Loading...
PC 05-13-68 CITY OF CUPERTINO, State �f California 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Phone : 252-�-505 80, 000. � PC -: 9 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING_ COMMISSION HELD MAY 13 1968 IN T�-LE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The meetirig was called to order at 8:00 P.M, by Chairma.n Buthenuth, who subsequently led the assemblage in the flag call to salute, order flag salute Commissio,ners present: Bryson, Frolich, Hirshon, Horgan, Buthenut�.Also present: City Attorney Anderson, Director of Planning, Laurin, Director of Public Works, Finney, City Engineer, Boyd, Assistant Planner, Nuzum, Recording roll call Secretary Cappellieri. Director of Planning Laurin advised the Commissioners that postpone- there would be several postponements: ments Item A Robert H. Zimmer, Tentative Map (l�-TM-67). This is being postponed by mutual agreement because it is conn- ected with a Local Improvement District which has not been 1�-TM-67 finalized yet. Mr. Boyd reported that the Consultant Engineer is still working on the improvement district study and agrees with Mr. Laurin that two months should wrap it up. Commissioner Frolich moved that the application l�-TM-67 be postponed until the second meeting in July; Comm. Hirshon seconded and it was passed unanimously. Item B. Maryknoll�Construction Co, and Sherma.n Cornblum, Re- 3-Z-68 zoning (3-Z-68( and Tentative Map (3-TM-68) 3-TM-68 � Director of Planning Laurin advised the Commissioners that he has phoned the applicants on several occasions but they are not yet ready; the applicants have requested postpone- ment for two weeks or more. Mr. Laurin suggested that this item be re�advertised after request from the applicant. Commissioner Frolich moved that these two items, 3-Z-68 and 3-TM�=68 be dropped from the agenda and be put back when ___ - properly advertised. Commissioner Bryson seconded and it was passed unanimously. Item H. Herbert W. Regnart, Jr, et ux, Henry R. Luchetti 11-TM-68 and Noorudin Billawala, Tentative Map (11-TM-68). Director of Planning Laurin stated that he had a request that this be postponed until May 27 due to some legal complications. Page 2 Minutes of the Planning Commission May 13, 1968 80,0��,� Pc-9 Commissioner Hirshon moved, Commissioner Bryson seconded and it was passed unanimously that 11-TM-68 be postponed until May 27. Item 0. Director of Planning Laurin suggested that this Ordinance item covering Ordinance 002 (q-1) be postponed due to the 002(q-1) fact that there is a very �.ong agenda, and he didn't feel that at the end of this agenda there could be a fruitful discussion of this Ordinance. announce- Comm. Horgan moved to postpone Ordinance 002 (q-1), ments Comm. Frolich seconded and it was passed unanimously. Director of Planning Laurin announced that the next City Council meeting ma.y be continued from tonight until an undisclosed date. It has been indicated that perhaps it would be May 23 which is Thursday instead of Monday, so that anyone interested would have t� make certain after tonight's meeting. written Director of Planning Laurin informed the Planning Comm- communica ission that he was going on vacation May 28 and would tions miss the subsequent three meetings. Mr. Laurin then discussed the completeness of applications and the time element inv�lved between receipt of applications and advertising. There are real difficulties with an appli- cant on occasion because he feels that he doesn�t want to ma.ke an expensive exhibit before sounding the Planning Comm- ission out. This procedure is doubtful and the CA has warned about carrying this concept too far. There were no other written communications except those per- taining to particular items on the agenda. Commissioner Frolich moved, Commissioner Hirshon seconded and minutes it was passed that the minutes of the April 22, 1968 meeting be approved approved as printed. C�mmissioner Hirshon abstained. Mr. William Hedley, architect representing Louis L. Clausius oral and J. Robert Dempster informed the Commission that he was communica scheduled to appear in Campbell re the library facility and tions requested that Item z(8-z-68) be updated on the agenda. City Attorney Anderson explained that the proper procedure, if the Commission wished to accomodate Mr. Hedley, would �ake a Minute Order. Commissioner Hirshon moved to set the application ahead of the other applications by Minute Order. Commissioner Frolich seconded and it was passed unanimously. ,�, Minutes of the Planning Commission May 13 Zg68 80,000 Pc-5 page 3 Public Hearings 8-z-68 9-U-�$ Item I. 8-Z-68 and 9-u-68 Louis L. Clausius and J.Robert Dempster: Rezoning from R3-2.'2� to CG arid Use Permit. Mr. William Hedley, architect represented the applicants and indicated what they proposed to do with the building. He stated they had received written recommendations from the staff with their qualifications, and basically con- curred. He stated that the structure itself is sound, but presenta- has been neglected over the years. They propose to leave tion the structure intact and remodel the existing porch, re- model the street face of the building which would be harmon- ious with the new construction and give a professional office appearance. Mr. Hedley agreed that the driveway is narrow, but adequate for one moving lane. The proposed use for this would be an attorney's office so that the traffic would be minimal -- approx. 6 clients a day. Mr. Hedley stated that this parcel is larger than some of the residential sites and there is adequate space for landscaping and parking. Mr. Laurin stated that along Stevens Creek Boulevard there are some apartment zonings which actually have the charac- ter of spot zoning and would never be any good apartment Staff developments. The rezoning would clean up the zoning map. report As to the use, Mr. Laurin felt that if the construction is sound and if the ordinances and building code requirements are met, there is no harm in utilizing some older bu.ilding provided they are spruced up -- it would actually lend some variety to the City. Commissioner Buthenuth asked City Engineer Boyd if there was a sidewalk in f ront of this property at this time, quesltions and Mr. Boyd replied that he did not believe there was a sidewalk, that it would be constructed as a portion of the improvement plan. Commissioner Hirshon asked if Mr. Hedley indicated that the building would be for attorney's use and nothing else and Mr. Hedley stated that this was the present intended use but he felt his client wouldn't want to be restricted to this use. Page � Minutes of the Planning C�mmission May 13 1968 80,0�^ � Pc-9 Commissioner Hirshon asked why they were requesting "Commercial" zoning instead of "Professional Offices" and Mr. Hedley was unable to answer. The Planning Director interjected that it may:be'�he fe�lir�g of the prospective owner that Inost of the zoning on Stevens Creek Blvd, is Commercial and perhaps when this building has served its purpose, some time in the future, the l�t would be a part of overall Commercial zoning on Stevens Creek Blvd. Discussion ensued rezoning of Lots 27, 28 , 30 and Mr. Nuzum reported that 27 and 28 were zoned and developed Commercial. Lot 32 still remains Multiple as a result of former County Zoning. There were no audience comments, but Chairman Buthenuth audience stated that he disliked seeing houses used as commercial comments enterprises. Commissioner Hirshon wanted some assurance that it was going to be used for what is proposed. Assistant Planner stated that the Planning Dept, memo cover- ed this well -- that conversion of older buildings should not be standard, but be handled on an individual basis, depending on the quality of the structure. There followed discussion on Use Permit and possible limita- tions subject �� renewal. Chairman Buthenuth, stated he had no objection to the zoning, but the use of the building would restrict future development of the area. p.h.clos- Commissioner Horgan moved, Commissioner Bryson seconded and ed it was unanimously passed that the public hearing be closed. Mr. Laurin explained that in a Commercial Zone we depend on an old County Ordinance which prescribes that a Use Permit is required to retain a residential building in a Commercial zone. If the owner later wants to convert to purely Comm- ercial he would either have to tear the building down or get an entirely new Use Permit. Chairman Buthenuth asked about parking and Mr. Laurin assur- ed him that parking was as required by Ordinance. '�. Minutes of the Planning Commission May 13 Zg68 80,000 PC-� page 5 Commissioner Bryson moved, Commissioner Fr�lich second- ed to approve application 8 vz-68 subject to the 12 8� z-68 standard conditi�ns, approved Ayes: Comm. Bryson, Frolich, Hirshon Noes: Comm. Horgan, Buthenuth Absent:None Motion Carried 3-2 Commissioner Bryson moved, Commissioner Frolich second- ed to approve application 9-U-68 subject to the 12 9-U-68 standard conditions. approved Ayes: Comm. Bryson, Frolich, Hirshon Noes: Comm. Horgan, Chairman Buthenuth Absent:None Motion Carried 3-2 Item C. 8-u-63 Allen L. Chadwick, dba Autorama;� 8-U-63 Revocation bf Use Permit. First Hearing c'd. Mr. Robert Irving, 151 University Ave., Apt 305 Palo Alto, California, present owner of the property stated that he objected to withdrawal of the Use Permit presenta- because he had attempted t� lease the property since tion the last lessee vacated the property in March 1968 He had purchased the property in anticipation of it being used for a Used Car operation, and to that end checked to see that the Use Permit ran with the land. Since the last meeting, he has had to turn down an offer from a used car lot operator in San Jose. Chairman Buthenuth asked City Attorney Anderson if he CA opinion was familiar with the Resolution #�+98 and Mr. Anderson stated he had reviewed the minutes of the prior meeting and reports to the staff, etc. As to the question of this "running with the land" and the question of the rights of the licensees, Mr. Anderson read from McClellan on Municipal Corporations, Volume 9, Section 2681 "There is no contract or vested right for property and a license or permit as against the power of the state or municipality to revoke it in a proper case on a legal cause for forfeiture or on a legal cause for exercise of police power to protect the public health, Page 6 Minutes of the Planning Commission May 13 1968 80,000.� pc-9 safety, morals or welfare. Hence the statute or ordinance may auth�rize revocation of a license or permit for cause in acc�rdance with conditions CA opinion under which it's issued. A licer.se or permit accept- ___ contt, ed under an ordinance providing it need be revoked at pleasure or at the discretion of a specified municipal officer or boa�d is binding on the permittee. A licensee under an ordinance authorizing revocation is stoppe�d from questioning the power of revocation -- especially with respect to license or permit for those businesses, activities or things potentially or frequent- ly unlawful such as sale of int�xicating liquors there is no vested right in the license or permit to a con- tinuance and can be revoked at the pleasure of the municipality providing the revocation is not arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. Like leasewise the mere issuance of a permit where the permittee has not commenced any work or incurred substantial expense on the faith of it does not create a vested right or stop the municipal autherities from. revoking it. This rule is applicable against an a.ssignee of a license or a permit .........m....... ,, Mr. Anderson then stated that the government code which specifically applies to a situation like this and one of the other applications being heard tonight does away with the possibility of arbitrar�ly revoking a license because Section 65905 of the Government Code provides that ��hen an applica- tion for variance or conditional use permit or other permit or revocation or modification of the same or an appeal there- from is submitted, the party charged with conducting the hearing shall give notice of hearing by posting, mail, etc. These procedures were carefully observed because our or- dinance follows this code section. Chairman Buthenuth asked the applicant if he bought the land thinking that the use permit went with it, and if he had any other future plans for the use. The a�plicant replied that he had no other plans at this time. Staff Planning Director Laurin had no furtr�� comments to make on comments this application. City Attorney Anderson explained that the initiative to the revocation was by an action of the Council. Under our ordinances anything connected with the automobile business, service or industry, including gas stations, tire companies, etc, are subject to use permit. Mr. Anderson then went on to discuss the different ramifications of used car lot require- ments, how this land has been put to use, the question of Minutes of the Planning Commi�;�10 i��`� ��, i968 80, 000.�- PC-� Page 7 abandonment, etc. The question remains whether or not you want a car lot on this proper�ty; is there going to be one there, or is the lot to be vacant for 2 or 3 years. What does the public welfare call f or? The C�mmission asked the applicant if he had any further plans for this lot at this time and Mro Irving replied that he did not. Mr. Horgan asked if the use permit had a time limit on it and Mr. Nuzum replied that it did not. Mr. Bryson suggested that perhaps the applicant get to- gether with the Planning Dept, and Building Inspector to create lighting that w�uld be acceptable to the City, since this seems to be a bone of contention. With the proper lighting, proper restrictions, perhaps a use permit could be granted with a 5 year limit on it. City Attorney Anderson explained to the Commission that the original intent was to have cars on the lot no older than 2 years; in fact it was thought that there would be a Chevrolet franchised operation or one of the other leading car manufacturers, and this did not pan out, and the original applicant apparently couldn't keep the business going without one. Commissioner Horgan moved, Commissioner Bryson seconded �_. and it was unanimously passed that the public hearing be p• . closed, closed Commissi�ner Horgan said he felt City Attorney Anderson had stated it correctly -- this is a brand new ball game regardless of the circumstances of the applicant and we should consider it as such. Either we want to oantinue a use permit or we don't. Commissioner Hirshon stated that if the Commissioner revok- ed the Use Permit that doesn't necessarily preclude another applicant wanting a used car lot at that location coming in to ask for it again, but conditions can be imposed at that time as the Commissioner sees fit. _ Commissioner Frolich made a motion that the Commissioner 8- U' 6 3 :..... recommend that Use Permit 8-U-63 be rev�ked. Commissioner revoked Hirshon seconded. Ayes: Commissioners Brys�n, Frolich, Hirshon, Horgan and Buthenuth Noes: None Absent:None Motion Carried 5-0 Page 8 Minutes of the Planning Commission �ay 13 1968 80,000.� PC-9 Chairman Buthenuth informed the applicant that he had a right to appeal to the City Council in writing with- in 5 days . Item D 8-u-68 Union Oil Company; Use Permit for gasoline 8-U-68 s�rvice station. First Hearing. Mr. Green, representative of Union Oil Company of Calif- ornia presented the application for Use Permit to allow present a gasoline service station SW corner Stevens Cr'eek & Bubb ation Rd. He submitted a rendering and explained the architecture adobe slump stone on all sides; roof material curved Spanish tile; landscaping. Commissioner Hirshon asked Mr. Green if he anticipated quest- storing any trailers on the property and the applicant ions replied that they did not. Discussion ensued re location �f stations in the area. When asked about sidewalks, Director Public Works, Finney stated that the usual plan with the Freeway designs the DPW State �is producing now is to include a�:idewalk. It was recomm- not our intention th�t sidewalks should be wazved on Stevens endat- Creek Blvd. - apparently this was an oversight at the time. ion He recommended that they be included. Planning Director Laurin reported that this property is in a Light Industri�.l zone, and at the time �f rezoning there were a number �f conditions imposed on the zoning because of the location of' the area. Right now we are concerned with two of these conditions -- #13 and #16. #13 provides Staff for ways to change that c�ndition. The Planning Commission Comment might consider Mr. Rodrigues' contention that the applica- tion for a tise Permit does not constitute a change of the general list previously agreed upon -- it is a regular Use Permit for a particular lot within the zone. Condition #16 to the rezoning does not provide a procedure for any change. Planning Director Laurin presented exhibits -- One memo from the City Planning Dept. and one from the County Planning Dept. (independent of each other), also two letters from the State Division �f Highways. He explained that as matter of routine, the County and City Planning Departments mutually refer to each other applications near the boundary. Referral was in this case, the State Division of Highways since the Freeway is involved. He stated that the State is redesigning the area and is taking responsibility for construction �aot , �nly;.of.���e Freeway ramps; but also some of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Minutes of the Planning Commission May 13 1968 80,000.� PC-� Page g Mr. Green went on to discuss ingress and egress, traffic problems, signalization and safety factors involved in entering and leaving the ramps of the future Freeway. Mr. Green reported on an extensive study on Service Stations and reas�ns why motorists interrupt their travels (emer- gencies; gasoline, food, toilet facilities; supplemental reasons -- rest areas, map reading, etc). Mr. John Rodrigues reviewed the history of Use Permits under the old M-1 Ordinance under which the County opera- ted. He stated the wording of Item �-`13 was changed twice and it ended up saying, "The following described Property be and hereby i� rezoned to Light Industrial subject to the conditions set forth in the Planning Commission Re- solution #406 hereby amended by changing the wording of condition #13 to read "any pr�posed use shall conform with the list attached hereto as exhibit C or shall be approved review by Minute Order by the Planning Commission and the City Council". Re #16 -- at the time of the rezoning and tenta- tive map neither the City nor anyone had accurate plans from the State of California determining exactly what they were going to do on the Freeway. They do have plans now and this d�es conform to their plan of traffic and they have no objection to it whatsoever. Chairman Buthenuth asked what the plans were for the �8f question ft, on the East side now indicated as rough graded. Mr. Green reported there are no plans at the moment. Mrs. Anna Anger, 10185 Empire Ave, protested the Use Permit stating that better things were promised for the so called protest industrial park, and used the current City calendar as an example. She stated that there already were numerous gas stations in the area and cited the locations. Ralph Ramona, Town Center Lane challenged Mrs. Anger and re- viewed the hearings for change in General Plan in the Monta Vista rezoning re-proposals for two new service stations. Mr. Rollin Kenetzer, 10060 Pharlap Drive, Cupertino, pro- tested the gas station stating we didn't need another one in the area -- There are 5 gas stations within a quarter of a mile going west on �t�eu�ns Creek Blvd. ; we already have too many gas stations in the area, with the end result being we have the reputation of being "gasoline alley". Page 10 Minutes of the Planning Commission May 13 1968 80,00�.� PC-� Carol Fritz, 22005 Regnart Road asked Mr. Green about other Union Oil stations stating there are 3 on Highway 9, and was informed by the area manager that the one on Bollinger Rd. was closed. Mr. Green explained that the two were in San Jose and the one on Bollinger was a forced acquisition. p.h. Commissioner Horgan moved, Commissioner Bryson seconded closed and it was unanim�usly approved that the public hearings be closed. Commissioner Horgan m�ved and Commissioner Bryson 8-U-68 seconded to deny application 8-�-68. den�ed Ayes: Commissioners Bryson, Frolich, Hirshon, Horgan and Buthenuth Noes: None Absent:None Motion Carried 5-.0 The applicant was informed of his right of appeal to the City Council in writing within 5 days. lo-U-68 Item E, lo-U-68 James MacDonald ,1Use Permit t� a�lov�_ 3: structure where ordinance permits 2 stories onTy� The applicant James D. MacDonald presented his plan for Lot #7, Tract �+038 which exceeds the City Ordinance with re- gard to the number of stories allowed, explaining that they have designed the lowest story in the house so that it is effectively a garage, not to be used as living quarters. When examined f rom the rear, the house is a two story house, less than 25 ft, tall so it doesn't violate the �rdinance. When examined from the front it is considerably more than 25 ft. tall -- in the region of 30 ft�t and appears as a 3 story house. He stated that the house wouldn't hinder any- one's view and the design permits a more possible economic condition for building. Director Public Works, Finney stated he went over Mr. Mac- Donald's plans and it is as he says and �rie grading is no more extensive than presently exists on that particular tract. Itgs extremely steep terrain, there is an �ccess problem which Mr. MacDonald is solving, including fire access, etc. Mr. Finney sees no engineering �bjection to the plan as presented. Planning Director deferred to Assistant Planner Nu2um who stated the appropriate sections of the ordinance were quoted in his memo to the Commissioner�.He emphasized that staff the uphill side does comply with the ordinance. The only comments question is the fr�nt of the house -- will you allow the garage underneath or not. The ordinance says that 3 stories may be permitted by Use Permit provided the lowest story is not used for residential purposes. '� Minutes of the Planning Commissi��� ��y 13 �968 80,000.� PC -9 Page 11 Juanita ��Zc:���r er� stated she f Elt the Commi�s ion was set�ing a precedent with this applicati�n for everyone else who tries to build on those lots, and is protest- audience ing this application. comments Commissioner F�olich moved and Commissioner Hor°gan sec- onded that the public heari�gs be closed, �nd it was p.h. passed unanimously. closed Commissioner Frolich, moved and Commissioner Horgar� seconded to approve application 10-U wi�h the lo-U-68 conditio�. that the lower level of' the building not approved be used for a 1.iving area. Ayes: Commissioners Frolich, Hirsrion, Hor�an and Buthenu�h IVoes : None Abstain; Cocnm. Bryson Absent : No��e Motion Carried �k-0-1 Item F 11-u-68 �Iaru�l Marchant: Use Permit fp� Of�ic� 11-u-68 �ui��ii�g in Planned Development zone. Mr. Robert Marchant, 21567 Rair_bow Drive, Cupzrtino, re- � prese�ti�g applicant Manuel Marchant requesting use per- mit for of�'ice building in the Flanned Devv Zone, located preser�ta- betwee� Town Center Lane �n.d Znlel_ls Fargo �3ank on the east tion si�e of Saratoga-Sunn�rvale Road. He stated that the pro- posed structure is compatible with the adjacent buildings. The application w�s made in 1965 and approved through all �hases at that time. Constructicn had been p�stponed and they are r�ow requ�sting approv�l. Assista�t Planner Nuzum stated this was approved c�riginal�y by H. ContrGl, Planning Commission and City Coun�il. There were no object�ons at that time. '�ne preposed building does Staff blend ira.�aith the Town Cen�er and with Well� Fargo Bank. comments It would fill i� an empt�r spo� ar�d give �his section of Saratog�Sunnyvale Road a very at�ractive appearance. Mr. Nuzum recommended this apnlication be approved. Commissioner Hirshcn asked if there were any specific con- ditions attached to this applicatione question Mr. i�uzum replied th.at there were no conditions except those applied at ri-Control level and this Committee will review this agair� for any updating they feel necessary. Commissioner Frblich moved, Commissioner Horgan seconded p.h. and it was passed unanimously that the public hearing be closed c1„osed. Page 1 Minutes of the Planning Commissiori P��,y :�3 1_g68 80, 000. � PC -� 11-U-68 Commissioner Hirshcn moved, Camm��s�.oner h.organ seconded approved to approve application 1.1-�-68 Ayes: Commissior�ers Bryson, F�olic��, Hirshon, Ho�gan and Buthenu�h Noes: None AbserLt �None • �iot� or Carri��3 5-0 recess Chairman Buthenut� ca�led a r°cess at� 1Co10 �.m. ThP meetir�g recon.�rened at 1G : 25 p e mo 6-u-68 Item G 6-u-68 Z .B. Nelson & Atisoc.: Use Permit "�o a11ow fJVE''i �i=�a a _.' ,_ � 1 �1E.'S a Mr. Bob Fiddeman, represen.tir.g L.B. Nelson, stated tney were unaware of the �i'�y Ordinance re under.ground utilities. He explained tha� the situation re�e is that the properties qn the E�st side o�' Homes�ead �.igh School were surrounded on three sides by existing overhead utili�y lines. The ori- ginal plan was fc�� complete cverhead �ype of serviee with poles being added to the west si3e of tre property and ser- ving a11 of the buildir�gs with oveihead ii��.es. They have come up with a compromise which is basically �.n underground ut- ility system excep� for the addition of � pcles on the side ad jacen t to the h.igh sc:nc�:i o Plarining Director Laurin sta �ed that tr�e ordinance does pro- vide for exceptions in cases like this w!�ere there are small staff is�ands within an area already developed with overhead facil- comment�. ities . '�her 3Jir���:tor does reco�nmer�d approval, part- �_�:ulari,y as they wili mos�1� u'cilize e�.isting overhead faci- �_�ties� He did suggest that tn.e Planning Commission, as a condition, attach the exhibit tc th.e Use Permit. Commissioner Froyich moved, Commissioner Hirshon seconded p.h, and it was passed unanimously that the public hearing be closed closedo Commissioner Fr�olic'r� movad, Commissioner Hargan secon.ded that application 5-U-68 be approvAd subject to the condition 6-u-68 ��at the site plan. presen�ed here be retained as an official approved exhibit. Ayes: Commissi.oners Brys�on, Frclich, Hirshon, Horgan, and Buthenuth Noes: None Absen�:None Motion Carried 5-0 Minutes of the Plannirlg Commission May ;�3 1968 80, 000. � P C -'9 : Page 13 Item J 9-z -68 Roy Sebrell Rezoning i rom R3t���.;2� tQ P,2-4•25 9-z -68 Mr. Roy Sebrell 829 Williams Way, Mountain View, stated presenta- that the application, was self-expZan��ory and asked if tion there were any questions. Assistant Planner Nuzum sta�ed this was �he identical sit- uation to the recent Wilson-J�nes application. This is basicaily a trip�ex areaa The applicant desires to build a � duplex - it is not permitted ur�der our ordinance. We Still feel that the ordinance as it i� written should be upheld and it should require rezon2ng to "Pyramid" in an apart- ment area. We recommend that this application be approved because the applicant is fully aware that he is building staff in an apartment area and we feel the building will in no comments way detract f rom the area. Commissioner Hirshon moved, Commissioner Frolich seconded and it was passed unanimously that the public hearings be p.h. closed. closed Commissioner Hirshon moved, Commissioner Horgan secor�ded that application 9-Z-68 be approved subject to the 12 9-z-68 conditions. approved Ayes: Commissioners Bryson, Frolich, Hirshon, Horgan and Buthenuth Noes: None Absent:None Motion Carried 5-0 Item K. 10-Z- 68 - John Saich and Del Oro. Dev. Co. Rezon-� 10-Z-68 irg from R?-2.7 to R3-2.2�. Mr. Car1 Hayland represented the applicant and stated he could not add much to what has already been spelled out in the Planning Directors reporto He is in complete accord presenta- with �he recommendations 13, l� and 15 which would supple- tion ment the standard 12 conditionsset forth by the City. Mre Laurin reviAwed the different zonings in the area and pointed out examples where the high density apartments looked fair�y we11a Mr. Laurin did not make a firm re- commendation in this case except that if the Planning staff Commission decides to recommend to the Council the higher comments density he thinks that the conditions ag`reed upon would be necessary. Commissioner Bryson moved, Commissioner Horgan seconded and it was passed unanimously that the public hearings be p.h. closed. closed Page 1� Minutes of the Planning Commission May 13 1968 80,000.� P C -� Commissioner Bryson moved and Commissioner Frolich seconded that application 10-z-68 be approved subject to the 12 standard conditions plus the additional � conditions outlined in Mr. Laurin's memo, 13, 1�, 15, 10 - 68 dated May 9, 1g68 regarding 1� - Z - 68. approved Ayes: Commissioners Bryson, Frolich and Hirshon Noes: Commissioners Horgan, Buthenuth Absent: None Motion Carried 3-2 11-Z-68 Item L. 11-Z-68 10-TM-b8 10-TM-68 - Takeyuki Toma Rezoning �ram:.A1-?�3 to Rl-'�.5, and Tentative Map. Mr. Tom Henderson, Civil Engineer represented the appli- cant. He stated that the proposal is to develop the 1.� present-'acre parcel into �+ lots, the smallest being slightly ation larger than 7500 sq. ft., The existing property has two homes on it at the present time and an old structure which will probably be removed. The applicant lives in the larger home on the larger parcel and hopes to maintain that 1ot; the other three will be divided so two can be sold as building sites and one with the existing house on it. Planning Director Laurin exhibited a protest letter from Bernard M. Wo1fe stating his 0.6 acres should be considered staff together with this application, since it is immediately comments adjacent to the north. Mr. Laurin concurred and stated that if this 0.6 acre parcel were rezoned to R3, it shouldn't have an access through this area; but that if it were re- zoned to RT the cul-de-sac should be extended to the north. Mr. Nuzum noted that the letter from Mr. Wolfe requests that this matter be continued since he was unable to attend this meeting, and stated Mr. Wolfe's proposals --one that perhaps they should have a 20 ft. accessway to the rear. If the 0:�6 acre parcel were developed as a recreation area, they would- n't need access. If it were going to be developed as part of the apartment complex, there is na way to get a street f rom the present complex into this area, therefore they would need street access. He felt that it was unfair to consider the matter and reach a decision without Mr. Wolfe or his represent- ative attending the meeting. The Planning Director felt, how- ever that a decision could be made on the rezoning, but that the tentative map should be continued. � Minutes of the Planning Commis�ion May 13 1g68 80 ,000.� PC-� Page 15 Mr. Boyd stated he � has ��1:.udied the land in depth and could see no reason to postpone the hearing. He felt that the owner of the'parcel did not have a legitimate case for access. The triangular parcel was purchased from the Division of Highways b�r him as a piece of residual pro- perty. He,could not have purchased that from the state had he not had facilities for access - that is if he had owned the adjacent property to the west. Mr. Boyd felt it was not fair for the Planning Commission or the City to be used as a speculative venture - that is to buy a c.e. piece of property which is apparently land locked on comments the an�icipation that �wheri the ne,ighbor of the p�operty deve3�ops, he will be forced to give access. If Mr. Toma were n�t to develop this property and retained it as a singl�e unit, that triangle would never have access. Mr.:Laurin said that the Planning Director advises against anyth'ing other''�han Rl Zoning because the out- Iet for the property considered on the application would be through ,purely R1 streets. Commissione•r Horgan made a Minute Order to continue - � 10-TM-68 until tne next regular meeting, Commissioner 10-TM=68 Hirshon seconded and it was passed unanimously. cont. Commissioner Horgan moved, Commissioner Bryson second- ed and it was passed unanimously that the public hear- p.h. ing on application 11-Z 68 be closed. closed Commissioner Horgan moved and �ornrl, � ��'ro� ich secor_ded - � that application 11 be approved subject to the 11-Z-68 12 standard conditions. approved Ayes: Commissioners Bryson, Frolich, Hirshon, Horgan and Buthenuth Noes: None Absent:None Motion Carried 5-0 Item M 12-Z-68 - George Ahamnos: Rezoning from Resid- ential Multiple High Density (R3-2.2�) to Gen- eral Commerc ial (�G) . 20, 000 sq . f t. loc ated NW 12 -Z -68 corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue. First Hearing. Mr. George Ahamnc�s, 20567 Whistle Lane, Saratoga request- ed that this property be rezoned to commercial. He presenta- stated that he had read the staff report and had nothing tion further to add. Page 16 Minutes of the Planning Commission May 13, 15�68 80,�000. Pc-9 Assistant Planner Nuzum stated that this is '_n what is considered the commercial area fronting on �t,e�ens Creek Blvd. and there is no problem with the rezoning. Hope- fully all the�property to the �00 ft. depth could be re- staff zoned at the same time; however, the owner of the pro- commentsperty immediately north of this application does not wish his property rezoned at this time. Approval of this application sub,ject to the 12 standard conditions is recommended. Mr. L. E. Miesta, owner of the property next to that owned by Mr. Geor�e Ahamnos stated he was not proteating - the proposed development, but does want to make sure there audien- is a wa11 separating his property from that of the restaur- ce ant. comm. Mr. Nuzum pointed out that the ordinance requires a� ft. masonry wall be built betw�en commercial and residential. Commissioner Bryson moved, Commissioner Horgan seconded and it was passed unanimously that the public hearings P•h• be closed. closed Commiss�dner Hirshon stated he was not entirely apposed to commercial zoning, but felt there was enough of that type of development at the present time in the City and would like'to see professional office zoning. Commissioner Bryson moved, Commissioner Frolich seconded to approve application 12-z-68 sub�ect to 12 standard conditions. - -� Ayes: Commissioners Bryson, Frolich 12+Z-1�$ Noes: Commissioners Hirshon, Horgan, Buthenuth denied Absent:None Motion �Ef�eated-2-3 Chairman Buthenuth informed the applicant of his right of appeal to the City Council in writing within 5 days. � Item N 13-z-68 Provence Associates�:� Prezoning from Resid- 13-Z-68 ential Single-f amily 10,000 sq. ft. lots (R1-10) to Residential Multiple Cluster (R�C-2.7). Approx. 17 acres west side of Foothill Blvd., south of San Juan Road. First Hearing. � Minutes of the Planaing Commission May 13 1968 80,000.� PC -9 Page 17 Mr. Fred Dole, Architect, �77 Victory Ave., Mountain View represented the owners on the pr�ject. He re-- viewed the proposed project showing photographs af the structural system. He stated his primary purpose a� this time was to try to get the "feel" of the Commiss ion for this project. The plan is for approx. 200 units, using a loading ramp into the parking area. Mr. Dole presented two sketches, one a section through the property showing location of proposed parking, the presenta other showing the location of the cluster type unit. tion � The plan is to put the living units toward the lower end,being accessible from the parking level via an elevator traveling on the existing slope. Commissioner Bryson suggested that before any action was taken on this app�ication a trip to Ralston Ro�.d in Belmont where such a development can be viewed, would be in order. Chairman Buthenuth informed the representative that this would probably be the last meeting for several of the Planning Commissioners, and perhaps it would be better to continue until the next meeting. Also, the ataff would have an opportunity to study the matter more carefully. City Attorney Anderson suggested that the secretary record names and addresses of people present protest- protests ing so they can be advised of the location, etc. Mrs. Robert Cromwell 22562 Alcalde, Cupertino Mrs. Edw. D. Jones 22600 Ricardo Rd., Cupertino Mrs. Shirley Matteis 1059�+ Cordova Rd., Cupertino Mr. J. R. Ferguson 22560 Ricardo Rd., Cupertino Mrs. 0. Guidotti 22620 Ricardo Rd., Cupertino Mrs. Voss 22561 Alcalde Rd., Cupertino Mr. Angelo Guidotti 110�1 Stevens Canyond Road Mr. Guidotti questioned the number of units, asked what they planned to do for water and discussed the problems of fire, traffic and width of the roads. Mr. Boyd commented that he had only looked at this appli- cation briefly. He agreed that there are soils problems, but as an engineer felt refreshed to see a new concept for hillside development. He stated that during the next two weeks his office would review the development and per- c.e. haps at the next meeting give a report that would be help- comments ful to the applicant and also informative to the people who are interested in it. Page 18 Minutes of the Planning Commission May 13 1968 80,-000 PC��' - Commissioner Horgan moved, Commissioner Bryson secon 13-z-68 and it was passed unanimously that application 13-Z�-68 cont. be continued until the next regular meeting. unf. Unfinished Business bus. 11-u-67 John F. Coughlan, dba Stevens Creek CGard:�.�n ����er at 1930o Stevens Creek Blvd. Resolution No �+9g to consider 11-U-67 revocation of Use Permit granted November 6, 1967. City Attorney Anderson informed the Commission that Att�r, Donovan brought to his attention the f act that there m�ght c.a. be a conflict of interest inasmuch as he has represented with- someone who may protest against this particular applica- draws tion. After discussion with the City Manager, it was agreed that in the public interest, to assure the people of a f air and impartial hearing that he withdraw from the matter. Mr. Anderson wanted the record to show �hat he had not discussed the matter with anyone on the Plann- ing Commission, nor with an�r� meinber of the City Council. Commisaioner Bryson suggested the Planning Commission go ahead with the consideration of the revocation as planned. Commissioner Hirshon stated he wasn't present at the last meeting and requested that the public'� hearing be reopened so that Mr. Donovan could recap what was happening. Commissioner Horgan moved, Commissioner Bryson seconded p,Y�, and it was passed unanimously to open the public hearing. re - opened Mr. Donovan told the Comm: he represented the new tenants of Stevens Creek Garden Center. Without any forewarning that there was to be a revocation, they went in and signed review a lease to operate the Garden Center. They put around $5,000 into the operation and it was shortly after that there was a motion from the City Council to revoke the Use Permit on the grounds of abandonment. He explained that the only abandonment occured because the Small Business Adm. had liens against the previous tenants and the owner could not lease the property until these things were clear - ed. Mr. Donovan told the Comm. that Mr. Cali has no objection to an extension of the perm�t with the following conditions: l. That the permit not be extended longer than 5 years. 2, That the permit not exceed the uses to which it is already put. 3. That a presentable 6 ft. fence be put between his property and the other property. Minutes of the Planning Commission May 13 1g68 80,000.� PC-� P�.g� �.9 Commissioner Frolich moved, Commissior�er Horgan seconded and it was passed unanimously that the public hearing be closed. p.h. closed Commissioner Bryson moved, Commissioner Horgan seconded that the Use Permit under 11-U 67 be revok- 11-U-67 ed. Ayes: Commissioners Brys�n, Fro�ich, Horgan and Buthenuth Noes: Commissioner Hirshon Absent:None Motion Carried �-1 The applicant was advised of his right of appeal to the City Council in. writing within 5 days. New Bus in.e s s new bus. There was no new 'uusiness Adjournment Commissioner Horgan moved, Commissioner Bryson second- ed and it was passed unanimously that the meeting be adjourn- adjourned. ment The meeting ad journed at 11: �-1�5 p. m. APPROVED: Z� �� - -- --�z� � /�/ John W. Buthenuth ATTEST: Chairman Q��� ��� -� Director of Planning ,