ
be used J.n reviewing and refivaluating the City's Master
Plan.
•
•
•
•
Minutes of the Planning Commission February 9, 1970
New Business cont'd.
d. 1'he status of the current review by the staff of exist•
ing ordinances Rnd their effectivenea-fl.
It was moved by Commissioner Buthenuth, seconded by Commissioner Irwin
t;hat the meeting be adjourned whl.ch was so ordered by Chairman Hirshon
at 10:00 P.M.
APPROVED I
ATTEST:
A~-fl---City Cl.erk
'
page 7
PC~3