PC 11-11-71 - :\..i,,ry•.�',R'a,t�>�iy;°:i;?bti. r y :+,�v a g "�"ia:{C! fi .` !'� y,4Y` 'a �;ti,��:H'rF any. q.+!x�,4tn,���+4�C.%. ., C. 3^,.: ,>.�':a. �k..- L �3f'•.M'•.' i.!h.` �y ;;
=.'
. '
wl�(tlrf`�.,F�.e.� a..,�'y t Wt 1\ d.�1 1c"l"?y h fr 'fiJr.. fyt (q t, td),,,'4z. p�'� 1.3 "tiY •iR( tr-.� _.,t f.},. f'.
• - \ IY ., .Y:. I}S : _ !k'rK4'4' r:.�,•Ta` u 7� '�i 1v,�k� F.ir �5jtr'�
a
. ..nt `S•1rt� [ ' z{4 1 't;
Iz
CITY Oi' CUl'ERTINOi SCaCC of California i. s 3 n.i'r +.flt tin ,aorf+MSlk"Fl , ua,rs``c
10300 Torre Avenue, Ci►j,er7.ino,' Calif arriiin' PC-25
7�e1eL►trnie• 252-4505 ia'; ?y , ,.rite+�rtulic4z, f
�. �• tt ,,> .stsd•.G+ ,e'trtrt L°« r :c
MINUTEs'0•f' 'THE .REGULAR Mkl".'fING!YOF,:Tur_. PLANNINGnCOMMISSION AE'LD
JANUARY 11, 1971 IN,T111'.* COUNCIL'CHAMBERr?CI•TX
CUPERTINO . CALIFORNIA
y7
Chairman 1'uctz called' the meeting to order at 8;03. p•.m."and..subsequent- x
ly led the assemblage in the flag s.ludtc. ? .
i
Roll__Call
Meyers and 1 •;;
Commissioners in attendance: Butaenuth, Hirshon, Irwin, : ,
Chairman I'ueCZ. Also attending: Cir:v Attorney Adams', '.Planning .` s` roll ca'l
1irector Sisk, Assistant Planner Conan, ,Nssistant City Engineer
Viskovich and Recording Secretnry Dolores Whate.' `' 't: "' °
Approval of Minutes ;
Minutes of November 23' and -December 114'.1 1970
Planning Director Sisk inquired-of tlaa Commissionersf-as•ito-''whetherxor
riot the public hearing had been closed as indicated'�Wthe%Minrit eai of ;,_,;, ,,;;,, i,,•;
December 14th and it was mutually agreed that the hearing had been ;;,,,,( 1 .;; ,•,•.i.
continued to the meeting of January :25, ' 1971•and requested,thatmthe
Minutes be .corrected to reflect this amendment. , .] t.
Relative to the Minutes of the meeting of November' 23rd.,iit A wascmoved
by Commissioner Meyers and seconded by Commissioner: Hirshon:�that„the'
Minutes be approved as previously amended at the meeting::of.Decembers14
1970• Commissioner Buthenuth requested to abstain,from:the...goterbe- ! minutes
cause of his absence from the meeting of November 33rd. The �tion.was approved ;
carried.
A question was indicated by Commissioner 1•Levers' concerrr_rg; the;Minutes
of December 14, 1970. He had noted that on Page 12, paragraph..one, a
the Coasmissioner who had seconded the motion was notindicae i
requested this be included in the record. tt wa'`' r requested
by Planning Director Sisk that page 10 be ar.:cnded to reflect that no ' fr
vote had been taken on the closing of the public hearing but rather
that the matter had been continued for discussion on the next meet;ag.
It was moved by Commissioner Meyers, seconded by Commissioner Hirshon
and passed, wi, li Comr,:issione.r. Irwin LLbstaining due to his absence,- that
the Minutes of the meeting of December 14, 1970 be approved.with
amendments as previously indicated. i
postponements, etc . r ;
•
Application 17-'1M-70 of Franchise Realty Interstate Corpora-
tion. Postponement requested by applicaat' to meeting of
January
ws %r n;v •f` .,•yy4 g ,. +L,'3+s:r.-.y�;y s-x rx i X` �`a i ."iii,— v I,,sE 'z z..,. ✓1."4 -u?n..f.i;v' °`�-- 5y- f�� - -- - - -'
'•: �;t" .�,i:�'ZSiLf'Y"'l,r:� �4aJ5t 1 4 r +t -".'}rtt4ht J {M1r�+ 'f� trZ9�yt'%„S - u� �d'$ J' +w'l�C+ �. S
•r 7ri- h. �, 4ky T}�'`7i' '(,,.'Tr r9.�{}.l i���'Y;��4� �L`( 4 �j en � pe
Page 2 Minutes of the Planning Commission, ,January,11, 1971,. ; <��.` e10;°�t�� PC-
?S
Postponements, etc. {
Planning Director Sisk reported that the applicant involved in' Item .
No. 1 cn the -agenda had requested`ciscussion'lof;•,his'i'applicat"ion be
continued to the meeting- of January 25th.
It was so moved by Commissioner Buthenuth, seconded by Commissioner
Hirshon and passed unanimously. t
Written Communications
It was indicated by Planning Director Sisk that numerous communications
had been received relative to Item No. 11 on the agenda copies of,-.which �:
had been supplied to the Commissioners previously.
Oral Communications
It was suggested by 'Chairman Puetz that the regulations for the,City
Ordinance relating to hillside development reflect any valuable informa-
tion found in the land development regulations issued:by';the,.County of
Santa Clara in October 1968 or whenever the most recent regulations .had
been issued. He then requested a report',from the.•staff regarding changes
they felt should be included in updating the City's Hillside Ordinance n
as well as printed information available. in this :regard;for:idiscussion
varied oral at the Commission level.
� ` . :1;T.•. a:: '�'
communications
y Commissioner Irwin voiced his concern as -to the length of then:meetings
x
recently held by the Planning Commission•pointing!out :that„the ICity s
Council and Architectural and Site Approval Committee had rescheduled
their meetings to 7:30 p.m. , which he felt .wasa;good ,idea, .and•,also
that there too many public liearings ,scheduled•.to be heard-in.-,any one
evening. He indicated his feeling that justice was not--,served;anithis ;
way suggesting that a discussion be held, among the Commissioners-as to
setting a limit on.the number of hearings held on one evening and.•,that
reconTmendat ions 'be made in an attempt. to speed up the meetings., A, }
Minute Order was then proposed by Commissioner Irwin for consideration
of changing the meeting time to 7:3+0' p.m, and, additionally,iof;a
study being undertaken to obtain standards of priority of public ;r
hearings on a first-come, first-served basis and limiting the, total
number of hearings scheduled, i'or one evening. t
discussion
A brief dialogue ensued after which City Attorney Adams offered•. his.
legal opinion saying that rules could be adopted to regulate this.;
and suggested that the present rules be checked in this regard. };
It was indicated by Commissioner Buchenuth that only on two recent. 'y
occasions had the meetings been lengt.hy and that generally they
were not.
is
Discussion continued wherein Commissioner Hirshon offered his -opinion
that beginning earlier was not the answer and would work a hardship
on him, personally.
time change It was then mcvcd by Commissioner IrwiiT that his orig1n,11. Minute Order
discussion be withdrawn and that discussion of a 'time change be continued to the
continued latter part .of the agenda.
1
.T u ��?f,GXJ.ri P a rfi,�„} Zy.� y �y ..4 � . Sc+'§'���',a^ ,iw,"t �'4.��v �rw '��a3.��.',� � 4Y•6"�Q+. �-
� ,,.,. .2 c._. \ .�,.``,r�.iry.:,.v�•u„ata:�:.v ��.��'rxY ,c�§ r-' x- ,���y �w K Y' .4-e ?3. ,� i�- _ •..:i. -,a�'"' �_6` _ -.._ _.__, _
__._.__ _ _- � _ _-. _. __. ._ _ a,..!>rxse.;,.. `�.u..y:L:.es"..W£'t'..�=,. t`ti. :�+].Y.�a: ',ao°jv._.ta:"„•.,` 'h ,.,:y,�'�n"...,'' �eax J� S
4c
.d
YF .- f�e!.'`i„ zF�M4�.et.r , .--;,h�,, fy,N�+lk °tr°'+11,,L tt yzl 4ip r��ti+ldr+41e PF-r' k'k-et;�h � �:i41 ,ii t"L•!��P ' .a 'C• ,fib in y�i P�(W 1.
s � �'.S .�y�,t .4' ;�' ., , t 7'. i ..i+, t i S n`C. F a,.' '1 � !.s r s i7�?a �'� d' � 1• tr;.}
� '�+ �fl.__� 1 ;..,,' f .ri'Mf•i Rl�SP S�ijYs���yy��,1',� •"y'�a �Sd �sr:��'gs� H�l� ��#! g � � 'Rr'�'r•rPS,cti� i 1- -.
. :�f;A' � Yf:{7���"���•t 1{ '§ �• �.'f'y�'fc�j�',<r•2�py�(''V'
f ° ;�xs t`
Minutes o tha .Planning Commissions January 11, 1971 :' � `.."PC-25
Paige:i3 '
Oral Communications (corlCinued)
i.(_',;.' �S' ;a:�.,y•. ,u.,:;i..iF;,�atl
The motion was seconded by Commnissioner Buthenuth and passed by 'a y`
unanimous vote. s t
i i i •, _.', 1'.f , , is a, 'i tnr; }'y 1 l 1' '��.
,
Commissioner Meyers reported that at t:he City Council tneeti.nR held t
on December 219t, the Mayor charged bath the Conunission and the
anning Director with trite r.esponsibi11ty .for. seeing .that all 1 :f
recommendations be included on each application heard, even if
turned clown, knowing that the Council could possibly 'overturn a i,w : i dialogue
l. ,h
denial rat the Planning Commission level. ,,It. was -indicated, .haii.:l ,• i, ,
said, that on appeal;; heard by the Council should have information i
supplied for their consideration. ? ^ t
It was commented by Chairman 1'uetz that many' items were! toned down
frc,m what was heard at the Planning Commission level. but felt that. �
if tile.. Council had a question, the application should be referred
back to the Planning Commission for recommendations. !
Pub.l.i.c. Hcari.nj,_;
i
1. Application 17-TIM-70 of Franchise Realty Interstatei.,s,r.;i.
Corporation: Tentative M,ip to ,divide 4.7- acres: into . n'
two parcels, locatod at southwest corner'.of. Stevens: 17-TM-70
Creek Boulevard and Portal. Avenue in a CG ,(General'-,, Postponed ^`
Commercial) zone. First ue.aring.continued. POSTPONE�IE
REQUESTED BY APPLICANT TO MEETING OF;JANUARY, 25,:,1971.•:.'
2. Applications 18-Ti•1-70 and 21-U-70 ,of; G'. Gurley ;for ' ' .
Tentative Map to divide 3.23 acres into two •parcels, , .
and Use Permit to allow a gasoline sales/car washing {
facility on Parcel A. Said property::is.:located :easterly
of and adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale;Road, approximatel
125 feet south of Silverado Avenue, in a CG• (General t£
F Commercial) zone. First Hearing continued.
Chairman Puetz explained that the reason for continuance on -this
application had been because of a deadlock vote taken at the last 18-TM-70 S
meeting. t 21-U-70
discussion
It was indicated by Commissioner Irwin that, although he had been
absent from the .last meeting, he felt after reviewing the Minutes,
examining the application and checking the property involved, he
was familiar enough to offer his vote at: this time. 4
Inasmuch as there were no public comments indicated, it was moved by , public hearing
Commissioner Buthenuth, seconded by Commissioner Hirshon and passed closed `{
.unanimously that the public Bearing be closed.
It was Lhen moved by Commissioner Buthenuth and seconded by Commis-. 18-TM-70
sioner Meyers that Application 18-TM-70 he approved with the 14 approved
Standard Conditions.
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth and Mevers
i ,
Noes: Commissioners Irwin, Hirshon and Chairman Puetz ,I,. ;
�i� '2'�#.�'�"���i y�xa �2 ���� �1'iw1�L. ��``hi?5� 7 � +F•y 1 � Y � � �"<�+�t" ate`: 1 c --. � �
`g 3�'r r+'r`-r-zy� 3a..1+' �a.�.s��,�.,-.'�..�t... s;+. �'�s'+. p��a.�• ...:ts� n:sv, —'f'<v�v� g''..;.'vL�.`.'�it r"SG"''�' �`i:d,L`eva..�xt�-:.u�' ��5�'. - ° ``�',:�' :�`_ ._--- --- _ _.. _...___. _.
rv,4 ;, 5,J1 ° �,,pp �,YliNi r'• .s'`. l�4- t -h P QG ,��5p^�' '� n 4 ,,'i ?2' ;;,
•t v j��.n',f r 3Cnti�1, tb•`i1 c r'!YriC;- �}X �•.`r+� �I�"i� {."ji�',`i'�. f:'k:S+4' 't '�.iiY ¢� .j^ ft,k �:7� ,�� � vi '.;k��c.0 �'i q 5r�t.f
: .;� - �,,•'t4 1` c� iL� �..�,lr,l�r �:'a'� '"S'.'.•`3 r=1c�'a���" i�+,tif. yt? �„�t � � ¢ t �'�; �{`s"+'v
.ti,:i:rt, .�iY (Yf ;..°•i �/1 , � is �tx�l�
It
Cage 4 Minutes of the Planning Commission, January 11,, 1971. ,',e , PC- 5
Public Hearings. (continued)
.� is�.; �e:.r�:+i
21-U-70 A motion was entertained by Commissione•, Hirshon and seconded by
denied Commissioner Irwin that Application 21--U-"70 be denied
Ayes: Commissioners Irwin, Hirshon and Chairman Puetz
Noes: Commissioners Buthenuth and Meyers
It was announced by Chairman Puetz that appeal could be made on ahis
decision, in writing,- within 5 drays to the'City"Council, r..rf i ,• i, .,
3. Application 25-U-70 of Fotomat' Corporation for Use
Permit to allow construction of a drive-thru photographic
processing facility at the southeast corner• of 'Saratogat
Sunnyvale ;toad and Stevens Creek Boulevard in a.Planned
Development (P) zone_. First Hearing continued, r^cxV
.. ,c':. : Cl! ..
It was reported by Mr. Sisk tluct this item had been published for,•hearing
25-U-70 at the last meeting but had been continued at the applicant's .request.
presentation lie continued by saying that the property was located in, a panned
development zone and would require Commission action' a' Cthis` time.
lie said that the structure was to be 4`x' 9.'' to house'one employee
for Fotomat Corporation and showed a drawing. and visual.' aid depicting
the area in Ciuestion.
Mr. C. Nielsen, representing Fotomat Corporation,' 1101 Juanita,
Burlingame, commented that it was understood that this was a..Planned
t Development Zone and the' tease was so constructed' as' t'O",allbw'90-day
notice of termination in the event of development{of the property.
When questioned by Commissioner T.rwin as to whether'or`not the applicant
was in agreement with the condition of installing a.toilet facility on
the premises, Mr. Nielsen responded that he was not 'in'agreement with
Building Officer's interpretation of the Uniform Building Code. It
waS SLIggeSted by 1`ir. Sisk that the applicant check with the •Board.of„
Appeals (City Council) relative to arbitration hearing.
discussion Mr. Nielsen explained that the sr.-ructure would have a foundations `
lc:ndscapzng, ingress from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road faith lines painted,
to direct traffic and that the drive-up operation would-take about
1 40 seconds. lie re,t.i.mc:ted '•the walk:-up service at• less than 5 per cent
and, when questioned ;ibout r.elocarlon of the structure, indicated the
building, could be moved if the Commission so desired.
Discussion followed d•.cring 3ollicll concern was expressed regarding the
traffic hazard possibilities and upsrading .of the property and an
inquiry was made by Commissioner Irwin who asked Mr.' Nielsen,°if' thee'
applicant would be ag;recable to upgrading; the entire parcel, including
paving, parking, traffic circulation and landscaping to which the'-' - '
representative responded that the applicant would be agreeable within,
reason.
At this time, Chairman Puetz requested that audience.comments be.,.-.,;;
introduced inats:»uch as it was a public Rearing
t
x
rrN f'`F
I�•�t�r„'. £ •�«`'z:3ME s{°O3 t>&' k w"�"
;U.u•�•. ,t:v...A. ••'• � ,��..Y3hy. _Y,.:r.�.�.<t��.i:urt - -- -- ---- —. .-__- _. ..--.._ ._ -
t
MAW--, Aa,l
• . .+._� ��,.;,,.� ,..e +�.���' �.. �.� �+,,y•^,.., t>Kr Nf rf{�'e����-����tyl��aa`Y '�? �;' :4" of". a r
;}.•k
pi
t t i; 4 � 1 t a i" •
Commission', J�tttuary,a!11` ;•197r1:,'n2rl �;zt Jc�'4� s�rrsr.it4 r rPgr25.t.,`Q
Minutes of the Planning i ' i5 'Page `5
Public iloarings (contir.
rive Cu ertino;�,caote;. ,orward;.,f,,'r,�;
Mr. R:' 11, .Kornitrer, ,.10060 •1'Itar.+L.ap ll (.,Cup aibsd,t ima.
voicing Iris concern that,th.is aperatiun,would >,el,cr.eattng; s FL
for the City, !would create a bottleneCk, was:: not;•n;,necessary,. specials' R audience
service and, further, that it would d,) nothing for the City; . xcept,,•to,.c-, comments
create a problem and an eyesore. He concluded by indicating his
opinion that the landscaping; was not :nde:quate to which; Commiss;ioner,;, {,
Irwin responded that this particular item would. have,a;,thorough .reyiow;
by t:lhc Arcl:i:tectural and Site. Approval Committee. before tinstal•laLioa.,l
Inasmuch as there were. no further comments offered by anyone in the public hearing ;;
audience, it was moved by Commissioner Buthenuth, seconded •byr;,Commis--t;; closed
sinner Meyers and passed I.nzanimously that the public. hearings be,;close_
It was mutually agreed among the Commissioners thatt;the• approval •of;;�..
this facility would upgrade the area of ter,which. it.was ,moved b 25-U-70
y;., cr
Conunissioner huthenuth that Application 25-u-70 25-U-70 be approved including approved i,
the 14 Standard Conditions and the 3 additional, c9nditiotls;,as set;;for;th
in the Planning Director's memorandum., dated December; 10, 1970.;.,f;-1
` Commissioner Meyers commented .that .he.would ,like to,isee::that buildin
&4:,
relocated for better flow of traffic acid •suggested i
;that; this tem,; e,_,,d
included in the previously-entered. motion. - A .suggestion was•,a.1so. •:l;
made by Commissioner Hirshon that the motion ,include• a, shorter,ctime,�,,l,,
limit than 5 years fo^r review 'to provide more control.
enuth was•rseconde,d by l r ;-„I
The motion introduced by Commissioner: Buth ' . �r.:,,
Commissioner Irwin and the following vote was taken... ,, rr .� ,•. c�:
Ayes: Co.vnissioners Buthenuth, Ii:win, Meyers and Chairman, Purtz
Commissioner Hirshon
Noes: �
It was indicated by Commissioner Irwin at this time that.he would not
generally approve this type of application but felt, in this instance,;
it would upgrade the property and would be preferred to leaving the
parking lot as is. "� c
4. Application 26-U-70 of Texaco, Inc. for expans•ion ;of t E
gasoline dispensing system in existing service station at
the southwest corner of Homestead Road and Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road, in a CG (General Commercial) zone.
First !tearing.
of Texaco, Inc. for expansion of
5. Application 27-U-70 i
gasoline dispensing system in existing service station I
i
located at the northeast corner of Stevens Creek l
Boulevard and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, in a CG
(General Commercial) zone. First llearing.
Application 26-U-70 of Texaco, Planning Director Sisk, 26-0_70
Concerning App ;
reported that the. subject service station had been in existence for ;presentation
many years but no Use Permit had been obtained for the property.
I
He conti.nued by saying rhat now Tex;:.co was interested in installing
x c hs
f��Sfp��5 w.�'�.s? `S`•a ,iy��`.'1`••�'' �' � -' iw`�F'' �'a ti •;y�Y'� ��+ :s� �f� �`�. 34 ,,
�' _:w. �� .ls:+a'?t„f•k .@� �a 1�rv'�,.+J•,1 tee �l 4 �, sy1 a- +$ ,, +;�k -F:t -
i
+ r
ri i `,',;:,r lti`i<°''. 'fs+' 4rV5n• lr.i5ttt'IYd3t rat }A,J,T.Yi �'FjSA .{ttt.G'A'S+ pf ,'hr an,, ��, ia � iyt "}t..t1q'`'� y,6'•}
,t., ,{^•r'• iF JA'i� ��jai}r 1av r� ,FT' ti\""4'Y`' £S" +A ` t_
' •, _ 't se•, � 'it_,' ��1 t�`'f�,rffL� ,r, �t}�p+, � ,a..
� 'k't a j u• ��Qg
Pa 6 Minutes of the Planning Commission, Jaruary-11' ,1971-, tr:J � a �r ,+rstt�` PC-25
Public Hearings (continued) !• •f .ia} 'Ttt�Pi ��i .'rs'i
an additional tank facility',and had requested'+a'Use. Perneit� tro>A1•.thcs` '}'� t
City subject to several conditions,' one•of which'was< thc! inclusions o'fa-°
a 32-foot strip of property at tl�e rear 'of tile' facila`,y,'into: them.] ': 1
overall design. • 'I )•1
A discussion followed during which the extent of minor -and major' repair
service was questioned and Mr. sisk reported that' thel Ordinance, stated, ;
minor repair to bp. that which was done within the building,,but ithatt ti
it was not actually 'very clear where: the line was drawn.
Commissioner Irwin mentioned that, on this particular application,<;the
owner was advertising in the newspaper that overhaulz and short-block
work was being performed at this facility. It was then suggested that
either the applicant should be requested to cease his existing repaivi
work or that the Use. Permit be charged. s
Dialogue continued wherein it was Mutually agreed among -the Commissioners it
that there should be a clear definition of what• is major.•or, minor,rrepair
work and Commissioner ll.irshon cited the service station at the corner
dialognc of Scevens Creek and Highway 9 as 'br.i.nl; undesirable, in his. opinion;,"=
because of the structure, advertising and landscaping was •concerned•.'.!'=•:
lie indicated further that the Architectural acid Site Approval•Committee
Should be able to review the entire operation and submit recommendations.
At this time Planning Director Sisk read the definition of repair which
indicated that the work was to 'be confined wit hin`the building land the
applicant can) forward to discuss the application.
Mr. Gary Linzi'oni, 810 Harvard'Avenue,i Menlo:•Park, informed .the
applicant 's Commission that he was new on the job and•had 'rtot•known �about the:<.5'.+:
comments ( meeting until late that aft^_rnoon. lie indicated he was not prepared t
to discuss the application at this time and introduce'd'Lloyd'BuIighwa�
retailer at the service. station locat:od at Homestead Road ,and'Highway,:;9.
Mr. Purlson responded by Commissioner Irwin's qucstion`as.,•to•'1repairsc.q
done by .indicating that, generally, people bring their engines in and f.
they are rebuilt in the back room which is about '7' x ,12' . • �,He said
engines are rarely pulled out of automobiles.
In 'response to an inquiry from Commissioner Irwin as to what changes
Texaco had planned to make, Mr. Purlson commented that the only change ;
was to instnl.l. a .log•: lead tang_ but nenLxtiations were now in progress
concerning station operat.ion. a
Concern was voiced 1. , Commissioner Meyers who felt the hearing should
Continunnce be continued until information i. as available. and, should' there be
suggested ` a cl, +ns e in lr_as:i-r,g plan or ownership of land occur, the service station
lcc..stcd at 110111estea� Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard should be conipletoly
upgraded
i•. l,•:, :f7 l.1;:, a '311
Y
,
w ;
4h z 4e as�r � xy r {. i
C t..',5;Y �a '��'t'ibKt.Y 3� ;-fie g`—'i;•`f Ya��yR.1,r�y.ty.-.�?�,u't y�:F1 � ?!'. � �-z�� a ": h•,SAr4S'7x.4...t z,,r-, §x fi.���,.'t ''. l``y F.•. 1C'..AE.'x, -
..,.•..n .�• x .3 :.. ._. •" ,�'•S''rt)ai;.,b;w r� - ,d.:..e..-tS�,,._..._'...fix a:W=..eY s...ac..._.,5,....a.-....y..t..,eY: --a,•_ 3`.°'4.: t"' -_ _-.. _ ....a
, h -E?�',ni.,?`�'K` ''11�� r°i{$�' ,`";�$�'h�r 77 g. i�a Sv;�.fy a1'4 Y,�}c+-Sr+•fit�fY' � ajH �'M l �� .t � Sy� �'� tFr,3i't
`a}:� t .l•y:� ,� 1 '6�� tr' �3.`.tf S{'�, .4 tr f'�= �� � 4 �c.Fi '4S v��Y S F�j, �k''k"���Nr..3
- - .. . 1 t i •t�'�'°�-Nr'i,��F. t'4.? �4°, t �'`-4y-y=' e' 'j ,
S.
Minutes of the Planning Commission, January 11, 147,1r«i 1 •�Jt; € �r�J'il-1
Page '7
Public Hearings (continued) „•:i tt:u : sr=nt t1-. =:i
It was moved by Commissioner Irwin and :iec}onded by Commissioner, Meyers
that Applications 2'6-U-701and 27-1?-70 br_rc.ontitnued, for iic.aringi to . t 126-C-70 &
t}ac meeting acltaduled for February 8,, 11.')71. !
1r, 27-U-70-'
•
continued E
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth,, 1lir:'hon, Irwin, Mcyera ,nnd
Chairman Poetz I
a Noes: None ;
7. Application 7-V-,10 of I'ac:ific Cns and Electric Company,,. .
for a variance to allow the fence rl,cight' to be' `increased
from G feet to 8 feet on !:lie easLe ly 'property. line ,ad- N
jacent to Homestead Road . Said property 'i's located 'att }
the southeast corner of lomestead Road and Blanev! , .
Avenue, i.r. a Light Industrial (MQ zone. Firs:
Hearing. ,, : .;•,;sr.
planning Director Sisk gave a brief history of the property and des- i q
cribed its location. lie mentioned than_ the Architectural and Site 1;7-V-70
Approval Committee had approved the la ndscaping,•pending'Planning,t,. ,;, ,1,, ';presentation
Commission •and City Council approval 0:1 the wall height. Of 8! feet. ; {:
Rcsol.ution 21 of H-Control indicated that they were„in ,favor -of. 'the !,
i
8-foot wall as opposed to a 6-foot wall.
In response to Commissioner But'.:enutla's inquiry as to number of.•feet,.
from the property line to the wall lime., Mr.. Clark Mulliner,, Land , .
Representative from P G S E, 2.;065 Stevens Creek Boulevrd, Cupertino,. , ? ;
said there was a 25-foot setback on lio!nestead Road where the fe,ncc t
r
was to be located.
;applicant 's :
Mr. Mul�liner continued by saying that the California Public Utilities, comments
i y'
Commission required an 8-foot fence which would, in .addition,, provide.. r
a better screening effc t: lie concluded by saying that,'
in 16, years
of heinb in tl}is location, there had been no- resident complaints ever
registered. `.
It was moved by Commissioner Hirshon, seconded by Commissioner Irwin public hearing
and passel unanimously that the Public Hearing be closed. closed i
It was then moved by Commissioner Hirshon and seconded by Commissioner .7-V-70 j
L wn i that Application 7-V-70 be r^_commended to the City Council. for approved
approval subject to the Standard Conditions.
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenutla, Hirshon, Irwin, Meyers and ;
Chairman Puetz
Noes: None '
7. Application 20-TM-70 of Urich Enterprises, Inc. to
divide 0.87 acre into two parcels, and Application
28-U-70 to allow a Taco Bell drive-in restaurant on i 4,
Parcel E. Said property is located ;at southeast corner
of the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and �z
la;ney avenue in a CG (General. Commercial) zone, I .�
First hearing. t
��^.Y+��, 7 rz,h9 si.e- tr E�.'�..rc� "r�x.. ia;n`T♦"d x.��Z"' �Y ti!•c....,t,,}}x�,,:_� t ry'��� She W �•8 `, , �� .
�''"`5"'` �h 5.��' f , �'+°+F` t v'�d,.:.a �'`.- e 'r ??.,-`, '1 a.�1`� i �>;,� 2;�� t 5r. �tt -.•�a�•�'; Yp h{.,' - .( ",
a1^ •n n v a�r N 't.r 5 t� � t2t+ "a. �'! .�' ;�y',cr e..= Yx '4 ,,'W, x .,a_
d ;x � �'/ '.�,• a xsw:,.•v ?��+Jr.'; .r..�- ui�3,._`.� "E''4s .m:t tt'..�._�'���:..:.. t?..4s.r:�h�s;P'ri.:_ ,,..u�a..;'� .,.�.i3�'S.,.�.u..3risru� et".„h;�lx-.r
j >
"++.• t n' `* r7.�.; , ,J f r t {'° �k �.s-�."1_'r.���tyin'����_��,.�a'f �l 4t, �IIC,''ti� f `5. ",e '�&
�S'.
q�et�', •J
7f iIj t a4J` N 3lf,l-Gi'li'� t.
Pabc 8 Minutes of the Planning. Commission, %January"I.1, 1971 PC-25
};.v:+ftl �J't':)j .., .��'�?. 'n7r A?,i:7•�rI+�
A
Public Hearings (continued)
In referring to his recent staff report, Mr.'•5isk_ reported thaft,lit had F
been proposed to create two parcels of 24,000 square jeet and .14;000} 4 ;
!ti square feet for the building of a Taco Be 11 °drive-itt restauranC. He
2S-U-70 ;also indicated that he wished to correct the staff, report on Page .-2:
1" }?i ="="cat iot) in the second paragraph from the bottom of the page and apologized
for the use of "quality" in this pare of his report. it w
Responding to commissioner Hi.rshon's suggestion that the r-ntire site
be upgraded as a condition of approval, Mr. Sisk commented that denial
hr:d bean recommended, however, if approval was .recommended by the �
Planning Commission, Cond.i.tinn 1.5 would go into offer:_ and 11-Control"
could suggest whatever is appropriate for upgrading of the property.
City Attorney Adams was of the legal opinion that both matters should
he :iand.led separately and. that service station renovation was not +j
appropriate for inclusion as a conditAo-i of the Taco Bell Use Permit
approval.
The applicant, Mr. laugh Lacey Vice President of L'rich 01il"Company, , �r
(parent company of Urich' Enternriscs, Inc.) came forward .Saying .that"
applicant 's when Lhe property was purchased an attempt was made to buy, a portion
s of exLr;i footave but the seller indicated it would be as sll-or-ciothing
purchase. tie pointed out several items concerning the' station, some
of which were as follows- there is a:to lube or mechanical work of any
:t n•
type done at the Urich service stations, there are. no tools -on the t.
premises and the operation is completely clean, selling _only. qil,nor,,
gasoline. lie staid if this application was denied,, it would"
denial of a property right. and quoted Council. in Stokes?, commerts :
of ?.oven.ber 4, 1968, stating, "it is landowner's inlierentright to
use property as long as lie puts it to, a legal use'.',.,
Mr." 1_1Cey continued by saying; that lie was in disagreement" with Mr.. Sisk
ati to his comments that there was no marl-et for this type. of ,use.except
within a shopping facility adding that a franchise of this type was, . f
one of the better bu:3inesses available. He said the average parcel .
footage being adopted by other cities was 22,000 .square feet and this.,•
parcel would bo 24,000 square feet. lle 'concluded that,.",i 'one time,
nc-F;otiations had been undertaken to sell the parcel to the Bold knight
or nse as a F>arlcins; lot but no terms could be agreed upon at that .time. s
slaot,za by :15�i.5Lant }.Tanner Coi:+an and in response to
ti.l.ldc!s were r +t"
Cctr.riissinner Hirshon's sub ;esLlon that the architecture and signs x
hcinF, revised at the service station, Mr. Lacey said he would
object to r.e.no,inLing the station at Chis time because of the
n tiinaced cost of $25,000 to $30,000 to do so at this time. o
:1ccording to Mr. Lace,:, upgrading was clone about every 15 years to
Ui-i.ch stations and, inasm..uch as Lhis particular statia.n was .10 years old,
renovation would be undc.rt:iknn .i.n npproximatcly 5 years.
, Y
�f ',�2^q `,°t u°� � � ;Eda P jt n ,.. � t t t +'`! ,ys+i•' � .
"7q wF, '.'?'�+S'i/5y,�'7„i? +§xw'S tia »' ''�ttg •b4 S > ` a y, J*s' fix' ✓'�af'r' ti '.+ +�K 5- . ;o-. •yrt., t...
r.
�'' fix? � s y}S L,-,.. t , 'c ?;�� 7�� r- E:,�[.y .,� 3 �,,,t: �, +r�.t � e S' ;•^�fi,y„ �•
' ass „a��,�� •'� �,..v :.r.� �' �.x.«:.., :�:,�'r a:t ,: e�'°aut cam?.:'
..�� _ .se..fJS_; - .._ ._,:+ ..,�:i%�,..�54'.A�J.1,-. ,.ax _ .� zt9.Yt..'utia+a:4iCYttc _ k' _ .z•�<. -
�,,.-..,r.. a.>�7'?;?r.J .,.xi j;",'c7lT�"��=' 'Ff Fah: `>Z.�,a�t,.`f'rY1�V yKt.'�ti:}?'1U =11d�p;:.u��'� 1. \�}:,t��..Wa. .tA.y.. �'�' . G?p '`N. , �,s 5,`��t'��•°'"v� �'
.•'�°. �n•�,;,, ,�y� � 'td�'L"N�r4'%r:��r }S�,t,�?�H}C�xr l��F � r t�YLLH-++ `:' tt�s((u?. 7TH'1]�, � �'�}�� ' a l����k�� ,f .=��"�7•• .!.,,,, •,
, T; 1. ...-.T'".l �.• rc:Y xRICl3 �yi� t.t {y� � i ^Y J�.� J�� ��,i, •�l
, �x .i..1 M.� `xfi•��_ ♦x!,-� b,� ids •i"
Minutes of the Planning Commission, January 11, 197E '� N ; PC-2S
i. i r !t:„ V, !•;7 +l:.S k 1.3 «x i.v.7i11tt�, gpage"9S
Public. Ilearinp,s (continued)
Mr. Charles l:auvre, 'Paco Bell. rcprer•en't..ltive, 10400 Mann Drive?,
comments by ;
indicated that cons'.tderable •i.nvecetigat,ion went into`the•pur6iizairig Taco '
of property by the Paco Bell. organization-and"`th0ey, felt•'thi'S par.- ji'.15 ent ?
represative
ticul.ar piece of property would' be iden.l. for their operation. lie t,•,;;
continued that the restaurant woul.d'be Ant inside facility OR opposed.'-
to a drive-up window because the company was aware'of the •f.e'el.ings „
of the City concerning patio dining faci.l.iti.es.
'
Discussion continued during which Com,n:[ssioner Irw.i.n requested' that
it be entered into the record that rlie City of Cupertino is'-not
'-`=`''=`''�
necessarily against patio dining, as such, and whether or not an•'r'` i�'� ,
application is approved incorporating patio clinini depends upon
the use, location, architecture and man.; other items of considers= ''•'' k
tion.
Audience comments were requested by Chairman PLletz 'at this time and '
Mr. � : D. Koenitzer, 1.0060 Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino, comment'ed.' that,
t
there were, too many drive-in restaurants now, traffic would -be a
problem because of the location of the parking spaces as they were
blocking ingress and egress and indicated his objection to the
splitting of larger parcels into sinalle_r parcels hs'i,ias•'requested. audience
lie. concluded by saying that the Taco Bell establishment looked
y= g comments ,.
"ticl:y tacky" and recommends-.d the Planning Cotromission deny the
lot split.
In rebuttal, 'fr. Lacey refuted the comment made by `ir.••Koenitzer
that the Taco Bell facility was "tacky tacky" adding 'that the turning
radius ;or parked vehicles was adequate and `(r. Koenitzer's grounds k`
were immaterial and resulted from his' anti-business• attitude.
Nancy Salanaw, 10141. Village Place Cupertino, indicated her 'disa'gree
ment: with Mr. Lacey's rebuttal' and requested that the increase
potential of pollution be considered very seriously by' the Commis-- `
Cw
sion. She concluded her comments by saying that the residents- she
represented in the neighborhood were in complete disapproval of. ..•
the proposed use of the property.
Mrs. Ann Anger, `lonta Vista, suggested, that , instead of smaller
restaurants being placed throughout the City, large department stores
such as 1. Magnin be given some consideration,
lrlaSmUC11 as there were no further audience comments introduced, it public hearing _
was moved by Commissioner llirshon, seconded by Commissioner Meyers
- closed -
and passed unanimously that the public liearinp be closed on
k
Applications 20-T%1-70 and 25-U-70.
Several positions were voiced by the Commissioners who mutually
agreed that tale use proposed was not the hest use for the area,
that the traffic problem would be impossib.l.e on this street as
S
a• result of such a development and the proposed use would not be
compatible with the service station.
j '.7 i:.. F•:t, .i 1.Jt'.L ...:� j k
• � t {
,�xi'` "x ,' .fit.: iT r.<,, s t ..
r�i v
f'ri,.., 'RY•St'3.AV3�`'&�At3bSG. • 'Trl�' #IN...€-.L i:.'i•wa � aYj ..ukai•�•
4
r
r
i
C+
..{;:; .r':'.1 :.,-a "'�-i4:, 5vyr.�t'1':tt�+,ri'P�,°<..;�?cr'r,�r,Cr'y�'�-R•"f 'N'1 �I:rFfjTl�_TCIG i�Ty''��'�S yfi'i5.q •�"F' i +�.A'. F,iFYnhrF 7a��. � .n.. „• v, L ''{� 'f +t1a 6� ;t
( t' iA h tk1'y !r rhtFj„ � � 4fj4 ar r
. • ,..,� at; 4.g`,•�,4 r)�,". r)�a •.}.1 1 t7�i T� t- ?� `y L,� k!�.1!'.�, i y+.Y i...........M
S`
•r. ; . i•• l,a: :• •. •trrtlFrtl , „i+t;)_ i�d .J?�lr �,
Page 10 Minutes of the Planning Commission, January 11, 1971 " PC-25
r Public Hearings (continued) '
' tl,. (;•i,'. .' r<j;}`i4 tY[t.t,,il it i�.� •'•+�'• s
It was moved by Commissioner llirmhon and 'saconded iby. Commissioner rlt-4in
that Application 20-TZi-70 be dented.
denied Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth,, Hirshon, Irwin, Meyers and,
,
-Chairman Puetz
Noes: None
It was then moved by Commissioner Hirshon and seconded by Commissioner
;S-L,-70 Meyers that Application 28-U-70 be denied with the following vote=being
denied taken.
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Hirshon, Irwin, Meyers and
Chairman Puetz
Noes: None
The applicant was informed of his right to appeal the denial; 'in.writing,
within 5 days to the City Council. 1 :
,:>>:'_i
S. Applications 18-Z-70 and 8-V-70 of, Robert Saich,' et .al.:,,
for. rezoning ,12.48 acres from R1-10 (Residential- Single-.
family 10,000 sq. ft. lots) and R1-10ag (Residential '
Single-family with agricultural use permitted) to P.,
(Planned Development) with commercial use. intended;' and WO
variance to reduce the acreage requirement of. 'P '(Planned
Development) from 1.5 acres :to 12.48 acres. Said property j
is located at the northwest corner of the intersection.of ,
Stevens Creek Boulevard an4 Stelling Road. First-.Hearing. j
Planning Director Sisk reported that the applicant' had submitted •a'plan
18-Z-70 & relating to the property in question. He then presented maps: of' the
M1
8-\r_70. area and indicated that the applicant had proposed a shopping center-
Presentation on the property. He then indicated the recommendation to be. that r
the application be denied because of the abundance of commercial use =
in the area already, adding that there were also two shopping centers
already located in the immediate area.
• 6.
Mr. J. Robert Dempster, representing the applicant, informed the
Commission that two weeks ago it was requested that additional.con-
trol be* exercised relative to commercial use •in the City and the
I plan had since been revised. He continued by saying that '_he proposed
use would be the best and highest possible in view of the traffic arteries -
oil Stevens Creek Boulevard. and Stellin.� Road.
Mr. Dempster went on to say that this property. was not residential type
properr.y and discounted a letter recently receiveci from a representative ;
o f D _An a College indicating that the area should be used for office ;
purposes to be compatible with the college use. lie said there.,wese .no
leases at this time, hor:evv`X, control would be lield by the City ,in. that
before final approval of the plan the applicant must again appear.11'In
checking the reasons for zoning, it: was felt tliat these reasons were
t
all included in the present applic<at.ion and that the city: should 'not -end i
v� i.rE;..•4' r t ,,�°i, Fl5'.;�:y:t.y.i ,?.�a•.�,y 1.. 1"ST t=4�,•"r-:'-a.^t t I¢;�`i'it,s ,>.eL�i'A k,.t*•"?•�±f`+"4,T�i,t`S3'�'F.'R.Fy xt.gy,�',+„:€�.F,:.ty r• ',k i F•_5.,;?t?`^ ' . H
q �q ! !omt"') .fta4 s.^-!'�. ' t' 'r n .v•",`.,
..x::F3 a cT�f�x'.s-.s.,--+. 7�`1i ar r`a� p r,. �-;:9 •sr,. �' 4:,y
+
k ai
t'
R�-t.• �.,.�t 4• '�� �r r �,� � k/� W.i,r r r�� k „•., ><"a,�:��P ;�. - �.:., t a '-- ''a -ti�,r�_,•f�y,
t 2 :{!� 1 t�.` !r tr� S�J��j 'y u,..Yi\r y�)'3.t U 3�h y,,j'R �rid d,�' � � er� •
i.1� try�1� �5'.•.
:1 r .• � ,try I,• , �l �• '
t �
Minutco of the Planning Commission, January 11, 1971 '~ tPC-25
1Q ! ri t:;t,sti e �Tt:•'.ti :tt7i':'S!?.�'� !:fi! :i.rl' 45?�G-!:��e� 'PIget11
Public 11eari.ngs (continued)
f commercial development at Stelling Ruad. lie estimated that 200,000
People would be served by 'thet•ar(ea" .a'nd that"'he,appl.icuCion''shouldPbe i-
r •r. i , .. .i "s . 't f. i i t :.;t':akL:JiCt',t, t
s granted. 1
An inquiry was made by Comm{ssioner Iiisshon as to alternates`t6'`mu1t1
ple dwelling use or-, cornmercial use ;to which Mr. Dempster responded that
the applicant felt the development proposed was an 'excellent"one: 'Ile:
then questioned the abrupt change o;F attitude''within a 'period'of only]
six months and inquired as to -what criteria had been estnblished to"'' �
qualify' the statement that we now have "an abundance"'of''commercial`'use 18-Z-70 S
in this area. Ve concluded-by' saying that 'he 'objected to general'`'
8-V-70
statements being; ",just• thrown 'out" 'as indicated in'the Planning, r+u discussion
Director's recent memo, questi.oning the sudden change when only'"`'` '
90 days previous a similar app.licati.on had been approved by this i
body.
In response to an inquiry by Commissi.oner,llirshon as to the possibility '
of utilizing the property for professional •office use'rather 'thsn'"raw
commercial use, Mr. Dempster said the applicant did'not'•feel 'profes=`:i
sional office use was the best- and highest 'possible `use of the`•property. f
Dialogue continued during, which Plan.n.ing Director Sisk'clari'fed'' the''(
request as being the same as originally introduced adding 'a 'vari'ancet't
request for a reduction of acreage from 15 to 12.48.
Comments were requested from the audience and Mr. R. D: Koenitzer"of '
10060 Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino, advanced to the podium`to voice`his",
objections to the application as being an unnecessary additional''1'�'' `I
r commercial use in an already overabundant area and'. further; tl`ai•"�`"S audience
of the 500 acres zoned commercial only 200 -acres were-being used: comments
In conclusion, Mr. Koenitzer stressed the importance of using ,pre-
viously commercial zoned property prior to allowing more. ' _-
In response to an inquiry made by Chairman Puetz as to undeveloped ' f
commercial areas, Mr. Sisk pointed out planned development areas
and commercial development areas 'and :indicated that 63 -per cent
was, at present, undeveloped.
It was suggested by Chairman Puetz that a condition be imposed stating E'
that developments not utilized within two years be returned to their
original zoning..
Mr. Burt Avery, Avery Construction, `fountain View, indicated his dis-
agreement with Mr. Dempster's estimate of the total marketing area as
being 200,000 people because of the rwo shopping centers already 'in.'
existence in the areas. lie went on tti say that lie had purchased 'large
acreage in this area because of many plus factors such as the park,
m j;
residential development and the close proximity of the college, -
suggesting that the possibility of garden apartments- and a restaurant , d.
be considered as an appropriate use for this property. r
' .. �.1�i tj •F. f t
t «.
.t •c.
f � +�'4 sxa. t + w5 3 _
..r. r r 5' ;,yd '"' r xa, M .,•...... r-,rsM�?,y-c 4f{L�_. '.. .wyuc� 5..:_.. ,.1,..7. ., x... .xr-YS' wni•3t
r.
v
i
d
• ..- .c:y.�. •ti_ ,�'s a �.ks:w:�� '�'�:^. yn<fEa ♦+7 - ] $cr.,fµ µ. .rb'u,.{ -'s xi, n t p er N �?�ti•1
. �+' •t."t �i,r� ,�y,Y`'4k�ti•�{�.f t��ly �°jf{��,�i,'�,f^�.,`�7'ra 1 �..a. "'!^�t�4 E!r __yy���n4 �r�� � fi '•rc � v� �'rl�,
i ! :,,1 i is;r`,i 'Pt6ifY;l Pi�"1 7rtr;1 :`IiJ
Page 12 Minutes of the Planning Commission, January, 11, 1971 PC-25
F
Public Hearings hear (continued)
Mrs. Lucien liertert, 22830.5an Juan. Road, Cupertino,,offered..her,supportive
comments to Mr. Avary's suggestion that apartments would be an'.ii_deal+a use
for the area inasmuch as it. was vo close to shopping and other necessary
facilities.
Mr. Dempster pointed out, in rebyttal, that because other ,parcels had not
been utilised was not,sufficient grounds ,for ,denial of, ,this application
and. further, that not every.commercial use possibility,.had,:,teen;fcovnred
in the City as it was a constantly changing coipmunity,•,no standardsi,had
been set to prohibit the proposed use and, 'if the use .was,.consideredIi
to be. the highest and best use of the, property, it should,;be ;iapp;gygd
at this time.
r. � , . ._ ,•r 1.f,l
„ti'
Commissioner Hirshon indicated his opinion that professional officec;ase
would be preferred but wondered what other alternates could be suggeated.
;.':":• .5�!Y fit
It was Comn,i.ssioner liirshon's feeling that standards should,bef'adopted
as to where and why commercial development is done and thatigoals7:should
further b changed periodically. Much colrmercial use, he, said, was')locatedloa
discussion Stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 9 which had been provided by County
zoning over which we have no conti:ol but,, he con tinued,.:we„do.,haye;;control
of the remaining areas and should have definite plans.established.;,.-,
It was commented by Chairman Puetz that many main traffic arteries are
located in Cupertino now and eventually. .this .poz,tioii,wi.'I1-;be a7;maj19r, :
commercial area. Ile added that ho felt this .applicaiion:should be,,,,)1;
granted as one more area completing a strip ,of co,mmorc,ial •development,
however, zoning should be returnee. to its original, statusyif.not..,,.:•;,;
developed within two years..
Commissioner Buthenuth commented that he was of„ the impression•,that,;zonir&g
could not be conditioned and requested the City Attorney's view on this.
Mr. Adams responded to this inquiry.by indicating that zoning is,a judgment
made as to what uses should be allowed on property and not how soon,;it
should be developed. Ile added that the General Plan 'could be-a.good;,tool
in making these decisions.
It was agreed by Commissioner Irwin and Commissioner Buthenuth that :the
commercial developments should be ended at thin point and Commissioner �
Hirshon also voiced his agreement suggesting that professional office
use was a possibility.
It was corime.ntud by Commissioner ?Seyers. Chat lie would-have•.liked, to •have
r hoard from the college representative, but felt that planned develop>;aent
was the best use for t:liis particular: piece of property.
F
is hearinf; It wns :novae; by Commissioner Luthenuth, seconded by Con:missione r, Irwin
and passed unanimously that Clio public hearing be closed. .
it w s moved by Commissioner Buthenuth and seconded by Commissioner
Irwin t:har.. Appl.icatio:i 111-L-70 be recommended to the City Council for '
den.ial..
4r
1 tl
} a L,i rr �qs 1.'1 `k' � • 'i,�'M,Y i �pt1'{.�,,FF
� r,7�s Yti' ,� _ �' .v,Ra�Y'•'<i'. �1,,�,� are,� 'tea -•C,�5• 'ir �r�,-?K,,. �i` .� �.5'4'wf ,,�.,�:su, f { .
rt4ros ��' w��! A by +6�i cR�- Kt t { rk i.•
h "•} ._ r:+.aa,s .:;..,,_ ,�;c.r.-,-..,—ac.`3e,..:.�. M'`'^'ot.''°�. .m `:..:...u.,,-i, < ?�.r, .c..-. :..'.r•...._.x -� "F.t,,"°.: ii4 '._.
r ., ..
l
� rs�i�!+�11y,• ;.'n,ei'r qr-,nHfi a.g *t Mg.
rk1f � wANCf rt'Rjl. VrtjF' +tr7 Rfb iiZY &Q! `� St � R iSM f(1"ry �ti
........... k .
Minutes of the Planning Commission, Janunr.y, 11, 1971
t f. yic...u:•� PC-25 fsI
Fagc 13
Public Bearings (continued)
Y : Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Ili rq,llon,•. Irwin and.Muyer.s
Noes: Chairm:ui Puptz a+.: aa•j.. Q: r,
It was then moved by Commissioner n tltenuth and seconded by Commis- � 8-V-70 i
sioner Nevers thnt Application S-V-70 be recommended 'to ';the City � denied
' Counci.l for dcni.n.l.
i r
Ayes: Commissioners Authenuth, llirshon, Irwin and Meyers 1
Noes: Chairman Pucti
Commissioner Irwin inquired as to what: changes could' be suggested;'if
the Planning Commission's recommendation was overturned and it was tr(e', ',
requested by Assistant City Engineer Viskovich that'dedication'; recommenda-
be required of a hump. tan Stelling Road which is approximately tions
4 feet wide for rc-vamping of the channolization of that. roadway. `+ indicated
It was further suggested by Commissioner llirshon that professional
office or quasi-public use be considered.
A Minute Order was introduced by Commissioner Irwin for direction.to
the City Council specifying the City Engineering Department 'sr'request`J
that the. hump along Stellinp Road be dedicated and Commissioner c.
Hirshon's comment regarding professional. office use and, further, ' Minute Order
that a Variance for planned development: be adopted if `the applica introduced
Lion is approved such that the City has control of the entire racreage. .
t
The Minute Order was seconded by Commissioner lNeyers but no vote*was '
taken at this time as Commissioner lluthenuth objected to''the Commission ` >y '•
stating what the use should be, indicating lie could not offer a; yes
j :.
vote on the motion.
1 . ti
Commissioner Hirshon requested that his reason for voting� no be•'entered >r
into the record as being that the commercial use, as outlined, was not,
a proper use and his preference would be primarily professional office'
use or quasi-public use compatible with DeAnza College. He commented
that he felt circumstances have changed within the past two years 'and.,
this was also a contributing factor resulting in his vote for;denial ','°
Of the application.
A pole was taken of the Commissioners at this time which resulted
in the following vote being taken.
Ayes: Commissioners ]lirshor,, .Irwin, `]eyors and Chairman Puetz '
Noes: Commissioner Buthenuth {:
9. Application 19-2-70 of Otis F. Force for rezer.ing. 7.38
f
acres from Al-43 (Agricultural-Residential Single-family
one-acre lots) to A-215 (f,.-ricultural) . Said property is
located northerly of and adjacent to Junipero Serra '
Freeway and approximately 360 feet westerly of Saratoga- it
Sunnyvale Road. First llearing.
ti
}i °eck �u3 ta�a.` �aY $ w�w � t ? 752 " a
��,
NY
Page , t YC_t' �✓i^ :tpv''`�•! ?i,�(.�ijr :N' iA:+`G�i4yy '4.r �'t _ ��.,y w
'�, I G!,€:�,lh• i , F�.�.`,y ,1Z GyA 1p+ . V �t�-11 +�}y' � � u
' .. .•:i.�,x ;I� t'` 1`7. �*�"j .".t..�KS' ry,'tJ y,;�rh `�`1+�7�J z� ° ,.r`r�it�+;'0.t �Yt.,¢° �'
Page 14 Minutes of the Planning' Commission,' January 11, 1971 PC-25 k'
Public Hearings (continued) ;
s
10. Application 20=Z-70 of Otis F. Forge.i►nd ,Muriel N. Fvr.ge' •. `.
for rezoning 9.2 acres from Al-43 (Agricultural-Residential
Single-family one-acre lots) to A-215; (Agricultural),. ',Said
j j
property is located northerly.of and .adacent,to.Homastcad
}toad and approximately 600 feet wasterly,of;.Saratoga-t,,,4r Sunnyvale Road. First Bearing.
Planning Director Sisk explained that it had been proposed. by the.,,
applicant that his property be approved for use as agricultural
20-Z-iO S property as a means of land preservation. 11a,said that ,under, the
_resent Williamson Act, if an agreement can be made between the ro ert
nresentati.on P P. Yt`c -•,;is
Iow"Or and the City, the parcel can he used for agricultural purposes,,,.
f:)r a period of 10 years continually with a .guarantee on ,the part .of.,both
,pal: :ies that the property will remain in agricultural use.
1'he applicant, Otis Forge, 20691 11omestead Road, commented that he! !-,.. t
wars not aware, until recently, that his property 'was zoned as it
was indicated previously and requested that consideration be given;,,
to farming use as a method of land preservation. ,
19-Z-70 & 11t Was moved b-v Commissioner Irwin and seconded by Commissioner Meyers
ZG-Z-'0 that Applications 19-Z-70 and 20-Z-70 be considered at the same time ;;
,_o<<sol id:ted as they were related. The motion was carried by a unanimous vote. •;,t};
public }:earir.9 Inasmuch as there were no audience comments indicated at this [•ime,
!it was moved by Commissioner Irwin, •seconded by Commissioner Meyers,.. . x'
and passed unanimously that the public hearing be closed. ...;;
� t
A motion was then entertained by Com;nissioner Irwin and seconded by,.,;.,,.;
Commissioner Meyers that Application 19-Z-70 be recommended to the
19--7-70 City Council for approval as presented.
apprcve ci
Ayes: Commissioners liirshon, Irwin, Meyers and Chairman Puetz .l
IN•oes: None
ilhstnin: Commiscioner Buthenuth
r(�
Com:aissioner Buthenuth requested clarification of tine applications
(presented indicating ohe -was unclear on the intent 'proposed.-for the
land use, and Mr. Sisk reiterated tlii: !•:'illiamson Act provisions.
i'-Z- Ft was moved by Commissioner Irwin and seconded b Cozimis Z
i y issioner tfeygrs.
ithat Application 20-7.-70 be recommended to the City Council for approval `
aS pri?St'1lCt'd. a'.
'F.
Ayes: Commissioners llirshon, Irwin , Noyers and Chairman Puetz
Noes: None
Abstain: Commissioner Butheauth
It w.-Is Mutually agreed amoral; the Cotmiissiouers that Mr. 'Forge should be
commended for his efforts in land preservation and Commissioner .Irwin
offered his appreci�.t.ivo contir,c:nts to Elie appl.ic.ant ,' indicating his
lltlpu that others V..•ould follow suit in the future.
i!
L •�
a
t I +'cf aal� +c�l�,G ,� N�1?i�"F-f'3r a hx5��`S. .2 •A,^ y` �fi aS ,r �,.,,ti,
e�' F
r
a5E1 xYi,. '�' :.� , ,r�: � t. v± �51•,,it"
.:,yae�k -t, ..>.yii. r Y''ieK'i'Tt• ,RFa/"+ tad.c ���,7n c�-,?',' ' k f.l��"4'_,',� r ;b'�s 3 �4 4 !� #'M C'�' '�rr•ri,vy,t k� !,Y \ � K'4
�. ! � � f �x
Commission J,►nusry 11, 1y71;;,cj1
Minutes of the Planning , � , , 'Page 15
Unfinished Business ~ '~ '' "• � ,:
11. ,Application 14-Z-70 -of 117<An Hoag ,for; prozoping of;, i itLive;
54.7 ;acres fr,)n County. 41-40 ,(Singln;family.,Residential ,
Agricultural) toy P , (Plaivned Dave lopmart).d,With K1C •,,: _.
(Single-family Cluster), and R3 .(Multiplo-family), uso- .,,.:
intended.. Said property is located northerly and:. : / ':r ! .
southerly of Stevens Creek Boulevard-, 16.00 feet west
of Foothill Boulevard. Denial recommended, by Planning., i •'
c
Commission P.ue,olution•N,�• 925 on November 23, 197.0:,.,
(THE CITY COUNCIL AT DECL1BER 21-.MEETING -REFERRED THIS, •:• t
APPLICATION BACK.TO Till' PLAN Ni; CO%kL`tISSION FOR REVIEW. ra :t
AND RECORMENDATIONS.) !,
Planning Director Sisk commented that, due to, the lateness, of, receivin ,
the revised plan from the applicant, there had been, insufficient time:� !14-Z-10 j
in which to review the application and offer recommendations to the` ; .
Commission. it was then suggested by Mr. Sisk that this item bee ; 7, : 'presentation
continued to the next meeting, to which Commissioner Hirshon in- i
dicated his concern that returning applicants are being placed at
the end of the agenda with the chance of a second continuance.;
• f 14 t•
Mr. Sisk commented that, because of. the substantial changes•.made;by:.,-:)i,
4:
the applicant, this could be nearly _C=onsidered a new application
and suggested that the applicant speak on the matter.
i Referring to a map, Mr. Sisk continued by saying that.one of, the>mai.,..
concerns was related to the desirability of- some type of,,public street-:
going through the property in a southerly direction to service, eaisting
residential zoning. lie pointed out two ways of-providing,access to,
the area other than Foothill Boulevard as being onto Voss Avenue and
Lockwood but indicated that there were other ways possible in additionft
to these. He said, if another street is not provided into the-,area,
density would be limited and requested suggestions- in this- regard. ,
_ 4
It was Commissioner l}irshon's opinion that, even with two accesses, '.. , F.
the traffic would warrant additional accesses to be provided.. !
Mr. Viskovich voiced his agreement with the.Planning Director's recommended
recommendation that the existing patt:ern would be sufficient and,
if the density was to be lowered, thc: additional street would not conditions,
be required. I
Inasmuch as the applicant was not available fcr comments, a discussion �
ensued among .the Coa—Issioners and Mr. Sisk further explained possibil- �
ities for relief of the traffic situation. Chairman Puetz requested
that a traffic study be undertaken and Commissioner Hirshon voiced his i
concern saying that, with the need f or housing in this area, it would
7
be better to preserve an access.
In continuing his presentation, Mr. Sisk commented that the hilltcp•.i . .
devel.�p,rent had b4•_n eliminated. but gf.7estioned the staggered setbacks
along the property line. C0111u7issionor Meyers indicated his feeling
that 5-foot setbacks were too close and should be greater in this area.]
C
� t S.
s�k•�y*•r4�"� �i �'} �• ''�1;5 S �w' Faj,'�+, ��l�a''k i, �� 'y� � � Y '+ �. � ti^ f
_ _ _ ._ _ ' _ 3�.k.�.�a'�i,�.� aR.:i...taen��eP� •°c�3'.....�.,�'o-v c.,c._+titit •"� L^,+_' �. .r.t::•'.,u".3tc�y ;�. �Y.
(?RA
J�•,�',y��'�y,,�i d�y...�'I �Qa4}.au•+i1y Ta �, : •f. -` 4 �'� x.
:t S' ,,t 3'i• h '&, \�'r!1„ c,a{i�Z .. ?k`t +IY�.fFtf.jy ,,. py� 3 �✓ hj -Yt i ,�
t}.'a t..,,;-y,P k 1 � , .• t,��,i�',r' �'3{� :.� y+�%{rp�. �R` `�2} Z " � �..A 7{a, :t
'IV
'^L F, �\#" }� py�i•o�S` r.•.+.Iry 1.
j t r
Page 16 Minutes of the Planning -Commission, 'January'lt, -'1971' {. ' { �c ; '''' r�l'a a. 1 PC-25
Unfinished Business (continued)
..Y t
Another item introduced for discussion by Mr.. 'Sisk lnt`'th'is time''•Was the,,'-,,
subject of parking in relation to the townhouses'."','tHe 'said only' one'
townhouse development had been previously 'approved 'whi`c}i` dasignated
two-car garages per dwelling and the applicant, in thf's 'ease, had
proposed a combination of on garages and two-car. garages as
relaxed to the size of the structut'es involved and additional parking '?3
bays located throughout the development. He said., in the addendum
received by the Comm issioners,. it was indicared that ' excluding the
driveway parking in front of the garage facilities,' they were in
excess of 2-1/2 to 1 per dwelling unit of parking, facility.
continued
Discussion continued, wherein it was generally agreed that the bays
dialogue provided should be the only allowable on-street parking, the parking .
in the townhouse area should equal 2=1/2 spaces per' dwelling and".`-f "``
further that the dwellings should have a covered two-car parking"
facility. t
Mr. Sisk commented that the main difference in the' plan 'was the access'
and described the development.as having 164 apartmebts' and 261=`townhouses
with a density of 7.8 dwellings per acre. He said concern had ,been in-
dicated as to the space allowed between patio areas which•'appeared' to '' 1
:.i':3
be creating an alley type situation. s
At this time Mr. };alcolm McFall, representing the firm of `"•cBain,. McFall
and Associates, Developers, 125 East Sunnyoaks Avenut�',",Campbel'1;=-came- �:
forward describing the development as'have 7.8 units'per' acre and
s. dicated that the main change had' been to preserve the hilltop."* Hel```
applicant 's continued by saying that the project would be catering to smal-ler''in='V 1.
comments ~� � �
comes and that Cupertino was in need of this type of housing-.^ �
Ile went on to say that the land coverage had increased slightly' Oith `';'
the elimination of hilltop development; the parking had'been'cha'n'ged'```°
from one-car garages only to a combination of one-car garages, two-cars
garages and parking bays; the number of two-bedroom units had increased; t
it had been proposed to have 10 to 15-foot patios at the rearof•the"} '
units; the r.iglht-of-way for Stevens Creek Boulevard had changed and �.
the street standards had been deemed adequate based on traffic studies` (y
Irecently undertaken and approval indicated by the Fire Department.
Commissioner Buthenutlh questioned the setbacks from townhouse to townhouse
and stressed his opinion that tc)wnihouses bordering residents should be
a minimum of 20 feet.
';r. McFall continued his description by indicating that half- of the'
units were to he one-story r.nd halyf two
half and suggested the pos-
sibility of having setbacks at 10 feet for the one-story dwellings.
and 20 feet for the tt:'o-story dwellings agreeing :hat the minimum' ' }
should be 15 feet. Concerning rile distance between buildings, he t
said the minimum should be 40 to 45 .Meet -it all times. k
i
s
4
ti T-
�{ �s k�aAM°k�V-�'� ^k��-''�l,�ars�.,.,. y...yA d ,£}9r '`'�` ����� ems,+,. 11k•S�'ki 2't'� � ��'�ilg yp, r ,..r v:. -' y 7: �. k'`tt +`� �
• -fin,, ,rk ;xY'• fr rlk t",(i; 3`'r4c,,., :' ' n ,t $�* sY �, 'f
.+i} '�d�. ��"���' � �`e5�'�a'� � .c ;�k,�"�� �'i:� •ti;�'�;.,� n lt. p}t"-
) •? ,i LR..h „� i r+• ,�` t '�av ,�•A
Minutes of the pinnaing Commie;siyn, Jniwa�ry 11, :1571 ,1<< �!;7 s+ yl, 1lr't PC�25,;
Page 17 .
Unfinished Business (continued) ` . ,,.,. .,. , .. :ar �.t:, ,at' �, • `
It was suggested by Commissioner Buthenut.I.), and'mutually,.,agrgnd among,ie, `
the commissioners that it would be advan,t.ageou3,,ta„continue ;the dis-
cunsi.on of this application LO-allow for clear and concise.,dircactionJ;= f
to be -given. Mr. 'McFall indicated his desire that a decision be .1
reached as soon as possible to avoid further•delay. . I ,
I r.
Mr. Sisk requested comments be indicated relative to:pedestrian access
to the school. site in a southerly direction as opposed to going down
Stevens Creek 13uulevard and in through Lockwood and Mr. McFall responded)
that this would he acceptable to him. '
It was then questioned by Mr. Sisk what recommendation could be,made;
as to the 15 plus acres of open .space remaining on the •hil.ltop •and,
Mr. McFall commented chat originally the proposal had been. to deed
tile hi.l.lrop to the 11omeowner's Association but was agreeable to the S'
City being assigned the development rights to the property.. -.r. *'
-a:
A question was introduced by Commissioner :'eyes relating to the ingress
and egress from the property onto Stevens Cr:,ek Boulevard which. hej felt
�
to be inadequate, suggesting that there be included double lanes and , i
left-turn; lanes. Mr. Sisk responded that this was an additional; condi-E
Lion that Engineering had requested be added, and to which Mr. McFall j
was agreeable.
Dialogue continued briefly, after which Commissioner Irwin proposed .a
Minute Order to the City Council that the Planning Commissions dis-
CUSSi011s had rasultcd in certain recommendations as discussed.in, a
memorandum to be prepared by the Planning' Director and these condi-• Minute Order
tions represent the Planning Conunissionis assessment as. to what should; ; proposed
be a minimum needed in the development plan and any further developments '
of this property and, further, that this does not change the original• • ;
vote with respect to this property but adds conditions that are vital
to the interests of Cupertino if the City Council deems it necessary
to approve the application. This Minute Order was seconded by Commis- �
sioner Buthenuth and the following vote-was taker..
r
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, 11irshon, Irwin, Meyers and
Chairman Puetz
's
hues: None
New Business
12. Request of Marianists Provice of the Pacific for one-year
extension of time on Use Permit 2-U-70 granted on
February 9. 1970 to allow the construction of an archives
y<
research center adjacent to the existing Marianists 2-U-70
residence located at the- wosterly terminus of San Juan extension
Road in an-Rl-10 (Residential Single-family) zone, approved
It was move.: by Commissioner Irwin and seconded by Commissioner Meyers .'
that Use Permit 2-U-70 be extended for a period of -one year subject ;
e
to the original conditions. i
• -F k
h 11 ,y
r'+c. �' R��' �er) ��'��4,e!� P�7 u�-a��+. "mss r��� "�,y��'�`a• i w„'rh � )�..r;�. � ���
.g:f- �..h-..fir>�+. ...-e�}Fik .c a:`7�. ;,C�.kS'.`'�k.�l•�:t.'�. .t>?.t..._t.�^,,.��.�,: Y� �.v%#`*�`�_ .e cc�.. �� ^.ink+ x. d�, ,tire
y •i-,
7' ;':' eu ,.^'•T. i ;• P.:.•�;,.4 ¢utc+•d w S' N,
r#:a,, t,sxc+ .v�'�e,i„��• {{� "�k r , r- �;�1. t a t e �l d s o,� , ,.ulv xa< �
i'k.�•d t
Page 18 Minutes of the Pl.ann'ing- Commission,' January 11;' 1971'-i.` `ir1" ��� ''�t e3$ts YC-25
New Business (continued) f
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, 'Hirshon. Irwin. Mayers'and
Chairman Pue,.,-
Noes. Nona
13. REFERRAL FROM CITY 01' SAN JOSE: Application No•. -PD-C-}
70-12-196 of Peter F,. Bianco for rezoning ,10.4 acres.,from G
R-•1 (Residentini Si.nglo-family) to 114-U6 PD; (Resi8ekinl
Single-family 6,000 'sq. fr. lots' -• Tlanned'Deveiopment),
Said property is located at the southwest corn er:.of`; ;
McClellan Road and Bubb Road.
referral .. I• �
Planning Di.rector Sisk referred tc hts recent memo and lidicated that
discussion lie had nothing further to add at this time. lie Lhen invited
the
applicant to present the proposed plan to tl.e Commissioners. `
. 11 'It :,tp'r
`:r. John Stewart with the firm of Kreegan and D'Angelo advanced to
Jthe podium indicating that numerous slides, renderings and a model
had been prepared for presentation, however, hc. felt that they should
not become to &..eply involved in a 'presentation because of 'the''1'a- t eness
.of the hour. Ile said he would try to keep the presentation brief and';
offered to answer questions,
Mr. Sisk informed the Commissioners that their recommen2ations would
be ulructed to Lhv. City of San Joss ou this particular application.
Mr. Bud Newman, Vice President of >Lackay Homes and Mr. Marty E'ess'of'"
Dick Finian and Associates described the proposed development as'con
sisting of single-family, owner-occupied units incorporating a` wooden
aopl.icanC 's , fence. as a buffer. It was indicated that all units would face'a: major;
remarks ion mall, the buildings would be six- loxes the
description ! P garages would meet the';
tl;ouses, 51 per cent of the total land development would be'open and'
1pr.ivate patios, and the buildings would cover 39 per cent of °the land`
The mall would be maintained by the Ilomeowner'.s Association, each unit
( would have a tiro-car garage, mini-parks would be incorporated.and '
( there would-be 1/2 parking space for guest parking.
c-.
' Several slides were shown of the scale model and'
numerous reuderingsi
were presented depicting the Santa Clara development which was' very
similar in st}'le, after which Commissioner Meyers indicated his only
objection. to be Chat -Iie development was not a p>
f., �• part of Cupertino instead.
He said l,c fe.lt tiro devel.oi.lment was an excellent one in his opinion and
loffered his favorable comr.;enCs at this time.
(Commissioner llirshon commented that lie f=elt that the development was
a good one but questioned Cho planned development on the corner being
�utili ed for a service station.
�<
It was indicated by *f:-. Newman that the applicant would have to sell
the corner portion in order to proceed w.itll the remainder.of the develop-
ment and in order to sell. the units c;t. 130,000 to $34,000.
.
µ .y, 9R✓hi/�'r'-"F- s—f �r, yy�Y"� 4� y., .� P, �''�c. ,�i)s 5� `. �' I ,Yk h r ,1Yr?vyi`2R .�' <'; k?
< s`�.y�7�s'c^a..� c�f'P'��'�°�4" F3. �` •'x a w Y n ,, ;a�i�" ,, �� � -y
, �� "k. �4�G �, � -'�' r,. ' M• 3i �b r 'is. .�,.'�� ^i �y-, � ith .c :t'C t,�' 7++
•„•'R ,r�:1; �.j -za•3'�, #^t —.4 � ^k�a �+ _,_:i ,sae t •n sy sr.�, .� c ` [�.. a � _
'%� 2 t t ,.� �s415.,'i" '.,$. 'pµ4e'�'4. i t � t�4 �! t�+ d.�'.�'( �t ,,cta •. '� - 'f �y. 1 � �,, s
t 5 < g'. 3gr; q fit, r ritl�1 oaf ykxc a4fi&'J `� 4tia y� 4� c 7� rMFk;
,�- :
. Afi.nuM; Of Lhc 1'lann1,11p C0minit;c;.fon, January 11, 1971 z .PC-25
Page
' NOW
After souxt d:fscutu:ioit, it was Lltc corl!tcn!wu of the CommissLonera. that
the: dovclopmont vas a good ono l:xr.c:ht Cur the comncrr_ial use proposed
on t.br. con .r.
AL ] :OU a.m. Commi.::::inner.; l3uthl:nuth nrtd Irwin excused themsclvc!s from
thr rlct`t irth ar..d nt: 1 :3U a.m. City Attorney Ad:uns excused himself from City of
the m(:(!t.it); San Jose
referral
Di'llog;ic cont.:i.nucd, after Which 1.1: wn/; moved by Commissioner Meyers recommenda-
and sccoacleci by Com:;;.i:,sio:tr.r JU):::hun 1.11:11:, represenLin}; Lhe majority lion
of. th-> mc:abi.:ro-;, it :11ould bo indicated Cu Che. C:ity of San Jose that
the Comr:.ission W.is i.n favor Of Lhe dc:vc::7.upmant: with the exception of
OW co:,::1rt'c.ia.l devcl.cl)r.:ent alt thc� corner.
Ayes: Co.mn i.ssionc!rs Ilirshott, :lcyers and Chairman Puetz
hoes: Nonc!
Ahsc:nt : Com:::i.ssioners h:.1ihcrtuth and Irwin
Re !ort of 1' 'nn:inr C omm i ss.i.oncrs
�qI'hcrc wcl:c no roports pruseltted at: this .tame.
F:r rt o:' ]'? •tnni n ; IN rector
No report was preccn,:ad by Sisk at 1:11is L1t:L,
Ac?joul'nmcnt
It ua:: moveci hr Concn:issi.oner llirshon, sei:ondccl by Commissioner Meyers
and passed u:M',)i;nously that the mectins: be adjourned. adjo rr. .
The ;:tr:eti.ng t:as declared adjourned by Chairman Puetz at 2:00 a,m.
AP PRO '
air
z
ATTEST: � t%
t
Cit Clerk
•F
.z,
k,
.'.,�3x^✓ �+� l�-r.°e.1W.ry tr^.x}F-k��''k� „`�,,u'e.?� � ,"�Pk.�f'yl,� � G....i��•���;i17S'-�. ,�a��p� {„. Jr,,.4d ��' 4 r X11�"rf +.J "y F