PC 03-22-71 1.
u 43 0 e1 c.? 4 i1 ,t "r.•� �=�
t r ... t '{i � �P w: i is}�},r l�is�,i��S`�!1•�-�''��b MJ�, ���++k >< � 'Y't� -;s4 \
' - tt,� ;.'v,�r�.�d yF.{�',y),��t*`�t�"Jf+s t'i•+��C °' � -
CITY OF CUPERTINO, State of California
10300 Torre Avenue,-Cupertino",'Califarnia'''r' 'f :rr .L5 ;�ri7 3r� '.,'4� rtla� =':• s`!
-30
Telephone: 252-4505 _ PC
,,,. .,...,.,.;i'1 -t., �...; •�'_.;' ( .n z,• .1�•-:`:—� %:r;=cfI':1'ri5:[it{t;.R .-i .• y, ? ,
MINUTES••OF.TiiE>REGULAR':MEETING-:OF` THE^PLANNINGGrCOMMISSION HELD
MARCH—22, t 1971. IN THEE COUNCILI CHAMBER•, CITY :HALL'; T"
CUPERTINO,, C.A:LIFORNIAsiti_
Chairman Puetz called:the meeting to.order--at_'8:00.1p,.m; ,.and led the
assemblage in a flag salute, 1
Roll Call
Commissioners in attendance: Buthenuth;":Hirshon-;•,Meyers .and Chairman{ +
Puetz. Commissioner absent:' Irwin.' Also •in;attendance:;,••City Attorney roll call
Adams, Planning DI.rector;Sisk, Assistant•:Planner-!Cowan, ;Civil Engineer £
Akers and Recording Secretary -Dolores White_. :
Approval of Minutes: Minutes of::Februaryl22'iand =March,8,:1971
_ :r
It was moved by Commissioner Bu1thenuth, seconded by Commissioner Meyers Feb. 22
and passed unanimously-that• the:Minutesiof:;the.:meetingi:held =February,;`22, Minutes
1971 be approved, as'submitted. ` �: .r,•:r,-: :<; approved L
Subsequent to corrections and additions being made, it was moved by,, ' March 8
Commissioner Hirshon, seconded by Commis s ion er:I gut henuth•-and:apassed:?' ' Minutes.
unanimously that approval: of" the Minutes !of -the meet-ing):held,-Mar.ch� 8,;" continued
1971 be continued for lack 'of quorum: :'t 1'• •> _ -> r r; C. _ •.,
Postponements, etc.
ire ir' L.0 C;:1, ,
i
It was indicated by Planning Director Sisk that '.Item 3 :and r.4 Yon,+the
agenda had been requested to be postponed until the next meeting so '•
that the applicant would have additio:nal."time in;which to oh.tain:l
signatures required to proceed on these applications.,::.,It,;:;as,_also.;r.
mentioned by Mr. Sisk that Item 1-on the agenda had been,.completely-�,
withdrawn.
On the motion of Commissioner Buthenuth and the second of Commissioner Item 1
°c
Hirshon, it was unanimously passed that Item No. l be:recognized,as withdrawn
being removed from the agenda. i
It was then moved by Commissioner But}ienuth and seconded by -Commissione ='
Meyers that Items 3 and 4 , Applications 17-TM-70 and 3-U 771, be .post- 17-TM-70 6 `
poned for hearing at the meeting of Aril 12, 1971. The motion passed 3-U-71
unanimously. postponed
Written Communications
None indicated. is
I
Oral Communications
None indicated. !
I
t ' =Ey4✓1 1 '�
�• t
d
i-
t
:wc'ij�, ,r:;+kt�i, �trU1D•r�i �:�Y��a6k,�$�����y�rri4��!� t`r� t� ��'� �y � 9 �_ p � '� f „
t 'r ` .� + rO{t`,t.•"i•r o vt hi` C(�{. ` `F 5v l:l� '�'t9�� �^ t +•.���- �i u't'� .i+3, j, "a r'�t.� y 5�+ i
. f " l , ,. �7 b�1�M ti ,�4� Y ir't,'���i � ��j yi�a,.,j.e�2+y h4' .J ( 1�•1. tJ�.'V',1����Y V�'i-.�i t r � �C•.
! '�•' r � �;.. Sri' � +', �`'l q`+ `�^` � 1
Page 2 Minutes of the Planning Comaission, :March;,22,.,1971 ;,,,;<,,.r;, ; ,;;oz 't;O�Ci., PC-30
Public Hearings
1. Applications 4-Z-71 and 3.-TM-71 of Vincent and Domenica .Maggio
and'Louis:,F.,.Bonacich for::rezoning:',0:3;s ac•re7'f"rom<RI:415-to`
4-Z-71 6 R2-4.25: (Residential ;Dupl ex.) 'and:.0.4':acre':frbwl,,R1-715 to
3-TM-71 R3-2.2 (Residential'rMultiple' Family) ; and Tentative Map to
withdrawn divide 0.7 acre into two parcels. Said property is located
westerly of and adjacent to Blaney Avenue, approximately
300 feet north of La Mar Drive. ,
APPLICATIONS 4-Z-71; and 3--TM-71 •WIT4DRAWN' BY APPLICANTS:r.jtiD
It was announced by Chairman Puetz that Applications 4-Z-71 and 3-TM-71
had been previously recognized as being withdrawn from the agenda:,l,r+ !
2. Applications 4-TM-71 and-•1.-U-71: of.r;Mario�and: Rita:Barbieri";
et. a.l. , for'Tentative Map` to divide.:4r.L acres•into)three• :r?
parcels, and. Use; Permit to allow! construet ion;ofr:al.gasoline
sales/automatic car wash on .Parcel•-.One". ; .Sai•d•,prop'er.tg.::is.i�-.
located at the r•,,)rthwest corner of the intersection of
Stevens Creek Boulevard-:and!Vista jDrive:,'=_inra?.CG; .(General-;.;*, .
Commercial) zone, First Hearing continued. Y:
Mr. Barbieri advanced to.:the -podium 'at this.,time:and-,,,in'response ;to:; '
an inquiry made by Chairman Puetz, indicated he:had. obtained:the
_?';ti t
signatures required previously.
4-TM-71 5 ' It was reported by Planning Director Sisk :that, the.,or;iginal;,jrignt.-,—
1-U-71 way to be allocated had been 60.:feet on Vista -Drive, however.,.Ibecause
presentation there was a very strong possibility:that _this,_,roadway.,would.be•wery:,
heavily traveled a 74-toot right-of--way had been discussed which would r
require an additional 14 feet of dedication. In order ,tq-do,;•thss,,,,c
he said, the lot size would be reduced to 130 feet as oppoaed-`to`160'
feet as originally planned. r ;�. .� : .,, j'
He went on to sav that in 1965 the property was digided 'as indicated
and was approved by the City at that time, .however,, %no, Final•Map: ,was
ever recorded on the split. The original property;owner•,then:•trans
ferred the parcels to three property owners, thereby resulting , n .•_�
Mr. Barbieri being required to obtain the signatures of all of the
owners in order to obtain approval from the City for a Final Map : .,
making the parcels legal.
An objection was entered at this time by Chairman Puetz, who indicated
his concern as to the way in which these lots were split.. He said ,l
under normal circumstances, this type of lot split would not..be.allowed
as it limits the other lots from being sold or developed. . He-further
indicated he would not like to see this type of lot split and,,suggested
as an alternative that Lots.l and 2 be combined, to which '114r. Barbieri
discussion responded that he had made efforts in this regard but the-:owner:would
not sell his property. Aft
In response to an inquiry made by Commissioner Buthenuth, City Attorney
Adams described the procedure to be that, if improvements:.wer .e
re:nce3sary,
thev could be included in the approval conditions of the Tentative Map.
+t
sx
� .1
M } t
°,.•.,�.,7 Itisfyr"\.h� ��'1`j_�tf;�v:.rf,�4_��rt\�'{I�is•�f 4��,Ak'i3 a-v �t{• rA'.� ���Y�p�• � 1 i,.1 .�•Q;1 hl� IyS't G � � :` i
;,�a.'r� YL r h n n (rp rt,It�'r Yyi `�'S1 ftr,i 7 i,H 1b�Ir +S r of F i t ({{(i• t 1 { 3' �f
15 v .4,± u(' ,Le AI H°� SSy x Lr, t r
,1 .Ifyty my �i''4'yJ,f�7+" PC 30
Minutes of the Planning Come,ission, :March 22, 1971 " , c ��,�> � � s�,�
r �1 `" is it';'3?'+. `_1.YYI.; a>7J1S tft�.t3.i1i• fir+ ;�rttfd�In.I f; r,•3d4`.1
Public Hearings (continued)'"
' -,Lief' r• �,kN ,
Should the application be denied, he said'; the appl3icunt -had a' right I L.
to appeal this decision to the City, Council. Mr. Adams tontinUE
:r , I r • r
aaying that the Tent-ative` fillip `couin be approved without- approval beirigtf
t.• .v r +r_u::
recommended for 'the''Use Permit 'also' i:i3lp7ftir. :•3: t.-iC:tE .
'Co
3, ,�,. .r•,,,,, it i° j
He mentioned that it would' be every 'helpfu2`, i�-i nnection with'the r.
7L' tlr, i I
Tentative Map application'-I : if the City had 'a''minimum lots size esc
tablished wi thine the' Ordinances and recommended very strongly,' that
the Commission -give' some consideration `to this possibilic71,' and that]
suggestions be forwarded `to the City , unci'1 'for actin in th 's regard
Otherwise, fie said, the"City ls`cnot lin Ia good' posit'ien 'in' `that`_s there' y
had been no definite standards established. The purpoe of the-'1o:t
Split Ordinance, he explained,' was to obtain Lzprovements 'nee'ded and;
corarol could be exercised by Ordinance ,in' commercial'-areas ,as''• it I
had been in residential areas.
{
City Attorney Adams' further added, 3n response' tu. •_Chairman Pue,tz !
comment that 3/4-acre had been'.the general policy, 'in'the* p'ast',"that; E }
this had been the policy for issuance of 'a Use Permit, however, the,
property could also be' used for' a' purpose other' than ore requiring ;.'
a Use Permit application.
It was indicated by Chairman Puetz that he felt, until definite-lot'
tizes are established, a lot smmaller than .3/4-acre would not,
o c+; i
generally, lend itself to comercial type development He cited � ,•
service stations 'as an 'example of the '3/4 acne minimum. t
Attorney Adams explained his opinion that, in the situation in question,
if a sale had been made and if each purchaser was bona fide and innocent,;
it was conceivable that a Building Permit could.', b'e' requested `'and, tf! further „
improvements were to be ,made, the City wot ld,` be` required "to s..ue said comments
permit. In continuing, lie reilterated that ;the '`three owners 'could"he I .
required to include ,improvements as a.condition of ,approval. He i 1 .suggested that the configuration of parcels 'mi ht"also be another -'item
of consideration as well as size..
Reservations and concern were indicated by Commissioner.'Meyersthat', j s;
if all parcels were kept large, the smaller businessman could even-
tually be eliminated and land' development• would -then be confined' to i
larger corporations.
e
Agreement was indicated by Commissioner Hir.shon relative to the 3..
individual lots but, lie continued, there were so many smaller lots
in existence, something had to be done to bring about consolidation' s
and uniformity. lie said lie also felt that, since this had been !
approved in 19681, some consideration should be given In this regard f `
also. In addition, Ile said lie was not inclined to approve the
Tentative Map with the idea that a gasoline station would be built
on this property but was hopeful that another s 'uggestion could be' '
presented insofar as use was concerned.
Yy
t
i
!
3C
n - �
,
r
3 ,,,r t�.., }ice 7-r`a. ri'I;R,��.�aS:4aN T!,'�•.SC.;?Sf.s�, 'o xf"�y���t��• r�i t y��1y�'•r�t� �{�(,'�`ta,�� �p" y��fi. i ,v.� Y?{ t�� q W.. f +C ��•' 4y ;>R':,{i. �.
.. ',s• ... �. , ,i..,::y'i �,+, �� r i .d �•�i 41..�tx,s•�,r.r9.�t''!s tt� 1 �t ui`�`�,�'+,s sr�, >, `�}��y�}��!r�y�,F� ! `Nii,��. 1 .a i
.i.: 3?.a„i'r�� Y?•tP"e}�'�aM1��,.'t �t f,'r'6�`f1'A�.�,t 4j..�v i�"r ��+4 "� -'
t rvL�y� 1; Oily
q C
w, {.rs 7�ifi k' bra r
Page 4 Minutes of tiie Plannin Commission March•,22 •197,1 . PC-30
g Planning.Commission, }} '� 4<2CC i C
Public s Hearin ;(continued), ;,,-1 , ,;�, o}uo;�c 3
Hearings ,;,�,;.l; try 1.. 1
Mr: Sisk suggested-"that the C`ommi`s'sion keep ins mind thPIt, i f iStA r
Drive was extended to a 74-foot width, the lot would be, smallek,than
presently shown and should this be desired, the applicant would have
to then return with a revised •Tenta,tive Map reflecting this,;added ,;j ti
dedication., He then showed map,s.. of the area ;pointing out- how{ V,ista-
Drive had .teen proposed. as a ,backu,p street,;for Highway:.9 and, how it,
would eventually be a heavily ,traveled street. He. ,explained,;the..ri:i
street pattern proposed which was, to ,pro�iide twu;driving
with two left-turn pockets and a centei ,median.., ,,,•, ,, rir;
After some discussion, it was suggested that_fa definite Ivor,°•r t,4 taken
during the meeting in progress. rather, "than .to, •have the ,applicanL.,return
again with a •revised Tentative Map. f .7J ;,•ac! ,,";r .^
Audience comments were requested by ,Chairman Puetz Fat, t,his,,time ,and;
Ann Anger, Monta ,Vista, commented that she was ,puzzled about this.,,_.,,
audience application and felt that if lot splits ,y:ore allowed, cont.nuously,:-;
comment the community, would never, become orderly. She ,said `she,recer.tly,,,.,i.�
had learned that there were 67 small parcels located_,within,'the City
and,, if this was true, she Questioned_ where this type of sph'itting
" would _
end. i, ..i: •z� r,.i is
In that there were no additional audience comments,;indicated at.,thi'
public hearing time, it was moved by Commissioner `Meyers_ and .seconded,by, Comtn'iss oner
closed Buthenuth that the public hearing be' closed. The motion carried i
unanimously.
Dialogue continued, during which it was mutually, agreed among ,the
Comr,Tissioners that, because .o£ tI� lot configuration as well as,.,,,
its size after dedication development would b'e .difficult.•
It was moved by Commissioner Meyers and. seconded by Chairman Puetz;..
!TM-TM--/l denial that Application 4-TM-71 be recommended for denial to the. City Council ;
recommended on the grounds that tho three lots would not be conducive to good
commercial development.
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, 'Hirshon, Meyers and Chairman. ;Puetz
Noes: None z
Absent: Commissioner Irwin
The applicant was informed by Chairman Puetz that he had a right ,to
appeal this denial in writing, within 5 days,'to the City Council..,
Minute Order On the suggestion of Commissioner Buthenuth, it was moved by`Commissioner
indicated Meyers, seconded by Commissioner Hi.rshon and passed unanimously that a
Minute Order be forwarded to the City Council requesting ,thaC tihe,.3ppliea°
tion be returned to the Planning Commission,, if this .denial is;overridden,
for further review because of the intricacies .involved, . , „
}
1
f" x,
tr*r1°•g1 " ar:,y�i r - {Yr*M'V, f�.IS• q v H {y • ^''hd'
rt r... Ry L l.•`,.7 rit ,zw, �SxtR. !• ya+ :E,e4c�r'1�rY' t'+}>
"'�
ui
I
Minutes of the Planning Commission,;Kirch,.-r22, 19.71,2 i �rS: to ': ate~�?c.?3 �� !I'PCr30 1
t .Page`5
Aft Public Hearings (continued) r•!r i ?
:;t�f i J C'•�.'�1 :v."21 :Ufi is;rt°'' i �y ,J• `.
� S
It was then moved by Commissioner But henuth•,:andj,seconded;.by,,,Coiamis-E"!'„ ��%•�� i^'�t.'
sioner Meyers that Application 1--U-71 be recommended for denial.-.to
the City Council;. :,. + ftrn :risrfti _ .;yQJ'.. ..f.:it:i} rA.
l o 1_U 71
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Hir:;hon,,,Meyers:.,andtChairman: Puetz', r.'denial-
Noes: None
recommended
Absent: Commissioner Irwin
3. Application, 17-I'M-7.0•of Franciiiise:'Realty.,Interstate Corpora- ?.
tion for Tentative Map,to.,di,%,ide' 4:,7;acres:-into•i two parcels.
Property is located at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and• Por.tal'!Avenue:d.n.a .CG:(General-.Commerciz.l)
zone. First Hearing continued. 4:
'S e•' Ali
POSTPONEMENT REQUESTED BY'• APPLICANT•
- J 1 t f".1,
17-TM-70 &
4. Application 3--IJ-71 of Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation' 3-U-71
to allow construct:ion•and-.ope.ration,of;a:,McDonald-;s.ccarry-out: postponed
restaurant, at' the. southwest corner.:of•!:intersection-,o •;,Stevens; to April 12th
Creek• Boulevard aid Portal' Avenue •i-n•:ar CG (General-r Commer;-_;rj i
vial) zone. First flearing.continued.;.:__•; :?,
POSTPONEMENT REQUESTED 13Y• APPLICAN ;
Chairman Puetz reiterated the previous action::taken; by,-�the.-,Comm ssi,on,.
whereby items 3 and 4 were continued. for hearing,, ,az,;,requested.,iat,.r; rr.is
the meeting of Aprii 1'2, 1971.- :
Unfinished Business
5. Request of Claude T. Lindsay, Inc. for,ra,•further one-year:,-.•:
extension of Tentative Map 8-TM--69 (previous one-year: :;
extension granted April 13, 1970 - Resolution,No. , 762)2.;i ,
Approximately 4.5 acres located east,-side!,of.;North:,Blaney;!:,;t
Avenue, 800 feet south of,,Junipero:Serra:Freeway:,-in, an...., •-.,i
RI-7.5 (Residential Single Family)• zone•.
Planning Director Sisk commented that he had nothing furt7:;er to add. .
to his report at this time.
Mr. Lindsay came forward and indicated he had nothing to.: add; wi1th• the
exception of the fact chat the same situation was •in existence as. .!, I
previously, that being lack of funds with which .to .proceed at, this . .,
time.
After a brief dialogue, it was moved by Commissioner Buthenuth and 84M-69 .
seconded by Commissioner Hirshon -that Tentative-Map, 8--TM-6,9.;Le. ?.t extended
extended for a of one year with the same conditions. as _ r:,.!
stated in the previous extension approval. _
..i!.,i
a7 l rr
nF, �,
1e,i t� a}: li•Ir$6i„� 'hSat f,�i'aY�l,;;t" 4"`19jjrYyl'
l� 1 i T(t'�. ..,p .af y b Y�t P• S T 1 i r t Y ti } � l 1
.. a Y i h L.` 7 y TP,�°•. ' i � 7c4 � �s;ry t
our "1 ' `}` PC-30
Page 6 Minutes of the Planning Commission,•March--,,,22", 19?1 r '.
Unfinished Business (continued) °.-:o, r:cF ,} .' �, �{ h x,d11
The following pole,voteiwas;taken.!
•1- { .'II .l g`ai e�'lj!', -.r.,it-.i 1.7;?li,:,'C 'I 1.)SI iii t . .
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Hirshon, Meyers and{ Cha'irman"•Pueti),
J
Noes: None s'
Absent: Commissioner• Irwin:1 + f : ' e1`�
New Business
6. Request fr= Vallco,,Park to permit:const'ruct+ioni°of! temporary
parking on Tant'au Avenue ramp:
Mr. Sisk, in referring to a recent'-memorandum'from the•,Public Works, .
Department , described the proposal' as being;,for ane extension of
parking onto the public right-of-way-for"ut'i'l'izat'ion by the ISS
facility for employee parking. A drawing was then presented -for
the Commission's information.
He continued his presentation by saying: that: parking•'•had'' become a
problem for the company' in• that: they were' still';in:';thee process of
negotiating with the 'Ylood Control' District.'%regarding"lthe creek.
Vallco Park Upon receipt of a decision from that organization.,-he saidj,i;the
temporary company plans to proceed. !.:-' `. AWA
parking
request At this time, Civil Engineer Akers :indicated that the: proposed •parking
description addition would not pose any engineering problems`, ito which Mr:= Sisk;'
added that the Parking Ordinance had also been.met. previously.-y
Representing Vallco Park, Mr. William L. Tagg, Project Architect,
explained that 1.30 additional parking spaces were' required !on!.a; ;.i:cn J
temporary basis and had been proposed for location on the ramp
northerly of the'-freeway. He said originally_::there;had,ibeen c
sufficient spaces, however,- recentl:l' employees,had .been:•parking
on the street and, in order to alleviate this situation,) it had
been requested that parking be- extended to the ramp area-.;.?fin turn, t
he said, Vallco Park would landscape the.- proper.ty •as well•-a's in-
corporate a sprinkler system as an upgrading- masure. - In-'concluding,
Mr. Tagg mentioned that a barricade would be erected in the area as
well as insurance being provided. `''C`
Concern was indicated by the Commissioners as related to the following:
1) that the temporary substitution could be considered a relaxant on,:
future development, Z) that the Flood Control District could not, •
give a decision for .quite sometime and 3) that the parking situa- :-ir
tion should have been given closer 'examination upon approval rather:
than having to be re-examined at this time.
It was suggested by Commissioner Buthenuth'that future industrial•.el,•:
discussion applications be carefully considered prior to approval, to .which :? �:
Mr. Sisk responded- that the first p#lase of-the ISS:building:•provitfed
for a 30,000 square foot building with appropriate on-site parking. -
He said, when the Use Permit was granted, parking was within the
Ordinance requirements, but )nore people had been hired than antic-
ipated and the company was attampting to resolve this problem.
IM
IM
u
s
�t
"t,..'t W,.•r:5.P'Rt,. ,Wivr it .. `+l(gqi.�gla.tt ,y ur NN,,jgOA `t`���1u 'ry1 ,�^;•L+ t ;. 1 .t 4 i
` 7iy,Rt r^ �,n 5..&A� Y {431' i i `� 7. 1 a+� � � , Y .r"p s��'• .k
' , i ,�yt ,LL.1, .. i.^ ��I SS�'.) +11y rv, r�µt ��1;4FG z1¢ :r`ry'��� .�'qy� 6 c'n•��r 'M i�`E}�''<' .�,
o .- E c , t ,' 'f+`tt� 4"..'j'� •{yt"-tip ��'��t�w 417Shk}�,�,p��,3,
! tN T ,,'t:1 ti
;4inutes of the Planning Comm ission,;,Mar,ch,.22, .1971<••�i, ;,� ; �ti, ,� ,E�rf,. gPr�, 30:,.tt; ;
New Business (continued) ;; r, , } -t a•„ ,..t:; ;r „t ..,,i. . .+,i,* 'ic a c d�F ,.. ' jY'
In response ,to,,au..i"nquiry,,,ma4g,:by,,,Comm:�ss,loner Meyers-,concerning,,the,��`
Parking;.0rdinance xequir,ements,as, ,they,,;apply to„high.orj light Hindus +�
trial use, Mr. Sisk explained .the �r,eg4#ements;as, .follows. He said i'
there were .two applicable,requirements , ;i..e ,, based .on the, square :1t, .
footage of the building at a rr.,tio of one space per 450 square feet
and, secondly,, subsequent.to Lailding construction,; another section,,indicates .the ratio ,to.be• one space,for:; 1.3 employees...
It was recommended by Chairman Puetz..tiiat a Minute Order be ;initiated recommenda- .
relating to the, norm for. industrial or office space ,per personas ,tionsf �
related to parking needs. He offered 1:he,possibility,;rof, a ,.l 1.. ,'I _ ,; mentioned'
ratio.
It was pointed .out by Commissioner Hirshon that originally there had
been more parking provided than the ordinance required, and,hel felt
that industrial parking should be provided at a'.z. 'ncreas•ed,,,level in,
the future, f ;i.,v
A suggestion was made by Chairman Pueta ,that -categoxies ,be weighedt.'of
the office space requirement per person as compared to the lighCr;; ; ;
industrial space per person and' that this be reflected into the
parking consideration,. rather than using the present ,criteria. :•,:.,.,;j,
He .reflected that, in companies.such as this,_the„basis has-been l'
rather than 1.3,adding :that the la tr3n it 'facilities was 1 ;
also a factor. It was his ,opinion thar- o_ae space, should ,be a1..owed,:
in the future for each person employed .
It was moved by Commissioner Buthenuth and seconded by ,Commis.sioner,.
Meyers that a Minute. Order be forwarded to ,the--City..•Council indicating Minute Order
review and concurrence with this request for •temp o.rarv:;parking,•alo.ng indicated
with the recommended conditions—The M:irtute,Order was -passed..by;art to City
unanimous vote. Council
Discussion followed, durin.- which it was mutually agreed that parking
requirements for light industrial 'use would be more carefully ,con- ,
sidered in the future and the .applicani_ ':•:as requested by.Chairman
Puet to supply a general survey of the companies in the are a'showing )
the numUcr of office spaces versus the number of manufacturing spaces.
It was further recommended by City Attorney Adams that the applicant
be requested to include the total number of employees as a further;
aid in determination of parking required. Mr. Tagg agreed to
supply the infoimation,as requested.
Report of Planning Cu;u-nissioners
No reports were introduced at this time.
Aft
Report of Planning Director
Planning Director Sisk requested clarification concerning,'whAt eior
not beauty salons or figure salons should -be subject to a Use'Permit
-,tr,;x.:r.•t' . :"iy,t rn,ly�Yt+ � irt1•`," k'b;4A•�'4�''�1�'¢�ljfi ��k'2^�` q�'S, �• .t�. >' r,t y,T�duq yq 2� tt�"+�h .
� � � �,�`� ,.T`"`�sr°r.n 4 fll�.v�r�itn _"<ti�r� rir Jt l;1��IZf,�' �r�p'A'ru ! �'�Y� 5vL y � 't1•`x �'Vj l''�t'K pt+.�dtir4.� 5'. ,a
tj Lbv Tsi�"�,ry r
- r ,•' � II. T � lti L',I f 1 .1<. •i'..: ,JI+At r i' P\i 3U + .
Page 8' Minutes of the Planning Commi`ssion, 'Mar'ch 2�, %1971
Report of the Planning Director (continued) `""�''"`'t
and asked f or the'Ccnminfss'ioners""thoughts' iii `this`sub'j ee't:''''He in r
dicated that Use`Pexmi'ts`'had:been-'requi'red"for'h'ealtfi''cl'tibs 'and`' r' '
gymnasiums in the.'past. '''The 'discussion''was'turned over lto`''''`';
Mr. Adams who then advanced 'from-the 'audience:;' `t,}`l`
Mr. Wayne Adams ' described his proposed operati'on''as providirig`hair'
styling, passive''reduc'ing'machines'�'and, h'jpefullI y; -d'mas'seuse':"''He'"`
was also proposing' to have a professional registered nurse as well as
figure salon a licensed die•ticiari'on the 'premises to'work with the 'patrons on"
clarification nutritional prob'lems'.' In having made 'a' surve' , he�: ndi'cated, hat ''"
requested he found in most
'citi'es tliat'health 'clubs were-'generall'y`�coi sidered ',
to be for both men and women with mineral .pools, saunas and active""- .*
exercise provided.
. .lure L..,,.;r. ;r; ;:;,•,, a:I
He went on to say that the facility would be located''near"SearsY andGwould .
be operated on a non-membership basis to provide professionil`'sery ces
only. In r,sponse to an inquiry by Commissioner Hirshon, •he•'icidicated
that there could possibly be >therapeutic equipment and heat lamps used.
I'Ie added that he would like to 'Have a sauna also at some';time 'in"the
future.
Discussion continued, wherein 'it was suggested.-by'`Commissioner`
Buthenuth that this.-pr.oposal be returned`'in'•the"forn4`'•of an'applbca_!;
tivn for a Use Permit'sa that it could''be_-'further~`reviewed
was indicated�by Commissioner Hirsnori"that'it was Iiis opinion the',''
dialogue use of equipment for weight reduction='with the`addiiionaluse'of''•'
heat lamps and saunas could be considered a health club . Chairman
Puetz agreed that this proposal should be-'subject to a•'Use' Perm it
because of lack of definition 'and' Commissioner• Meyers felt;"as did'
Commissioner Hirshon,' that `this business appeared`to 'be'•moreeof''a:�
health club than a beauty salon operation.
At this time, photographs were presented by Mr. Adams for the Commission's
review showing proposed intended use. ' It was'mutually:agreed'amoingrthe :f
members that the operation was closer to a health club'and':should,=-be
returned for review on a Use Permit basis.
It was mentioned by City Attorney Adams, when asked for his'legal opinion,
that he would like to review the Business and Professions'Ordinance- •
prior to any confirmation being given as to whether or not.? this' should
be considered to be a health club. `''``
The possibility was then questioned by Mr. Sisk of placement of four
Regnart road recorded parcels in a more logical manner on property located on-
property I Regna~t Road. lie said the owner agreed to provide for.roads' pendipg
questioned developr,rPnt of a Local Improvement District in the area and wished
to file a map creating no more than four lots on- the property''but '�
f placing them in a more meaningful location for proper utilization.
He then pointed out proposed streets to be located in the area on a
map for the Commission's review, reiterating the request tc•-be•-the':'
redesign the four lots with the stipulation that access would be
provided.
r 'c :J:>t;
NEI
SIRE'
Y, � '",��i'�'�'{�S°�' ' }�,�s l� `��SNt���� �ta St. �,'^`��u >s r+e+ t`tE r•'�t�2'Yt{e+? k Y+,t a x Y �,.
T :1 t �14�1:r�i .,£`%t tit ,t5+t i.0 � ,t>;.�t,,s�t tes '"t�+ .,��,;,4, •t� i ;ry�'L +K,�,
..1 •'1 -,tt'pit�` d1'. �uP ,yVh'} b y4 t`i'h�Y,.• � p4slA
. jg11Y^�'rTx�:f'5.4�.
Mirrtes of the Planning'Commission MarchJ22;'197.1 `i '' << ?a
t ` P,age 9
1
!(,•r't l!
Report of Planning Director((continued) :c)
It was:mutually agreed 'that";,,if the, problems,`of 'racdess';; utilitie.st,4 l
etcetera; were provided''for,':the -Commissiontwould:•not objects to. :,,: x
hearing an application ,relative'toy:the intended',loti relocatioit,s -to .i
i ! .. ... t ....••Fa'f .. , i., :;r3.t�'ri'i'tijl'
o;> At this' time,' Mr.. Sisk asked "for the .Commission!s','ttioughtd.,.concerning
commercial development within the.City. :'He:pointed .commerckal')iareas�
on maps-) indicating existing-land uses and'•f.ocal,,;points:,wi thin)rthe.;
community, i.e'.-, 'the -Town Center-,'Vallco Park.:and, the:;DeAnza •,College4-
areas. j
Mr. Cowan, Assistant Planner;. presented a t•imer,frame•:study:'.,of.,rsu;r•:!>
commercial development showing evolution of commercial zoning:;.) ;0.
within the City for review.
commercial
Mr. Sisk inquired of the Commission whether or not the Town Center ; development
Might become a medically-oriented facility as' relatEdtto;i3n office= �. comments
oriented area. He said high.-rise residential:development,tand;r:iar:'s- �,
garden apartments had been discussed along,with addition.::'_ ipro,-_ iii,
fessional uses. While presenting a map, ,.hetpointed,•out_ landfowner-
ship in the area indicating that the entire area encoinpasse3,zl_02:,',`„
acres of land. In concluding, he mentioned the possibility of, - q
uses other than office use within. the Town,iCenter,:as: had neen., p
proposed,because of the:abundance .of off ice +space in ,Jallco Park.;;;
Some discussion followed , during which it was generally1•indicated i
that development appeared to be ,contingent upon;.ut•i.l;i.zat,ion .of;.the, !
Cali portion of the "area..
Several ,suggestions were made by the:. Commissioners including: a, :,,,
hospital or medical clinic, public buildings or future location
of the Cupertino Police Department when formed.
In response to another inquiry made by Mr. Sisk concerning a
commercial core in the. Town Center area, Chairman Puetz indicated,`, t
his feeling that the commercial core of the .communit," had ,already,,
been established in the area between Stevens Creek Boulevard.and._ {.
Mariani Mall. It was then pointed out by Mr. Puetz that i,t cra3 .. i
his opinion that the.Mariani Mall could force many small store:.
out of business and cited an instance in Illinois where the small ,
towns surrounding a major mall area were eliminated in a similar
type of circumstance.
t
Commissioner ifirshon mentioned that he was no•t ready to preclude. tre
idea of this area not becoming the commercial core, adding"that it•
is well-suited geographically in the center of the City with access
to freeways. lie voiced his amazement that there had not been' more
commercial development in this area„ j
A further question was raised by Mr.. Sisk concerning linkage areas
between commercial areas which piqued some comment. ! 1
t ! S
t
,r kN
1
t•,
..•c<.S {44� V{Y;`a"�t,roi''AY:I'n.IM rawz�•.�ct�s 1��'41+W����'�>:yy�`n�'P5 ' 11J �j0't3 n9,J tRhtt �� a1 �``'���� rk b s
ty } r. Z -n•.. 1�S.Ma`r tiq 2 )tk Y"it •h u ia,r :{'r -.. v � �� r..
. y j S+r'� fit. ( n. 4 +1�'t }s� y�yy,�,�11 '�d c.� v�y is�ij rf�.0•GA�f"�i++Ot,4y�t, wf{S � •tS .
t+
k i7
1'agc 10 Minutes of the Planning-,Commissioni,, Mar,ch3 ,1
22, 971ri %;I 'tv ':r��tcriY� S s PC-30
Report of Planning Director Jcontanued) ;1nz.aa:,,C 1 ;to aa q:3a
It was 'suggested.-by Chairman :Puets: that.;comma rcig1 Iy. z,o.nedi rro.perties
not being utilized 'within �a 2-year:•,period`tbe>re-zoned.tcto residential:` a
or other- use.. . lle•.!indicated he ;would•:liker:tor-sce!aprocedur,es;:begunJI
immediately for re-zoning; of all small lots to agricultural or
residential use •and ; suggested, in that0some of: these parcclsi.*er.et
bordering on residential or multiple-use_.'property.,'.apartment-::complexes
could be considered. He`mentioned,:his ,concern ,that, the ICi.ty,;is ,being
hampered because criterias• have .nut .been established.. :
,..r,.,r to
Asuggestion was made by Cemmissiorter liirshon that, due to the increasing
u�-ther uemand for low and medium-income housing.,;- th;2 City.!,hould's:begin.:l-ooking
_.or..ncrcial in this direction..; He explained this was•:the- reason-1.4e _vo'tedsrth'e:yway
.ol,i.ng lie had previously, on the property located -on the,corner,�ofa Stevens Creek
:ialogUe Boulevard and Stelling Road. ,
Mr. Sisk interjected his feeling that +t:nere'was. no-reason;why;;res.idential
zoning could not be indicated on a. major' arterial:•and.�scme. discussion
followed, after which the Commission. was,-informed that?more .irifornation
would be forthcoming for. future .discussion';on' all items previously
discussed.
A request was made by Chairman' Puetztthat=a compositeimap!rbe) presented
showing existing commercial zoning, as-related: to,exi>•sting.!use:,and;
Mr. Sisk agreed 'to do so. `r
Commissioner Buthenuth questioned the definition of:'"cominerc•ial*,rcore", to
which Planning Director Sisk responded that"'i-t had beew-`Vnterpre.ted to '1
be an identifiable area in the center expressly for commercial develop- }
An inquiry was made by Commissioner Meyers concerning,'thb� An!_—nra' Study
and Mr. Sisk responded that this was still being {corked on by the staff.
scellancous , r It.,
-e'
_or._ntcnts Concern was indicated by Chairman Puetz relative to- a home :.'ioca'ted on
McClellan Road across f rom the winery. ' fie asked if anyth n'S had'•been
proposed for the near future on this property in that 'the home'was y
presently on stilts.
Assistant Planner Cowz^n. explained that a Final Map would have to be
recor:ied an.6 a drawing supplied of the garage prior to a permit' being
issued on the property in question. r
Adjournment
In that there was no furt17c17 discussion introduced, it was moved`by {
:idjournment Commi. sioncr Guthctiuth , :;cconded by Co:::nissioncr Meyers ar.d passed
unanimously that the inouting be adjourned. The mceCfng `was'su6-
sequentl.y declared adjourned by Chairman Puetz_._at...10,37 p.m, r
ATTEST:
--.-. .
City Cl.e �� .:. .., •
f � ra tort vYf.mot{�
k