Loading...
PC 11-12-68 1 CITY OF CUPERTIN0 State of California 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Phone: 252-4505 P��22 80,000.4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETTNG OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD NOVEMBER 12, 1968 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIF�RNIA The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Frolich, �all to order who subsequently led the assemblage in the flag salute. flag salute Commissioners present: Irwin, Hirshon, Buthenuth, Puetz, Frolich. Also present: Senior Planner Laurin; Assistant Planner Nuzum: Director of Public Works Finney; City Engineer Boyd; Recording roll call Secretary Lucie M. Matzley. Senior Planner called attention,to�a transcription error on page 3 of the minutes of October 17, 1968 whereby the last two words of the second line of the first paragraph should transcription read, "Final Map". error Commissioner Irwin moved, Commissioner Buthenuth seconded and it was passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the October 17, minutes 1968 meeting as corrected. approved Commissioner Irwin moved, Commissioner Buthenuth seconded and it was passed unanimously with Hirshon abstaining to approve the minutes minutes of the October 28, 1968 meeting. approved Senior Planner advised the Commissioners that he was in receipt " of a communication from the Flood Control District in which they asked that discussion of Application 25-TM-68, Item D. request for under "Public Hearings" be postponed. It was Mr. Laurin's sug- postponement gestion that the public hearing could be held in any event but that it should be continued in order to make it possible for the District to make their report. Mr. Laurin also suggested that the discussion of the Light In- dustrial (ML) Ordinance be postponed to a later meeting with- out any discussion this time. Chairman Frolich suggested that, discussions because he would prefer the City Attorney to be present at the to postpone discussions of the General Commercial (CG) zones ordinance, matters this matter be postponed as well, also in view of the lengthy agenda. Commissioner Irwin moved, Commissioner Puetz seconded and it was passed unanimously to postpone the hearing of Ordinance 81004.124 220 to the next regular meeting. continued Commissioner Irwin moved, Commissioner Hirshon seconded and it was passed unanimously to continue discussions of Light In- 81.004.122 dustrial (ML) zones Ordinance to the next regular meeting. continued , page 2 Minutes of Planning Commission November 12, 1968 PC�22 Senior Planner Laurin advised the Commissioners of a written com� munication relative to a rezoning from A to R3-2.4 at the South- county east corner of McClellan Road and Southern Pacific Railroad. This referral matter was a County referral and Mr. Laurin stated that it was in the unincorporated area surrounded by low density zones. audience Chairman Frolich asked for audience comments. Mr. Allen Thompson of comment 809 September, Cupertino, stated that he was very much against the re- zoning. letter ta Commissione� Irwin moved that a letter be written to the County Planning be written Department expressing this Commission's desire to maintain the R1 charac� ter of that area. Commissioner Buthenuth seconded and it was passed un- animously. additional Senior Planner Laurin further advised the Commissioners of a written com- County re- munication received from the County referring a request for Use Permit ferral of a Day Care School for twenty children on 10222 Scenic Boulevard to this Commission. advise of When Chairman Frolich called for audience comments, Mr. D. Kaster of petition 10444 Scenic Boulevard stated that a petition was being passed around his neighborhood opposing this use permit. Commissioner Buthenuth moved, Commissioner Puetz seconded and it was pas- directive sed unanimously that the Planning Department contact the County Planning to staff Department stating that there are no strong feelings on the part of this Commission relative to this application but, should it be favorably con- sidered, a time limit might possibly be placed against the application. no orals There were no oral communications. Public Hearings 21-Z-68 A. 21-Z-68 and 23-TM-68: Earl Pennington and Mitchell Bagar: 23-TM-68 Rezoning from Residential Single-family 10,000 sq. ft. lots legend (R1-10) to Residential Duplex (R2-4.25), and Tentative Map for 8-lot subdivision. Approximately 2.6 acres located west side of Randy Lane between Forest Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. First Hearing. Mr. Tom Henderson, Civil Engineer, made the presentation of both appli- cations, stating that, following suggestions by planning staff, the presenta- Tentative Map had been changed to include the proposed street. Commissioner tion Irwin stated that the main objections raised during the last meeting had been the proposed duplexes in the middle of R1 zoning and the street pattern, both of which had apparently been resolved. staff report Senior Planner Laurin supplemented the Assistant Planner's report by stat- ing that the overall street pattern for the area includes the existing streets as well as those approved as part of current Tentative Maps, and that a connecting street could be located anywhere on the subject property and serve its intended purpose but must be located in such a fashion that it eliminates the need for flag lots. Further, that another street in a more southerly location is necessary to avoid flag lots when that area is devel- oped, but that street does not necessarily have to go through; it may be a Minutes of the Planning Commission November 12, 1968 page 3 21--Z-��68 and 23- TM- 68 cont' d. cul-de-sac. Accordingly, the Planning staff has no reservations against the approval of the revised Tentative Map. City Engineer Boyd stated that the property to the left of the site is develop- ed with homes and that it would be some time before anyone would care to subdivide that property �o the north. The City Engineer wondered if it would not be better to place the street to the southerly boundary of Lots 3, 5, 6 and 8 on the Tentative Map be- tween Vista Drive and Forest Avenue, leaving a 20' strip for de- dication along the property adjoining that of Camarda so that the Camarda property can be served from this street in the future. There were no audience comments. no comments Commission Puetz moved, Commissioner Hirshon seconded and it public hearing was passed unanimously to close the public hearing. closed On the premise that he was against changing the character of the zoning, Commissioner Irwin moved for denial of Application 21- motion dies Z-68. Motion died for lack of a second. Puetz moved to approve Application 21-Z--68 subject to the 12 21-Z-68 Standard Conditions. �uthenuth seconded, all ayes except Irwin, approved who voted "No". Commissioner Puetz mov��� to approve Application 23-TM--68 sub3ect to the 12 Standard Conditions. Ayes: Hirshon, 23-TM-68 Puetz, Frolich, Noes: Buthenuth, Irwin. Motion passed 3-2. approved B. 22-Z-68 and 23-U--68: Charles T. Voelke and J. Robert Dempster: Rezoning from Residential Multiple High- 22-Z-68 Density (R3-2.2�) to General Commercial (CG), and Use 23-U-68 Permit to use the present sCructure as an office build- legend ing, located at 20333 Stevens Creek Boulevard. First matters hearing. combined Commissioner Irwin moved, Commissioner Puetz seconded and it was passed unanimously to combine the hearing of both matters. Mr. Robert Dempster stated that Architect Hedley had been unavoid- ably detained and that he was presenting the applications on his behalf. According to Mr. Dempster, the zoning request was in accordance to the General Plan and the request for a Use Permit was to afford the highest and best use of the property. Mr. Dempster said that the existing structure was well built, inside and out, and well planned for an office use and it would natural- ly conform to all City requirements. Commissioner Irwin commended Mr. Dempster on the excellent fashio in which his present office building had been renovated and ex- pressed his hope that this second structure would be built as well. The staff supplemented its written report on the application, there was nothing further. There were no audience comments. no comments Commissioner Hirshon stated that, if he agreed to the approval, it would be on the basis of its location and not as a blanket approv- page 4 Minutes of the Planning Commission November 12, 1968 22-Z�--68 and 23-- U-68 cont' d al for all future applications that might come in for conversion of re� sidences into offices. He felt that the applicant had done a commend- able �ob on his present office and that this was a good addition to Cupertino. public Commissioner Irwin moved to close the public hearing. It was seconded hearing by Commissioner Puetz and passed unanimously. closed Commissioner Irwin moved, Commission Puetz seconded for approval of Ap� 22-Z-68 plication 22-Z-68 subject to the 12 standard conditions. All ayes. approved Commissioner Irwin moved for approval of Application 23-U-68 with the understanding that this building must conform to the Building Code as 23-U-68 it applies to commercial or office buildings. All ayes except Buthenuth approved who voted '�No". C. i3-Z--68 and 24-TM-68: John E. Saich and Ditz-Crane: Re- zoning from Planned Development (P-re) with Planned In- 23-Z-68/ dustrial Park (MP) use to Residential Single-family 7,500 24 sq. ft. lots (R1-7.5), and Tentative Map, approximately legend 31 acres located north of University Way, east of South- inatters ern Pacific Railroad and west of proposed Stevens Free� combined way. First Hearing. Commissioner Irwin r�oved, Commissioner Hirshon seconded and it was ap- proved unanimously to combine the hearings of both matters. Mr. George Ditz presented the Application stating that the property was located across from the proposed Stevens Freeway and is bordered by the freeway and the railroad tracts and that a temporary access was proposed to facilitate the sales. According to Mr. Ditz, there were inherent problems as the proposed homes were in the $40,000 bracket and backing presenta- onto a proposed freeway construction, but that everything possible would tion be done to alleviate any possible traffic congestion on Stevens Creek Boulevard as it intersects with Penir.su�ar l�venue and Stevens Freeway. Mr. Ditz also stated that the development would be most attractively de- signed and would be constructed in two stages. Senior Planner Laurin supplemented his writ��n depar�:r.er_��1 report on the subject stating that cross sections of streets are not shown on the Ten� tative Map but that it was assumed that the section will have the stan- staff dard 60' width for residential streets. According to staff, clarifica- report tion that was needed was whether or not the only access road, Peninsular Avenue, would be widened and which cross section it would have. City Engineer Boyd stated that a temporary access road would not present any immediate problems and would meet with the Public Works Department's approval. The only provision he would suggest was that the fact that this is a temporary access road be posted as such to insure that all pro- spective homeowners will have no doubts relative to the temporary nature Minutes of the Planning Commission November 12, 1968 page 5 23--Z- 68 and 24-�TM-68 cont' d of this street. Mr. Boyd suggested that, should this application be approved, this condition be made a partof the conditions for approval. Mr. Boyd gave a brief history on the Saich property and its de� staff velopment after which he suggested that any action at this meet� requests ing should not be postponed but that a condition should be impos- ed by which a guarantee from the State of California is obtained that they intend to widen Peninsular Avenue prior to, or concur- rent with, the temporary access that is presently nroposed to as�- sure adequate access. Chairman Frolich reviewed the Engineer's requests as being 1) a 15' right of way for University Avenue to be dedicated and im� proved� 2) that the houses should not have double frontage lots, and 3) that Alhambra Avenue is to be somehow included in the sub- division plan. When Chairman Frolich called for audience comments Mrs. Anne Anger came forth to say that she was very much in favor of this project but that she objected to the inference that this area audience was substandard as she, personally, had worked very hard to gain commentis cooperation from the various City agencies to make this area at�- tractive. Mr. Ditz stated that his conviction was firm that this area should remain as an isolated neighborhood and that some compromise would need to be made from principles over practicality, as problems were in existence and cooperation was necessary as this was a unique development. When asked to render his opinion on a possible necessity of a 60' street, City Engineer Boyd stated that if the Tentative Map were approved and the east/west street including the cul-de�-sac would be put in, then the proposed street with 30' of right-of-way for the proposed plan would be adequate� however, that he would pre- fer to have the east/west street moved southerly. staff opinion Senior Planner Laurin read a communication from the County Plan� ning Commission relative to this matter: "1. Since there are some large and unusual shaped lots; it should be possible to find room for a small (1/2 acre) park. Preferable a'tiny tot lot' . 2. The lots backing up to University Way should be screened from it by landscaping.`' As an alternative to the suggested dedication of the 15' to the City and leaving it in its existing state, thereby encumbering the City with the development of it, City Engineer Boyd suggest- page 6 Minutes of the Planning Commission November 12. 1968 23-Z-68 and 24�TM-68 cont'd. ed that the 15' dedication be eliminated and no street be anticipated at this time. After considerably more conversation among the Commissioners and the ap- plicant it was the consensus that this presentation was incomplete in parts and should be continued to the next meeting. public Commissioner Buthenuth moved to close the public hearing; Commissioner hearing Irwin seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. closed Commissioner Buthenuth moved to continue Application 24�-TM�68 to the 24�TM-68 next regular meeting with the directive that the staff contact all other continued involved agencies and the applicant to work out all inherent problems with direc prior to rehearing. Com.missioner Irwin seconded, it was passed unanimous- tive ly. � 23-Z $8 Commissioner Buthenuth moved to approve Application 23--L-5u subject to the approved 12 Standard Conditions. Irwin seconded, all ayes. recess Chairman Frolich called a recess at 9:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:03 p.m. D. 25-TM-68: Ward Crump: Tentative Map for 38-lot subdivision. 11.6 acres located at east end of Palm Avenue, between Black^ berry Farm and the Horse Ranch. First Hearing. Mr. Tom Henderson, Civil Engineer, presented the application and explain- ed it by the use of a plot plan. There were numerous questions relative to lot 38 on the most southerly 25-TM-68 portion of the property and Mr. Henderson maintained that no development legend of any kind was anticipated and that the site would be left as a separate ownership when the Final Map was filed. Also, that the grading of the site would be affected as well a� erosion control and that the Flood Con- trol District had indicated that they might wish to relocate the creek from its present channel. In any event, the bend would soraeday be re� aligned and would have a curb on it. Senior Planner Laurin elaborated on his previously submitted written re- port stating that, since the only access to this 38 lot subdivision is through Scenic Boulevard, a continuation of Scenic Boulevard to the east would be desirable. He emphasized that the connection across the creek should not be a standard 60' and a correspondingly expensive bridge, but a two-lane vehicular connection is desirable and a pedestrian connection essential. City Engineer Boyd stated that, while he did not wish to uphold any action additional in connection with this application at this meeting, he prefered to complete dedication a survey to establish the necessity for additional dedications along Scenic required Blvd. to facilitate vehicular traffic. PC�22 80,000.4 Minutes of the PC November 12, 1968 page 7 25-'i';�?: �68 cont' d Director of Public Works Finney agreed with the City Engineer stating that it would be more in keeping with the City require- ments to have a second access road. When asked if Scenic Boulevard could be extended easterly, the applicant stated that the cost for this method would be in excess of $200,000. Staff was in agree- ment with the applicant that enforcing the expenditure of such monies would be unjustified at this time and unfair to the applicant. I When Chairman Frolich called for audience comments, Mr. R. E. Kester of 10440 Scenic Boulevard addressed the Commissioners stating that the proposed abandonment of the curved driveway would preclude him from access to his own property. Mr. Kester explained the exact location of his property on the plot plan. Director of Public Works Finney explained that lot 38 would not be included in the final map but improvements would be required for the rest of the lots. Further that a record of survey should be run for a11 the lots. �Commissioner Hirshon moved, Commissioner Irwin seconded and it was public hearing passed unanimously to close the public hearing. closed Commissioner Hirshon moved that Application 25-TM-68 be aporoved, sub�ect to the 12 Standard Conditions with condition 13) that the 25-TM-68 dedication and improvements on Scenic Boulevard be made to the approved specifications of the Department of Public Works; 14) to require with that a record of. survey be filed by the applicant concerning the conditions land surrounding lot 38 as indicated on the Tentative Map; and 15) that the developer acquire rights to the two portions of street to be abandoned. Commissioner Irwin seconded, all ayes. E. 26--TM-68: Varian Associates: Tentative Map and revision 26-TM-6 of Development Plan. 98 acres located in Vallco Park 9-U-66 at Homestead Road, Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and Tantau Avenue. First Hearing. Mr.Robt. Worcester�Directar of Facilities of Varian Associates, pre- sented the application, explaining that Varian owned a building for which they had no need and Hewlett-Packard needed that building. 26--TM-68 9-U-6 legend Director of Public Works Finney stated that the application had been checked and there were no objections as far as his department was concerned relative to Varian relinquishing their ownership of the building to Hewlett-Packard. There was some question as to which conditions to impose and the staff advised the Commissioners that the Use Permit was granted for the land and not for the owner so that all conditions on the Use Permit would be imposed automa- tically upon the new owner. There were no audience comments. page 8 Minutes of the Planning Commission November 12, 1968 Commissioner Irwin moved, Commissioner Hirshon seconded and it was passed unanimously to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hirshon moved to approve Application 9-U-66 as amended and that Resolution 367, approving the original development plan be also ap- 9-U-6 6 proved as it applies to this Use Permit. Commissioner Irwin seconded, appreved all ayes. 26-TM-68 Commissioner Hirshon moved to approve Application 26-TM-68 subject to the approved 12 Standard Conditions, Irwin seconded, all ayes. F. 24--U-68 Scofield Associates and Lacey Realty: Use Permit for a real estate office in a house previouslv used as a dwelling, 20556 Scofield Drive. First Hearing Mr. Gene Lacey, Realtor, represented Scofield Aseociates and presented the application, explaining the position of the structure, the proposed plans, the landscaping and the proposed addi�ional driveway. Also that, because this commercial zoning abuts a residential area, that all mat- ters would be resolved in such a fashion that the surrounding area would not be disturbed and certainly not be put to a detriment. Considerable discussion ensued among the Commissioners relative to the existing alley which separates the site from the existing shopping center and the only two coursesof action left; i.e. force the applicant to dis- mantle the existing construction and build a commercial or office build- ing, or allow renovations by which the dwelling's exterior would be en- hanced and allowed t� further enhance the neighborhood. The staff elaborated on the written departmental report on the subject, report sub stating that it might be wise to impose a time limit on a possible ap- mitted proval of the application. The Commissioners were of the opinion that, although they were not in favor of infringing upon the character of residential uses, this might be the best solution to a problem, but did not agree with staff that a time limit should be imposed. Mrs. Frank Jarrett of 20668 Scofield Drive, told the Commissioners that she had polled the neighbors at Scofield Drive, and presented a sheet audience of paper signed by 13 homeowners on Scofield who are opposed to the opposition Lacey proposal stating that the realtor had several leases on Scofield and all of them were neglected and showed, at least, dried or dead trees. Mr. Lou Lucas of 2006 Scofield Drive also addressed the commissioners with the same opposition. Both audience members were questioned by com- missioner Buthenuth which course of action they would rather have the commissioners take, force the applicant to tear down the building and construct a new commercial structure or permit him to retain the re- sidence and convert it. Both audience members were vague in their ans- wers but firm in their opposition. When staff was asked questions in connection with the needed improvements, staff City Engineer Boyd stated that the 12 Standard Conditions include pro- stressed visions for sufficient dedication and improvement of street to the satis� needs Minutes of Planning Commission November 12, 1968 page 9 faction of the Public Works Department and that requiring side- walks on Scofield which are presently non-existent was a dis� tinct possibility. Commissioner Puetz moved, Irwin seconded and it was passed un- animously to close the public hearing. Commissioner Puetz moved to approve Application 24-U-68 subject to the 12 Standard Conditions. Irwin seconded. All ayes, ex� approved cept Buthenuth who voted "No". 24-U-68 Chairman Frolich advised the audience members that this action was not sub�ect to automatic review by the City Council but that they had the right to appeal the decision within five days and in writing to the City Council. Item G under '�Public Hearing as well as Item A under "Unfinish- postponement ed Business" had previously been postponed to the next regular reiterated meeting. There was no new business no new business Commissioner Irwin moved, Commissioner Hirshon seconded and it was passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting adjournment APPROVED: � � s/ Donald Frolich ATTEST: PLANNING DEPARTMENT C� �� y��� � ' ��vv°' V/ '�+i Senior Planner