PC 04-26-71 4„*4•SU tW.y1
). '•'I Y1 � d it fL�i)1� 4'0L'1 qty t�2Y/.4
(.1f1' r,r CUPEF,T ,r r ' � � � � ", 1�`�1�,.,�y+ L` E.,
103ii0 IhO,; SCate_,rof.aCa'lifgrnia; ?'` y<36r °�
Torre Avenue, Cupertino r:y1 :irs;:t o•; y ; ' +”
California tl 1 1'C-32
' `71.. l ...., J ,.Z t i r< 's s-'� r 71. r1•t�
1�.r dt trj 1� t•
Telephone: 252-4505i` ,'`ir `
7 '.. i r ' l. i h .... i J71f%.'.i•A• f r !}, l. h 5ff• ..
MINUTES.OF T1lE.RECUL ;, u:u 1;:;; 'a. •: , ;,.1;.;'f it t •:;: c? r, z
AR MEETI)tiC,,GF THE, PLANNING7j COMM ISSIOlV.;•.
APRIL 26, 1971 IN Tli>; COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL,
CUPERTINO,, CALIFORNIA.....,',
Meeting was called or order at 8:02 P. b I
the. group in the Salute, to the Flag, Y Chairman,•Irwin,:;who led
ROLL CALL [
Commissioners Present : Buthenuth, H:irshon,,•'Meyers, :puetz
7
Chairman Irwin s t
Commissioners Absent:
None
r
Staff Present: '. � •
City Attorney Adams r
Planning Director Sisk
Assistant Planner Cowan
Civil (
Engineer Akers f
Recording Sec;-etary Lois; Inwards
WRITTISN COPBdUN11CATIONS: There were none, �
ORAL COHMUdICATIOIJS:
There were none,
POSTPONE!'!"_ ETC , I
.NTS, .
There we---e non(!. r
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: {*
>.linutes of March 8,
1471 '
Moved by Commissioner ?
2pl�rove tine *[inutes of Ilarch �8,e191dedabYwrittensander . 1
-.tz to
_meted, '
AYES: Commissioners Buthenuth, ;feyers, Puetz
Irwin '
Chairman
NOES: None
ABSTAI:d!?U: COHIMissioner Hirshon
Motion carried,
J
1
I
' •S
��4
♦ { t l4 bi S �1 t�F�� 1�'R"�`Y��'�{•x 7•V ,- � J�a1/� d �� '''�L}"'Y
r iX @s.l &0111�4
Page 2
Minutes of the Planning Commi
s Sion
f Meetia� ' 3 (.F iii`.
Ap"ril 26, 1971: 0'
i:r.• j: .+ tl !s �ffii:tX s 1F .,f yIt�YVt�fiirl'F
Minutes Of April 12 19,715 r;r;i + 1 t• r
jCommissioner Meyers wished to clarif '
"It was further noted clarify.the last paragraph•`on page 3, . ,,;r. •, �`
that under the Non-Confo;r
she could still have:.lier`own�h6rses'wiEtiout jany'-„min U
R.;', se"Ordinance.
j , r�xstrirctYons`:
On page 7, half way t:'•2:,,
r..hat Cotiunissioner Buthenuch�smstaeementMe'y rs wanted to
� is between the Point out
street and the that the FG&E property
• proper�y,
: 0n Page 9, fourth
Mr. Chattier had rparagraph,• Commissioner' Dfeyers`''pointed` thatt'
Plied that threo. ld be'amenable''to a' condi[ion
jwereof a development plan for all three parcels if this application
approved.
Moved by Commissioner Puetz
; approve the minutes as corrected�nded by Commissioner 'Hirshon`'t�`'~
I ;
Motion carried
' S-0
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
l Application 17-TM-70 of Franchisee ,j
for Tentative Map to divide q. 'Realty Interstate Corporation Afflk
property 7 acres into two parcels: Said
Y is located at the southwest '_orner of Stevens Creek `
Boulevard and portal Avenue in a C^ .{
First Hearing coat ; iGer.eral.'Commercial ,.,
:�•ed, ) 'zone':
A transparency of the area was" dis la a on the
C"airman Irwin asked the members of the Commissionlif ttheboard:`' '`3
to discuss application 3-U-71 along with this a
Y wanted k
they bot)- concerned the same Property. Pplication since
'It• eras' agreed. ;
2• Application 3-U-71 of Franchise
for Use Permit to allow Interstate:
ifcDonald's carry-out
taurant at the southwest
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal corncr 'of ''
Commercial zone. First Ideating coaltinucd, in CG (General
The Planning Director said the
received• necessary signatures have been
T'he staff report sent out tc,
that Parcel. 2 has been shifted to the t,estlerlommissioners noted`
The intention of file shit"t is to a I Y boundary of the*map,
tha levinte a concern of the staff
t tyre former l.viaio.on of the parcel (midWt ly between east
bour�dar •
} of subdivision) tyould not be annducive to and West
in that the resul-Cant conli,nurat.ion of development
develo P'
the integrated develop,n.ent o£ fife cntirrhe subdivir peclu
pion would preclude
has not changed. Tire staffs Primary primary concern isyt,yithhrebasic issue
I sion of the property,c"vi
Ptrd to the
J •
F.
- -- - _ ., • n ,• . .. ,� rye .. ..�,
.tr».e,. '.�`ir .N-na-s•Mpt r q +'•e-
• {f.w. � •aGws i7nft: .�5� N YY .t� el��++
.-f'. Y it 1' , t r��r7�ihky �xf°�ap�kr r��� ����{'!'�!' X�:i¢ i�Ilr 'f� '� �• . g,
.. ;•K f �':��r�� , rt;�• r *�',�"'�+ :rik,:�•`��x���s� Aar '' '�•,;' ti� � +ltd t i}� r{Y�''
4 t4 ;silt tr��nrf�J ltlj q�l 4 rAl �rr
• � t' r�t4�d�tyf�r��y�������+��`� } lry�µ`S�'�,,�;r I° ;��
Minutes 1 ( [
of the Planning Commission Meeting, Api it 26 1971' p �3�'i` ' N
%r:, . i.. , 7ti,Pa e
..♦ [s SA f`..7 tJ�rltJ4ji ti; r,,,1�.y��
r., 1 ,'1rf t r
VNF
Plans for the proposed building were placed on t:'1:e bulletin board F
Attornc Y l Dan DO"t" "If"' a 'I :'t (i F, 1v i r.
noyan, of JaEksbn' Donovan &`'Anton said he re r''y 0
presented *he'appiicant' r He` forind .the`„ „ " :,"' n"' :crrs�3.'1 L
original subdivision maps j `
granted sometime In 1968;'"''}ie baid`lie had obtained abet `y',i
cons ent''of the owne[rs`'of'parcel`']:. '''Per ari``Agreemcrit',` creel` 2 ["' 'i��
W ill be moved all. the way to the west, facing Stevens Creek``'
Boulevard. The applicant will construct a, 30' easement,.alon }
parcel 1 ell as` ,�.
arc as w all the street improvements,.,`: ile`),I , `Chat`:'' ' "' '•t }
this would be a vast improvement from a plann n9 stanip`oink. from",, t3 r' t
the old map with four separate parcels. lie also noted that, in
reading the n:i.nutes of `previ.ous 'mestings`; reference has been made 4'
to the number of undeveioped commercial. properties Within
develoino. }sere is an owner of commercial; property iwho rwants to,, s� .
Chairman Irwin asked 'for co
mments f rom the audience:' There[;'wei e,"; 'f.
none. Commissioner Puetz asked if this 'would` tie 'mare`"of
restaurant than a carry-out type operatio '. Mr:"Donovan : saidit:
would be both. t t
;
Mr. Donovan said' this 'would not `loo;.. like' the traditional' " .
. i r c:cJ;i
Mcllonald's restaurants'; it will look like :thef'ones''you' oil see. exterior
It will have a t.ile roof; slump stone 'exterior and`the logo jwill I• design s'
he embedded in tfie glass, as well as some treatment in the slumpf .�
stone. There will be 'indoor tables.'and benches withon
on e or two`"
the outside.
Commissioner Puetz was concerned about the increased traffic.
The Planning Director said there will be'no left turns into',`the`°''` Traffic
property. Cars going west on Stevens Cr.eek 'Boulevard' will''turn'' pattern
` ;
left on Portal Avenue and go in through the easement.'' " = j
Commissioner Buthenuth requested the transparency be'dispta,e�t` I
again. He then asked about the parking layout.' He was 'told' the"
parking spaces will be 10' x 20' with a 29' aisleway. Mr.
Donovan said the traffic circulation will be similar to ,that at.-"
the McDonald 's on Highway 9. ( ;
Commissioner Buthenuth noted the long easement and asked if there S.i.gns }`
was a proposal. to have a sign on Portal Avenue indicating how to'
pet into the establishment- . ;•ir'. Donovan said a directional sign I
that will in no way interfere with parcel. 1 will probably be
installed. They will be entitled to a free standing sign of some
kind and they will have to get H—Co ntrol. approval on it.
There is a stacking lane on Stevens C).-eek Boulevard at Portal '
Avcnue to acco;nmodate nine cars in either direction, There is
provision for parking along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Chai.rman Irwin asked for comments from the audience,
, � ;t?.,t<;y}, , ,T�ro'4M�i.i E>�r',"'•°,rv�•vs� ,�:, ,�tt5 {u ,�v{ t .,. i _
.. y.. 4 E{r' ,i�• t�-+r? ,t ''yi�.�r,.;r,�t{rfin.,�.�^� � ��i�,Y_sa i y/'-s{�, �' ��'lilt '�.} �:
• t 1+:,Et t y ry�g"ti: h ul,�y��. ,trkk�'���,xiilj'?�j'i" ,. •!::1'
Page 4 Minutes'of' the :
Planning �Cammissioa �Meettn 1 April 26 1971'
. 8, t
Mr; David Eberhart . •-„ .•; r -
'10320.Las Ondits Way, Cupertino,{said •thg f
Commissioners should"'consider what: could go behind r this pzopop.ed t '
business; "felt that,withiithepresent ,propasedJflo it,, s l.it,
would be hard 'to see any`,establi 'hment{, ut, behind Jthis� p
building.'"'"" p proposed;.
il Closed Moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded by,Commissioner Meyers iti
Public close the Public Hearings y' ,_, o
Hearings r ;
Motion carried •5 70 r,• t "`''
; Commissioner Puetz srid providin g i:here is adequate ingre{ s`;�,a`n”d.`,"t;',
I "gress, the solution of moving the parcel further west hasiresolved
Isome of the problems. The applicant has agreed to improve:.all of
; Fortal Avenue for both parcels. His feelings were; that,,.they•are„
putting their time and effort into development oithis property,.and
the application should'be approved.
f
l Commissioner Meyers said even though he is not.•in, favor,lof•,small:/
developments, the .fact ,remains the lot is already split,:, With•t.this
new design it abetter area
for development., Regarding ,•,
; sir. Eberhart 's comments about :chat to do•with the,property._,behind
! it -- this is not a new problem. D_ is already:; ,ned,commercial.
1Perhaps they could come in and get a building Per-AL (through,
: litigation) without the Planning Commission's apprctal.
I
i
! Commissioner Hirshon's biggest objection was. to the,use. His im-
pression was 'that a key piece of commercial pr.operty, was being„cut•
up that could be used for something more significant. .. ,Prom the. ;;
standpoint of planning, a good piece of commercial property is
; being cut up. He feels Cupertino has just too, many restaurants..-�
; along that strip of road.
Commissioner Buthenuth said that at least it would leave •
! acres to be developed together, ae fo ur, plus
IJ
Commissioner Puetz suggested the easement be finished in such a way
as to prevent cars from cutting ac;_o„ the field. Commissioner
Buthenuth suggested an asphalt berm.
17-TM-70 1 'Moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded by Commissioner Meyers,.to
approved recom.•nend approval application 17-TM-'70 with the•14 Standard
; Conditions and Condition .15: The 30' easement will be improved in
I manner acceptable to the City Engineer with provision made for,
defining the roadway *of the easement in such a manner as to preclude
the use of adjacent property until the future use of parcel 1..
I ,
AYES: Commissioners Buthenuth, Meyers, Puetz, Chairman Irwin
1NOES: Commissioner Ilrshon
Alftk
i
Motion carried, 4-1
Y
5� r
f t
.'•1 1F iY Y{S �� Y, °M'�+3Y A i°i a YI
•, .,� d{Cry.�"i,^q�,�'�,, ,� 'h)1��'�F;�i�'�'n'"t'�'y�w�K��.�`�Jf'��4 F���es� Ny�F��� 'rip q�. �� g
' • •'^ � ,iC;}7 v y,! ` k�i�r ��r,A ufit �tb rig= n�, tt,"i xi7�"t.,
Minutes aof.
:tile,Planning:}Conmis.sionr�feeting;:Apr;ily26 92;1 , l,,nL
VW Dfoyed, by,
;Comwisslarier,.;Ppupetz cati'oCtti ded.:byrecouLnend app ~ Cois�inex,;Meye , -U-71
rov wit -;the :14,;StAndard t
Conditions and Condiripn .15 ,•. . �. approved
in a,manner. accepta.ble•,to thcr• Cit �30n jaeer_�ewi•thll..:be';impr.oved..;r: •I .
for!defining.,the .roadwa , , f, }'�, 8 provision.,niadet,`; i
Y o tht e�i;,ement,,in ,such,-a• manner as. ,tore,.
preclude the, use.,of ,adjacent propE:rty until;•,tfie::future ; j
parcel 1. use of
. , rr ..�lr,f ;L,j ;'.i .31 °t!„l.. f7 fl• �t
AYES: Commissioners Buthenuth,,Ifeyers, Puet.z
NOES: Com , ,Chairman{Irwin
m issioner.
irsho u
,,H ;,
Motion, car:_ied, 4,-1 • t
' .••r:1�r•;.'is :`i . rif , 1
3• Application $-U-71' of James W. Loughlzn;;f or,'Use Kermit to.;
�. !� j
allow the deferment.of ,the re quir,e:aent,;•to underground
at southeast corner of River ,ur..•il•it;ie's
side Drive.and Stevens .Ca?iyou,.
Road, in an R3-2.2 (Residential t•fultiple Family)
First. Hearing continued. zone'.
Planning Director Sisk 'Suggested ra conditifon be (attach
ed;i.f;-them:; '
Commission approves this application, It was : Condition
shall record a Covenant on the lot r , "The applican� r to Approval.
agreeing to provide-underground. `
utilities at such time as the overhead facilities on Stevens
I Canyon Road are placed underground. Said Covenant shallbe: n ,a,
fora, as approved by the City.m Attorney, Ai
certified cc.
recorded document shall he
,be filed with the Planning •Deparament ` '!
i
Chairman Irwin asked for comments from the audience. .,c. tr
none. There were . ;
Moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded by Commiss er.er `foyer to.
close the Public Hearings,
Moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded by Commissioner-Meyer that. 8-U-71
appli.catior: 8-U-71. be reconunended for approval along with the
14 Standard Conditions and Condition 15 •as suggested by, the approval
Planning Director. recommended
AYES: Commissioners Buthenuth, Hirshon, Meyers, Puetz,, Chairman
NOES: None i
I
Motion carriee:, 5-0
I
4. Applications 7-Z-71. and 7-TM-71 of Mary Cali, Edward S. Cali
Jr, and Hasrict Ca1.i for rezoning of 5,722 acres from. Al
(Agricultura.l. Residential Single-f,s 743
mily one-acre *1 to j
R1-7.5' (Residential Single-gamily '1500 sq, ft. lots) ; and 1
Tentative *tap dividi.n, 7.304 acres in_o 3 single-famil
Said property is locate;l westerly of.. and adjacent to Bubb Road
y:lots•�
approximately 130 ft• northerly of i'errace Drive. First Hearin` '
x t
rte ,( '•2i F
-ii .✓ wt�,•:. ,.".:'ef �f>,'�-t~Y�( u.til'rr e'�ry�+ •r c
t ` o.
�-b4
.t ,. •.4.t s! ,z+ :a `it+-r`fi-`{1'`�'��it>'„ft
l• t v q�r '+�y� ��,.tru+'+rtr�,.in r a
., S,• a t A X•, 14 , Y
Page 6 Minutes of •the'Plannin g C f
ommi' llion" 'Meetingp'Apri.1.,26'f"197' .1";,"J, .rrr,1•tt
I'fransparencies and colored -alid!es •'of the -area Were`pzes�nted' al'oii
I with,the•,Tentative cDla r ""
staff repor t,' p. Plarinirg',Director'Sisk'referred`'to
on 'thie master: ';•"ThE,�propbsed°234ot §utidivisian=con-
! forms to the existing reHldential,develo m
I pattern in the Mon neighborhood 'areant;iarid"'circulati:on�" ?'
problem will: respect 'to the rezoning or design 'concegt iofettie s"no
f division, it is Clt p r 'suti
9 policy to require that the necessary r;
dedications and improvements be obtained for areas that are shown
y`fees;"•.
as "Not a part of this subdivision." "The •applicants`m.ay`wish`'to'•
discuss the matter with your body during- the hearing' t ••:)
Fence Mr. Pat O'Connell, of Dietz Crane - '
! statements. He explained that elderly Mrs. with the Director's• '
equivalent of 15 lots around her home and the Cali is' retaining have the
( agreed to put up a fence to ensure her privac developers have
Fees ! that the portion in Condition 15 referrin y' However; 'tie''f.elt
lis not this subdivision was excessive. j g to fees'on 'that part that
• � - ,
; The Planning Director said the developer was proposing .a 30 'Street; -
! the City is asking for the full 60'
40' improved, right-of-way dedication and
Chairman Irwin asked for comments from the audience. /
Sidew„].,- I
Mr. Edward
Ford, 10853 Wilkerson, i`fontebello, asked where•.tiie side-
w�1J.Kg for ti�'(e kids would �
�e, or what provision would be'made' for -'
: kids to use both sides of the street.
would be on tine side of the c'-evelo �d Director Sisk'said`•sidewalks
to be put .i.n 'hen the other p ' property; the other sidewalk
Mr. Ford was to.1d r.his arranport.ian of property is developed;
Bement would not mean an extra burden
i on the tJxl)ayers at a later date.
'
Conrftissiouer blithenuth asked where the fence would
Director said it would probable , nde The Planning
right-of-way. , go on the l0 remainder of dedicated r
I
Commissioner Puetz _coamented: 1) It is our desire to
dedication on the road and improvements with the exceptsion 'of-the
sidewalk, and 2) Owner w:i�l have
s✓.i.l-1 not interfere with the traffic pattern,JeLb`sck and any fencing
Public '.Moved by Commissioner Puetz sr_
Closed inf;s the Public Hearings, ' ccnded by Commissioner Meyers; to close
C.1.os ed :-
r
Motion carried, 5-0
pprr Moved h>' Commissioner Meyers, seconded b•
approve(! recommend approval of. application �_,,_�lf Commissioner Puetz to- '
I
AYES. Commissioner f3ut}�enuth, llirshon ideyars
iNOES: None , , Puetz, Chairman Irwin
1 Motion carried, 5'-0
`'�r..-.i16,yiv, 'r!?t 1.Mi `'.N,�S�.'"k�`�1 y9.1} � +�?dyT 1.' �g(' �'g�� ,4 •� > �.t a,��,� a �tfv pa
• t.' „ hi SD?A t`tiSf J'�,4�' '6{�`: P3 '�i'�.i}� � � �� �r� h61Q� � i.i"
V, 11hill,
Minutes of the Planning Coy+im.is: :[on Pieeting r Apr.' 2 '
,► P. f 6ii.::1971s.�tsr Pageli7r, ;
Moved by Commissioner Meyers, seconded b • Commis
recommend approval' 1•' ., I Y� ,siPne.4!uetz.;mXp.),
� ot app_i.cation 7-TM-7L,wit'.i,the,,.14�Standard 7-T1
Conditions l,r, :r, ' y'r,I. approved
and'Condation 15; revisedr,such that it;indicates 1 z; with
improvements not necessarily include sidewalks on,;the;north side•;, conditions
of Flintshire and west `side of,Clarkston';..and,Condition"' ,Fence
constructed on the property labeled ,"Not ,a1,part,j'of„this,,sub-,, irrrr.
division” shall be subJect to.approval of the City staff,
AYES: Commissioner Buthenuth, H-irshon, `leyers•,juetz, Chairman, y
Irwin
NOES: None ) t ,
:.f.
Motion c4:rried ' 5-0
5. Application 8-TM-71 'of Edward S. J. Cali, Trustee for.
Tentative Map dividing 20.9 ,acres into 70 single-'f lots., L �
Said property is located westerly of anr.; adjacent Ito, Bubb .,.r. : I I•„`.. '
Road, and southerly of and adJacent to `ennedy_Junior:High.Jl ,_, I
Schtol. First Hearing.
A transparency, colored` slide
s and %the tentative map•;were._displayed
on the bulletin board. The Planning Director reviewed h.is +staff
report and his suggestions for conditions on this ,appr-oval„ ,• •j,
should it be granted.'
I,
There was some concern about the buildings that are presently so i
close to file proposed street. It was mentioned that the trees
should be saved.
Chairman Irwin asked for comments i`rom the audience.,. !1
Mr, Edward Ford, 10853 Wilkerson
said he lives the second lot : . .
from the property in question. If Wilkerson goes through, he from
strongly recommended sidewalks to protect the school children and j• requested
cars and an open view so drivers can see what is happening •in
front of them.
Mr.. Vanderwyk, 10863 Wilkerson said I
, in addition to being a �
direct thoroughfare to schools, it will go directly to McClellan,
Which means more activity on the st;-eet. I
Moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded b Y '
close the Public Hearings. Y Commissioner Meyers 'to Public
Hearings
Motion carried, 5-0 Closed
,i
}
• I 5-.
{ •N' It
N
..,v=,, f r..I;:.Y19.1:�"r•Ulstr�;�}?Vti:Lai ,�i 3+'.. �s x�,•v�}�y�,,;{y��4� �'.�i 9t r'F _
• r 1 �v,1 "yr�1,�S�••�4{ti4t 't y i .� tv 4 t a 't
, t ° r .. Y ���,EZi av vu'S x � L•'.xa S 1 •� .+"
' ° �.�Ir'� 'x �•!�'s�'; •��' F4+.�i��'g.1y'L W."',
;as3t1 � 5� �"fit°i,+f 'i �'f� aP�ii,.t •f
Page 8 ; Minute's of the"Plannin
g"Comaii'ss'aon''Meeting,'April'26', 1971 4 '
Sidewalks ; Commissioner 'Puetz was in' favor of, complet;e streets and sidewalks.
Commissioner' Meyers''fclt`asphaltr;'sidewalks could��be:conaiderid,i;,,.
here because of the cost to'*the subdivider.,` and Lhe r-act: that •it;
would have to be modikied' later':r- Mr. O'Connell 'started: that; t'h ' , .
• 7 'a :r. o f 1.J
sidewalk goes from 4" thick'.to G" thick where the driveways arc,;.,
and this has not been determined in -the .area not ,beiii"'veloped;
at this time, '
Commissoner Hirshon's feeling w,as that it was a question'. of safety,
and he felt the sidewalks should be constructed at this time,,,-.He
Melt there are already too many Streets in that area now without
; sidewalks. Commissioner Puetz agreed, on the basis of the sm;iller
children who will be going 'down 'this' road to Lincoln School,
I
8-TM-71 Moved by Commissioner Puetz, seconded, by Commissioner ,'Neyar3;to ,
approved w/ recommend approval of application B-TM-'-71, wubject,`to .the r1�4,Standard
conditions Conditions and 15. Street dedicrti.ons, improvements and fees
normally collected for a subdivision shall apply.;also for• the lot
:. ..;
marked "Not a part of this subdivision"; 16. Street names shall be
subject to approval cf the Chief Building Inspector; 17.`.Fence
constructed on the property labeled "Not a part of this subdivision'
shall be subject to the'approval of .the City staff: .'
AYES: Commissioner Buthenuth 'Hirst ion Me er s, ..Puetz, .Cha irma"n`r a.'
Irwin
\OES: hone e
Motion carried, 5-0
Chairman Irwin called for a reces at 9:50 P.M. Meeting reconvened
at 10:00 P.M. s r.. . :,u.,
?Minute Moved by Commissioner Buthenuth, 'seconded by Commissioner°Meyer.q,i
Order to require the applicant to submit a p.10t plan indi`ca'ting.the ;
location of all trees prior to they City Council review of .app'li.cation
8-TM-71, and that this information be submitted to the City ,Coupr_il
<,
for review.
I
I
Motion carried_, 5-0
r -
UNFINISHED BUSINESS �
7-T',11-70 6. Request of Sara;to,,a Foothills .Development Corporation for extension
extension of t,:inte on Tent<t.ive Map Application 7-TM-70. 38.49 acres
requested located southwest corner of Homestoad Road and Blaney Avenue,
in an RX-2.2 zone;
The Planning Direcf.or said this application .'Is about to exvire and
tl:' applicant _S ~tatting for an extension of ti^{e.
t
I �4
I
3
,•b):� }'file.�' `�'"'tf�ttl"�r+�4'NUrI�'+'1�,�{t��1'?�'��'� ai"�5+� dh �.� ,y { ,�y
AY'h �11
C
°lF�,R �,� '•.
Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting' April 26 71 r r
, .c !•: i , _ , 19
, •Page' 9
C.:�+•rl0 o.l
, . K is
Cortwlissioner tuthenuth asked if and when the Mariani Mall goes
in, will the street on',•the le'fr si'der•b'e 'n'eeded'. I The•"Plari'ning'?r� }'�
Director said the map takes this into consideration.
It was the opinion of the City Attorney'thi t `:"''''cannon ask or }
an extension of time to attach conditions to a Tentative Map.
The •application"f or 'extension 'should be•limitted ,to 18'eterm`iniii
1111111111111 11 1!1 IR II If!5 %1111'!I'll' 111
Ent",
°t
' � {,.���?_ �CP�C,S� r _a�`+5.r4K+yd's, nFi'` �cT'�t u''.r�• �1'�
'9
. , ' .•; •.:� �' • '` IS'.r i: ::i;.i:'. :.1 -..ti?.i.:Yf 1`? ':'II.,S ?r.l { r'j lJ./T.,1�1 �" '
'Page 10 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, April 26, 1971 • %`;, . {•.;I,..
REPORT OF PLANNING r, . � . � 'o." ;'}'•""` '"' •• "''''i�, .1`ri•,:ra3j.
COMMISSIONERS There was none, :;•`,'if.r..:
� REPOKT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR
' �• '' ' ;i ; i' ' :1153 ';
. The Planning Director said he,had d;scussed with Mrs. 'Kester,,tha,,
( number and location of the horses on her property. : She •told,him I
; there are 17 horses and ponies; 14 of them hers. The?other,threte
(will be removed from the property. Horses have been on the property
for a great many years.
No O
; The City Attorney reviewed the rdinance. referring .to .non-conforming
amortization ( uses. lie said it does not, as many such ordinances do,•icontaini,some
clause ' sort of amortization clause. With :respect to�horses,•if �this-was a
use when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted the•person ;should -be
allowed to continue this use for a :reasonable ,length-.of ttime_.;: •!How-
lever, you can have such a change in a neighborhood, that,:it could,:
become a. public nuisance.
11'i`he Health Department has investigated and Iras no
t..found it' to;,bd
hazardous to the health of anyone. - Present. zoning on 'thee;property
: is A-UA and R1-7.5.
Horses keep ,Mrs. Stella M. Kester, 10850 N. Foothill Boulevard; :.Cupertino;: said
dc,. ^ the the horse manure is cleaned, off the buffer zone continually. All
:ire hazard in the neighborhood except one family say they prefer horses :tou,.;
ihouses on this property. She said the reason she keeps the horses
! there is because they eat the grass'and, keep down the fire hazard.
She added that she hopes to have this property sold by the -first of
; June. In the interim, she will putt up a 10' fence between her
property and the Bradley's.
irs. Plichael. Kopy, 11306 Bubb Road, Cupertino, ;said the r100.':abuffer
; zone only contained Mrs. Kester's horses and ponies. She;said Mrs.
' Kester .has never violated her Use Permit.
Stray horses `_rs. Kesler said stray horses have a habit of coming to heriplace and
sii,� keeps them there where they ar,e safe until the owners come to
Fret them.
Moved by Commissioner Hirshon, seconded by C-)mmissioner.Meyers to have
a study of the Ordinances in general and specifically the
} , . possibility
; of adding an amortization clause to the Non-Conforming Use Ordinance.
I '
AYES: Commissioners ButhenuL-h, Hirshon, Djeyers, Puetz, Chairman-Irwin
NOES: No,.:e
i
Motion carried, 54
f
t
. .. ':;^'•Y • t ar-..rs'��4�t'�'�t�r'a'�''�d?�hT�s�.r:rfY 1,{ �,c�,t s +'M� �
ys }., k!#ryirtytr ihti�'o �k 8 Y Jrr1
o f i y> Fa s t+ >
. a ;l+7 ,•� �1 V .ky i� �s �i�'ft� '�c� Y��ktC'�� }G �n'� � ti p'4 ih,�,�.,�+.p•?�,�}M�1
Minutes of the Planning Commmission Meeting, April 26, 1971 ? ' � Page `ll
Commissioner Meyers commented that the difference between 14 and
17 horses is not all that great. We are. really unable to cope
with this problem wish our present ordinances. We need ordinances .,
with more teeth in them.
The Planning Director said there has. been some concern about the Planning
proposed Planning Session wherein one meeting every other month ' Session
would be devoted exclusively to planning. The Planning Commission- discussion
is invited to come before the City Council to discuss this matter.;
Commissioner Hirsho:: felt that no applicant's rights should be
prejudiced because of the Planning Commission's planning session.
The Commission would have to go ahead with those- applications with
a time limit problem.
Commissioner Buthenuth felt the planning sessions should be
Adjourned Meetings .
Commissioner Meyers stated that since study sessions are essential
they should be on separate nights.
Chairman Irwin was in favor of at least trying to devote one i May 24 now
regular meeting every other month strictly to planning. It was open for
decided the first study session was to be set up for June and applications
::ay 24th would be opened up for applications. II�
i.
It was brought up that if one scheduled meeting every Other month
can be devoted strictly to planning it will give the Planning
Department ti.-ne to prepare for the planning session. '
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Buthenut.h, seconded by Commissioner Meyers
to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 P.M.
Motion carried, 5-0
APPROVED: /l)
Chairman
ATTEST: `
City !rk
C