Loading...
PC 02-14-66 10�21 Svutti Sar•ato�a-Sunnyvale Road 80,000.3 Cupertino, Ca1:Lfornia Phone : 252-L4505 ------------------------------------------------------------------- P��-�� C I T Y 0 F C U P E R T I N 0 Caiiforr�ia MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Februar.y 1?� 1966 8:00 P.M. _ fIeld in the Board Room, Cupertino Elemeritary School District Office, 10301 Vista Drive, Cupertino, California I SALUTE �'0 THE. FLAG II ROLL CALL: Minutes of the previous meeting, 1/2�4/66 Comm. present: Frolich (9 P.M.), H3.rshon, Horgan, Traeumer, J��hnson Comm, absent� : None Staff presen'c: City Attorney, Sam Anderson Director of Public ��Torks, Fran�c Finney Director of Planning, Adde Laurin Assistant Planr�er, Jim Nuzum Recording Secretary, Lois Inwards Comm. 'I'raeumer had the following correction to page 3; fourth paragraph from �he bottom: The first sentence shall read: "Coi�nm. Traeumer asked.the Director of Public Works if tvao 12' lengths of antenna above a'cwo-story home Would be adequate." Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Horgan, f�o approve the Minutes of January 2�1 1966 as corrected. Mo�ion carried, L�-0 III ANNOUNCENIENTS OF POSTPONEMENTS, etc. There were none. IV WRITTEN COMI`2tTNICATIONS There were none. V VERBAL COMMUNICATICNS The City �ounciT has scheduled an ad�ourned session to allow further public discussion of the proposed Height Ordinanc,e..: The�Hearing will �ake place on Tuesday, 2/15, at the Board room at .8;00 P,r�i. `1 _ ' PC--R�3 Minutes of �he Pl�nnirir Cornmissian T��eetin� of' 2/l�/u6 -----------------------------------------------------------•------ Chairman J�ohn�on said thut, si-nce the Con;rnis�yon has put much time and thoug�zt into this Ordinance, it might be in the bes'c in�eres� of �he Commission if' they attended chis meeting Moved by Comm, Tra�umer that a report be forthcoming of the results of tl�e County Planning Commission meeting regarding �che service station at McClellan and Stellin;. `lhis motion clied for lac�c of a second. The Planning Director said Lhe County Planning Commission h�s postponecl this application for 90 daJs, for stud;� by the Plannin� Departments of Santa Clara County, San Jose, and Cupertino. Several points were raised at the mee�ing, but in ligh� of the postponement, it was felt that iz would be best to malce the rebuttal a par� of the study report, VI HEARINGS SCHEDULED: 7-TM-65 A. Br,ATTY: Applicatio:� for men�Lative Map for one acre at Scen�c Blvd. First Hearing con�inued. The Assistant Plariner has checked the Tentative Map and it noti�a conforms wi��h the Ordinance. The contours and tree locations are noteci., Very few trees tivill have to be r���noved. The question of street improvements will be reported by the Director of Public Works. The PJ_anning Director said tive have a�u�� to see if both 7_ots are buildableo He believes they are. The Director of Public Works stated that, with the closing of an existin� si,ree�, the property oUaner will be get�ing back abo�a.t as much land as �,�ill be necessary to c�edicai,e e He said whe'�her or not the street should be put in a'c this time is up �co the Planning Commission. The City Attorney advised that where a vahole nei�hborhood is unimproved, it could cause a hardship to impose im- mediate improvemen� upon the applicant. Ho��rever, a I�ecord of Consent to an Assessment Dis�;rict vaould be in order. There should probably be some requiremenLS made at this 'cime and some sort of Agreement to go alon� ti��ith the t�ssessment Distric� at a more propitious timeo The Director of Pl,�blic Z��orl�s felt it Vaould be in ordez� to require the �onsent of the adjacent pr_operty owner if this street is closed off. The City AttorneJ said �hat if there are any adverse feelings this matter should be cleared up by written consent from Lhe adjacen'c property o�Uaners, and by Assessment Proceedings in due course. -2- � �, L! j 66 PC-R,� T�:i_rt!tPS o.i �i�� Fl�r���_trig C����m�.ss�c-1 Nlee �izz� of 2� _� Chairman Johnson asked i'or comments from the auclierlce, There were none. Mo�ed by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Com��n; Traeumer, to close f;he Public Hearings. Motion carried, LE-0 Moved by Comm.,Hirshon, seconded by Comm. �organ, thai; application 7-TM-65 be approved, sub�ect to the writ'cen consent to the future Assessment District, and upon the condit3.on that the abut��.ng property o���ner consent, in ' w�iting, 'co a. reversion of. �he, prop°rty- indicated; o,n '�he Tentative Map to t,he applicant. . �AYES: Comm. Hirshon, Hor�an, Traeumer, Johnson NAYS: None. ABSENT: Comm. Frolich Motion carried, �-0 , 1-V-66 B, STEPHEN CI?ELBAY: Application for a Variance to reduce side yard, 5alem Avenue at Alpine Drives Fir�� Hearing. Mr. Fred Niarbur�, Ar�chitect, of 168 Eas� Jackson Stree'c, San Jose, presented the plan for a triplex which would require a Variance in order 'co fit it onto �his propertyo The Director of Planning said this is a very minor ma�cter. On one hand, there is no real hardship; on the other hand, a concessi_on would not lower the standards of the Cit�r. The Assistant Pianner said that if the 20' �arage widi,h were to be main�Lained, as v��ell as the required side ya.� d it would make the entry v�aay �oo �narrow� to �be aesthetical7:y pleasin�, He pointed out that the applicant sti�:3 has the required 6' s3.de yards on both sides, bu� he does- not rneet the 1�!' requirernent for the sum � of both sides. TYie Di�ector of.Public Works point�d oufi:that the'�ast . side yard�is, in reality 5e16' ra'cher than the 6', as indicated on the Plan.� It is the'policy to measure at right an�les from the property line `rathLr than froin the buildin�. Comm. Traeumer said that,�basically, what is involv�d here is non-cor�formance with the Ordinance. Variances must be based on hardship. * NOTE: It scales out to approximately 5'�►" if ineasure�. at ri�ht angles to the property line. _3_ PC-R3 Minutes of the Plannir�g C�mmi ss�on Meetin� of 2/l�+/6� Mr. Marburg s�id tne entry court Would be minimi2ed to the point where iz vaould seem cramped if �c:�e side yard minimum must be main�cained. The Director of Public ��:��orlcs asked if ti��ere are any ease- ments of record on �l side yards. Mr. Marburg said �L'riere are not �1' Director of Public `iorks sazd he then has no objection to this Variance. Tne City At�orney asked if there were a Tentative Map and a Final Map filed on this property. The Director of Planning said there v��ere. The City Attorney i,hen said that odd-shaped lots automati- cally make it a hardship to fit an Ordinance; the hardship is built in here, Chairman Johnson asked if this was the only lot involved, or if there are others. Mr, Marburg said this is the only one he i s v��or�cing on . Roselyn Crai�, 22392 Salem Avenue, Cupertino, asked for 'che exact location of this lot. It v��as de�ermined that i� is next door to her. The property on the other side of subject lot is vacant. She feels the side yards are_too narrow already, without reducin� them further. Moved b� Co?r�m. Traeumer, seconded by Cox'�, : Horgan, t'r�a�� the Public Hearin�s be closed. Motion carried, �!-0 Mov�d by Comm. Traeumer that a variance to reduce the �ut ry - i 1� ,,�:� �,�idtl: of 1 �_s unnecessary as the regulation is ir�d� u��u�l• �tr�e circumstances. Each side yard should be 6' , measurecl a �. riglzt an�les from the prop°rty line to the strucLure. Tiz� Vari an^ is hereby denied, Motion died for laclt of a Second. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, that the applican� shou7_d conform to a 6' side yard requir�men� as measured a � ri�i�t angles to th.e propert;y line; �he 1�4' stipulation does not apply he Further discussion followed. In ansti•1er �o Chairman Johnson's question, the City A�torney said you can deny a Variance and you should make f indin�;s. He added Lha� the re�ulation of side yards to be 20/ oi the lot widi,h does not appl�T to a non-rectangular lot. -4 -, PC-R3 P�Iinutes of the Planning Commission Meei,ina of 2/1��66 The above motion U1as reV:Torded as fol : Moved by Con1m. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, that the l� t side yard requiretneni;, as delinea�ced under Section o:lg of Ordinance 220 is no� applicable to this lot because it refers to lot vaidth. Therefor�, the Variance is based upon the addi'cional requirements of Section 6:1g referring to 6' minimum taidth of each side yard and, inasmuch as there.is no hardship, the motion is tha�c the applicat�on is denied. Comm. Hirshon a�reed with Commo Traeumer's interpreta- tion of the Ordinance regarding non-rectan�ular lots and said tha'c because construction lzas not beoun, the relative inconvenience is very minor and no hardship is goin� i,o result. AYES: Comm. Hirshon, Traeumer NAYS: Comm. H�r�an� Johnson ABSENT: Comm. Frolich Motion cied, 2-2 At this p�in'c, Comm. Traeumer moved to reopen the Hearing� to �nclude Comm, Frolich, who had just arrived. Mo'cion tivas seconded ',�y Comm. Hirshon. P�Zotion carried, 5-0 The A�sistan'c Planner said the only ques'cion appearing to be resolved is i,hat i,he Ordinance says ti>�e have a mini�num side yard requirement of 6' ad�acent �co one-story st�L�c- �ures and �' adjacent to tv�o-stor� s'cructures. The line on t�ze c�raWin� goes at ri,�h�c an�les �o �ile structure rather than the fence. The questions are: Do tti�e req�.}ire a total of l��' for both side yards� Shall the 6' measure- men� be a'c ri�ht angles to the proper��y line? The applicant has more than adequate total side yard area. Arch3.tect Marbur� said 'che encroachment is not on P'Irs. Craig's sid�. It is less than 11" a'c the one point where the garage juts out. In the otller areas, there is more 'chan an adequate se'cbae�c. The Director of Flanning said that the 2Cj provision is ver�r hard to interpret in non-rectangular lots and musc be interpr�ted in °ach separate casea The setback should be measured a� right angles to �he lot line. Comm. Frolicn said he abrees ti��ith 'che 1 total side ;;Ta.rd requirement. Any question of Vahich direction zhe buildizl� should go would be inappropriate in this discussion. The problem is �he side yard measuring less 'chan 6'. -5- PC-�3 Minutes of �ize Plannin� Commission Meeting of 2/l��/66 A�oved by Comrn. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to close the Pu'�lic Hearings. Mo'cion carried, F-0 Moved by �omm..Traeumer, seconded by Comin. Hi�shori,� �hac inasmuch as 'chis lo�� is not rec.tan�ular, th� provisions of Section 6:1r� of the Ordinance relating.'cnat side yards shall not f;ota�. less than 20/ of the loi; Width are i�appli- cable, and no Vari�nce is required. HotiNever, the motion is to deny the V�riance to reduce the side yards to less than �he �' miriimurn requirement, �s se'c iorth in the same Section a.nd measured at right angles to the property line; the reason bein� i;here is no hardship here. Comm, Traeumer vaithdrev�� his motion; Comm, Hirshon withdrew his Second, on 'che basis of tihe Director of Public ti�Torr�s' callin� af;teni,ion to Ordinanc.e 220, Section 6:1d, Lot �tiTidth: 70 feet at buildin� setbac?: line. Moved by Corr�m. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. I�irshon, �ha'� ' the applica.tion be d�n�ed on the ba�is there is no hardship; reference Section 6:�.d of Ordinance 220. AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Hor�an, Traeumer, Johnson NAYS: None Motion carried, 5-0 Chairman Johnson no'ced that in the above proceedin�s, f�he Plannin� Commission has not said vahether the 20f rule is or is not applicable. 2- v-66 C. JOAN 'I'AMBURINI: Application ; for a Variance tq ex��end bedroom into rear yard, 10670 Martinwood �day. First Hearin�. � Mrs . Joan TamUu.ri.ni, 10670 Martinvaood ���1ay, Cupertino, ex- plained tha � she would li�te to add ano'cYier bed�oqm at tlze rear of her house. This wou.ld r�ake the rear . yard 15' instead of the 20' requi.red. The P1.annin�; Director said this is a ma'cte'r of: pririciple. It is a permanent structure which tiaill extend into L rear yard and mu�'c be.�ranted.only on i.11e basis of hardship. Th�:s must b� decided upon by the Plann�.n� Comm3.ssion. Unl�ss some real hardship caM be shown, he recommends tYiat � it be denied. Mrs. Tamburini said her recently-ti�aidOwed aunt, from l��,ck East, plans 'co �na1{e her permanen'c home here, -6- , PC-R3 Minutes of_tj1e_PZar;ning�Commissiori`M�etir�g_ofl2/1��66`_Yr_ The Assistan�t Plann°r said tre setbac�� in the fr.ont is quite generous So a room could �e added in the fron�, or they could put a sli�htly smaller room ai, the rear which woul.d not conflic'c Uaith �he Ordinance. Mrs. Tamburini said there is a brick planter in the front and any addition in the froni, would also breal� down her water system. In addition, the walls ti���ould have to come dovan, which would be an added expense. She said she needs one of'lher three bedrooms fQr an office. She does not feel tha'c a 10' wide bedroom woL�ld be adequate, Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded� by Comi�. Hirshon, 'co close the Pub]:ic Hearin�ss � Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm, Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Frolich, tha� application 2-V-66 be denied �'or Tac?� of a hardship, as deuigned in our Ordinance for Variance approval, AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Horgan, Traeumer, Johnson NAYS: None � Motion carried, 5--0 � Chairma.n Johnson called for a 5-minut'e Urealc at 9:25 P.Mo 1�-Z-66 D. FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT: Application for Rezoning from R3-2.2� to CG, 5.22 acres, southeasf; corner of Mi11er Avenue and Stevens Cree� Blvd, First Hearin�. . Mr. D�n Bandl..ey, 1005�- South Sarato�a-Sunnyvale Road, Cupertino, said he Uras representing �he Honorable Fremont . High Sc,hool Board. He explained that this is� excess propertJ to �che School District. I� UTas originally pu�- � chased for use as a school site, but it was later fel'c that the school should not be located on the Boulevard, so five acres �co the sou;�h were subsequen'cly purchased and the school taas moved that distance aouth of the Boulevard. The reason for the rezonin�; is �lzat it vaould be more appropriate zoning, it would command a bet�er price on the market, and would pui, the property back on � . '. . the tax, ro11s. Mr. Banuley �aid.t11e Resolutiori,to dispose of this pro- . . per.ty,was made by the School Board. � fair market price would be $317, 250. ti�hen offered to, t;he Public in Jul� , 1965, th�re Tiuere no talcers. _7- PC-R3 Minutes oi' the Planning Cornmission Nleeting of 2/1���66 Mr, Bandley said 'che Resolution recently came before 'che Board again, and the property t^aas advertised. They had three sealed bids submitted. They vaere as follotivs : Bob Sy�ces Dodge �318, 506 � E. E. Simon 350,OOC Valley Title 376,250 No oral bids exceeded the sealed bids by 15/. Valley Title may use a por�ion of the properi,y f�hemselves and build professional-type buildings. Mr. Bandley said the widening and beautification of Stevens Creek Boulevard is involved here, also. Comm. Traeumer asked if Valley Title will move their main office here. Mr. Bandley said he does not have thi� information. He is representing the Fremont School District, not the potential purchaser. Mr. Bandley said there are less 'chan four pieces of pro- perty that are not CG along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and there ha=re been recent rezonings along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Taxes there will be recorded in March and start returnin� tax revenues on March 1, 1g67 The assessment will be 16 to 20� of the total sale value. Five to ten percent credit may be given the first year by reason that it is not developed. This property would cost $1300 to �1500 per acre if helc? for purposes of speculation. The Planning Director said the staff has assumed that when released from school use, the area would revert to previous zoning (apartments}. There are two reasons against apartment developments: That the usual kind of strip apartments along a major highway is about the least desirable zoning there is, because of traffic hazards and noise; and that a� lea�t at �resent, the�e is a vast sur- plus of areas zoned io'r ��artments i� Cupertino� On �he other h�nd, if developed as a unit, �he area is large enough for a�ood apartment development, with access f rom the rear, and screened by landscaping f rom the highway; and this may be an advantageous location in the future, when Vallco Park is developed. There is much more area set aside for commercial use in Cupertino than is likely to ever be utilized. But this is not necessari.ly a reason against rezoning of this particular property; perhaps it would be better to develop this area and leave another area vacant. Would Administrative and Professional Offic� (OA) or Planned Office (OP) zoning better conform with the intended use? -8- PC-I�3 Minutes of the Plan�zing Commission Meeting of 2/��/66 ---------------------------------------------------------------�-� The Director of Planning said the most important thing is to avoid the awful kind of strip commercial existing zm- mediately to the east. A rezoning to Commercial (CG) should carry a condition, that the entire area would be designed and constructed as a unit, including complete street and site improvements; this would not preclude divisicn into individual lots. The Planninb Director re#'erred tt� three sketches made by the Assistant Planner. The first conventionally has park- ing in fron�, but separated from Stevens Creek Blvd. by landscaping. The second has park3ng in back and an un- broken facade toward Stevens Creek Blvd., which would be architecturally preferrable; bu'c the usefulness of such a scheme is limi'ced because there would be no pedestrians walking along 'che facade. The third sketch shows buildings centered around a plaza, with parking in the west and east portions of the area. Of caurse, many other schemes are possible. In every case, entrance and exit for vehicles must be limi.ted to Miller Avenue, plus one entrance from and one exi'c to eastbound S�evens Creek Blvd. traffic (unbroken median strip); othervuise the intent of the pre- sent plans for improvement of the boulevard would be destroyec'. o Mr, Bandley said he does not want to give the impression that Valley Tit7.e Company necessarily is buying this pro- perty with the intent to build their main office here; they are buying it subject to CG zoning. He disagreed with the Planning Director regarding the opinion on overzonin� for commercial. He said commercial property is not out of proportion to other zonings, although all areas presently zoned commercial are not the most desirable. When develop- ment of this property comes before the City the layout should be discussed and not be interjected into the rezoning. He feels it should be consid�red on the basis of whether or not it would be compatible with Stevens Creek Blvd. The City Attorney �sked the applicant if they had any com- ments from the County Council on Ulhether or not Cupertino has jurisdiction on this land, which is owned by the State of California. He said we have no author3ty to rezone unless and until we have ,�urisdic'cion.: �nce the property is sold and goes back on the tax rolls, it can be rezoned. He based this advice on the proceedings of the Homestead High School situa'cion with regard to Mary Averiue and referenced a memo he wrote at the time,, Mr. Earl Goodell, of the School District, said he talked to the County Council and was advised, verbally, that rezoning could be made contingent to the sale, which was made earlier this evening. The City Attorney said he wolald like written coni'irma�ion on this from the County Council. _9_ DC-R3 Minutes of the Planning Commisaion Meeting af 2/l�/66 Chairman Johnson felt the City Attorney had a very valid question here. The staff has �equested one more Hearing on this. Mr, Goodell said they ean't ge� thE zoning prior to the sa�e, and can't sell without the z�ning. �herefor�e, a package deal is necessary.� Mr. Goodell said he�wi�l get a letter as to the Iegality of any action by this body. The Cit� Attorney said we will want a wri�ten opinion fro� County Counc3l as to our �urisdiction to gran� zoning o� State=own,ed property. Mr, Bandley said the Fremont School District does appear as owner of the property. He_asked if this request,to Mx. Goodell is proper --.does the b�rden of proof res�t on h3:m? 'The City Attorne� �sid that it does. It was his� o�inion that we have no �urisdiction over school property as to buildings, street improvements, or anything else. Mr. Goodell offered �o look into this the first �Lhing tomorrow. The Dire�to� of Public 1nlorks said that, under Ordiriance �7 Revised, this Uaill be a subdivisione He felt this was the City Attarney's responsib3.lity, not the County Council's. Comrn; �'rolich aslced if it would be set�;ing a p�ecedent to attach a development plan to the z�ezonin�. The City� Attorney did not feel this could be done in a CG zone, only in a Planned Community. �Ie said the reason we should take the.�jurisc�iction question very seriously is that Va11ey Title should not buy this property at such a large sutn, bas.ed on a rezoning.which might not be valid: Chairman Johnson asked for �comments fror� the audience. There were none. ' Comm. Traeum�er maved to close the First Hearing. Comm. Hi,rshon wanted to know more specifically what Valley T3.tle Company wants to do with this property. Mr. Bandley said:the economics almost c�emaMds quality �deuelopmen�. Comm. Traeumer said he does not see why a development plan cannot be a requirement at the time of rezoning. Mr, Ba.ndley borrowed Mr. Mariani's metaphor: "A deer hun�er does not go out and shoot the deer and then get a'license for 3t.'� � � . The Ci�y Attorne� ca�ationed that the publ3e's interest and private interest must be kep� in balanc.e. 'He said the test is wha� is the best and highes� use,of the property. _ , -10- PC-R3 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting af 2�14�66 �'Comm. Hirshon felt he would have to deny this application if it is to be a repet.ition of the adjacent businesses. It �s difficult to make this decision without more specific information. The Director of Planning then quoted Ordinance 220(f), which is designed to enable reasonable conditions to`be attached to a rezoning. , Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to � :� close the First Hearin�. Motion carried, 5-� Chairman Johnson reeapped the factors to be researched before the Second Hearing: l. Applicant�is �o check on the �urisdiction matter. 2. The City Attorney is to checl{ on this application as bo Ordinance 1 �7, Revised. 3. In regard to Ordinance 220(f), the City Attorney should come up with some ideas that could be in- corporated here. , VII UNFINISHED BUSINESS 81,031 Suggested Industrial Zoning The Director of Plannin� displayed a map showing his - suggestions for Industrial zoning. Inquiries are fre- quently made for location of service 3ndustries, but there ai^� not enough Light Industrial (ML) Zones in the �"'City to accommodate them. Rezoning can legally be done against the wish.of property owners if the City shows that there is need for it, but the Plannir_g Direc- tor recommended that a study be made in cooperation with the owners. Five areas were discussed, includin� all those no�v zoned ML. 1. Simla Junc�cion: Inquiries have been made regarding a possible rezoning to R3 of par'c of the present ML Zone. This would exclude further industrial development in this area. 2,� Southwest corner of Homestead Road and Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road, including existin� 1_umber yard (ML) and service station.(�CG): The.undeveloped area is partly Planned Development (inappropriately, as this lof; is too small �'or suc1� �zoning), partly A1-�3 (one-acre �lots) , Th3;s area would be a, good, location and big enough for.a good ML development.' It should be separated �'rom the area to the west by a landscaped . buffer°�: .The. buildings fronting Homestead Road and - Saratdga-Sunnyvale Road should have a continuous facade, landscapin� in front, and pedes�rian entrances only. � Vehicular ent�rance should be from interizal streets only; in this way "dirty" business would be screened from the thorofares. _11- :=�-�3 M�ntat.e� of zhe Planning Commission Meeting of 2�1�f66 -------------------------------------�__________--------___------ 3, SE corner of Homestead Road and Blaney.Avenue, abutting the P.G� 8c E. yard on two sidese One lot is zoned R3-2.2, one lot is in Sunny�vale, the rest is A1-'E3. The facades towards Homestead Rc�ad and Blaney Avenue vaould be safeguarded by internal access. �+. West of Hi�hway 85 , halfway be�ween Junipero Serra Freeway and Stevens Creek Blvd. Now zoned ML, R3-2.2, and R1-10. Landscaped buffer tovaards the residential County area behind, unbroken facade on Hi�hway 85 (except for �he exist3ng Veterinary Hospital), internal sLreet access. 5. Between the S.P, railroad, McClellan Road and Imperial Avenue, including exis�ing ML and R1-1� Zones (the latter now occupied by greenhouses); this area is separated from the College by the railroad:righi� of vuay, a 90' street, an apartment zone, and the freet�lay, It should be completely screened by landsc�ped buffer from McClellan Road and resident3.a1 Coun'cy area. Access only via lmperial Avenue, and the planned 90r extension of Bubb Road to the Stevens Freevuay inter- change at Stevens Creek Blvd; also railroad access. The City At'corney asked what would happen if everybody feels this is all right, and the property owner is passive about it . ?�,That if you amended the General Plan rather than go ahead and rezone on 'che property. Mr. ZAlalter ti�iard, General Manager of Vallco Park, suggested that, for instance, a bakery or a coo�cie factory could make use of the railroad trac�cs. Mrs. Anna Anger, 10185 Emire Avenue, Monta Vista, said Cupertino has no jurisdiction over Monta Vista. The Planning Direc'cor stated, that all areas discussed here are �n�ithin the boundary of the City. Comm. Frolich said that at such time as the General Plan is revised, 'chat, is the time to go in�o z1��is in depth. The Planning Commission would not tal�e a defini�e stancl by endorsing a study now. MINUTE ORDER: Movea by Comm. Frolich, seconded by Comm. Traeumer, to endorse in principle the Planning Director's action to find some Light Industrial areas in Cupertino; endorse in principle i�kie five areas that the �lanning Director has indicated; ask for the City Council's opinion; and asl� tYie Ci�y Council to take appropriate act3on. Motion carried, 5-4. -12- PC-R3 Minutes of tne Planning Commission P�eeting of 2/1��66 ------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Johnson said he was opposed to Light Industrial extending from Stevens Creek Blvd, to McClellan Road. Comm. Hirshon said he endorses the plan to researclz this only. Comm. Traeumer said that the City Council should indicate the proper method to contact the proper�cy owners. The Assistant Planner said the only one of these five Light Industrial areas presently indicated on the General Plan is the area between Stevens Creek Blvd, the S.P. railroad trac]�s, McClellan Road and Blac��berry Farm. Mrs. Anger said a General Plan is subject to change at any time. In this respect, it is different from a Mas'cer Plan. VIII NEW BUSINESS A. The P1.ann3.n� Director would like to send out a first draft of ordinances to the Planning Commissioners and requ�sted they write or telephone their suggestions to either the Recording Secretary, Lois Inwards (252-8915) or 'che Planning Department Secre�ary, Ellen Nimmons (252-L within a few days, so he could then prepare a second draft in time for a v��ork session. Comm. Horgan said he does not ob j ec'c to separate �,-rork sessions. It was decided the Planning Commission would have a V�ork session on ��lednesday, February 23rd, 8 P.M. , a�c City Hall, and to advertise the Underground Utilities Ordinance for Public Hearin� on Monday, February 28th. The initial comments to the Planning Director are to be brought in or phoned in before tlze end oi' this ti��eek. ZX ADJOURNMENT Moved b�r Comm. Hirshon, seconded b�T Comm. Traeumer, to ad�ourn the meeting at 11 P.M. 'co t^'ednesday, February 23rd, 8: 00 P.M. , a � Cit�T Hall . A PPROVED : /SL Roberic Johnson Chairman ATTEST: / �A�.0 C-C-C lX ��(./I:"• '� Director of lanning -13-