PC 01-25-71 r C
vA,. f.,�.+'.+�,'efff,tJ'd� ��Y,,yh'}�.� t..:�,, .,y+wE r,-.�-.� ° —��+ rk yo t L•tc� y'? k Y41��.;y$ rt/p•.'�are� h ,� ye��+� �,.y. ?q ,
• �. ,�•� fr; �.', y,`,_1� +'�� `1 <1� �t4t.+,+Y-,� Y� ��� T{,'Ylti��i�.�` �Y y C�`i����c4��1}�Y .,;��
� sad'!y „y•.� 7 't
CITY OF CUPERTINO,,.State of Califorrli.a.. . t e "
. ,+ � .. +•X";r}.i ;•yrxflftt:�'3 r}Ct.',' .(7 ° :it,1.�.�'M1 � :3cJ,l. L ';
10300 Torre Avenue; 'Cupertlno�` California
Tel hone: 252-II10I PC-26
MINUTES 'OF`THE'!REGULAR MEF,'TING.,OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONIHE Df
JANUARY 2'5, 1971 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA i
F,
The meeting was called to order. by Chairman,Puetz at 8x00 p.m.lwho . ,
subsequently ]red the assemblage, in the flag salute•,
Roll Call !
Attending Commissioners: Buthenuth, Irwin, Meyers 'and,Chairman Puetz; I
Commissioner absent: Hirshon, Alsc in attendance: City torney . _,: roll cal•1
Adams, Planning Director Sisk, Assistant City, Engine r,V•iskovich and
Recording Secretary Dolores White, l,E �,;-,, •,;• ;,•.,;•„
• r
Approval of Minutes: Minutes of Jan.uary, ll, 197.1
Corrections were'indicat _d by Commissioners Irwin, Meyers, and ,Changan
Puetz; however, inasmuch as Chairman. Puetz had oat liad an opporEuaiCyj approval cf
to review the previous Minutes in their entirety, fapproval. of')these,, t Minutes
Minutes was postponed to the next regularly scheduled-�meetxng°of the- ¢ postponed
Commission. , s
Postponements, etc. Application 16rZ-70 of Falender 'Homes _Cori)oration
Postponement requested by applicant to meeting of
February 22, 1.971:. i
It was indicated by Mr. Sisk, in ,add.i.ti'on to that .item as shown on the
agenda, a request for postponement had been received, relative to Item l
3
(Application 17-TM-70) .
,
t It was moved by Commissioner Buthenuth, seconded by Commissi.oner,Meyers Ttems 1 & 2
and passed unanimously that Applications 16-Z-70 and 17-TM-70"be con-; cor.t•inued • '
tinued for public hearing to the meeting of F'ebruary.22, 1971. i for public
hearing +
Written Communications
f
Planning D.ireccor Sisk referred to a. litter recently received from i
J. Robert Dempster, Attorney at Law, requesting to be heard under the
Written Communications portion of the meeting of January 25th. He
had requested to be heard in fulfillment of a condition whereby the 12-U-70
applicant had been asked to present a site plan to the Planning discussed
Commission concerning the service station proposed on. the corner
of Maxine and Homestead Road prior to a Use Permit being issued.
He concluded by saying that t}ie City Council had requested the
Planning Commission to make appropriate comments relative to the
conditioner imposed.
S 101
• t
t
1
F I
SRI 9KNI
.. .•t ,. q.e•� Cra �9�''�'44' v.?„'g`t q� }'+c�2"X"'z1�.. i����' '�`SC.i �y � ?�'��P
r.� t ti';,n y l.• Fl>,?1�d�,,§ �k�7� �,,..v
Page 2 Minuses of the Planning Commifsion', January_25y ,197I, t ;. .t t . •� PC-26
Written Communications (continued)
Mr. J. Robert Dempster, representing the applicant, came forward
presenting the layout of the building on,,this articular, lo,t.,. lar
P g y f. . , P; 1 ,11 : p .p,,.t'
and indicated that the applicant was 'agreeablet.to the .conditions
imposed. ,
Mr. Sisk commented that the conditions of the Use Permit were standard
with the exception of the following: Condition 15, to move the drive-
way southerly; Condition 19, low profile lighting instead of overhead e
lighting and Condition'20, to allow three parking',s,paces,for' ,/each..,bay.
He continued by saying'th:at Conditions 21 through 24'werei standard
conditions and .resented a drawing fcr the Commissioners' perusal.
After a brief discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Irwin and ., , ,:
12-U--70 seconded by Commissioner Meyers that Application'12-U-70 be recommended.
approval to the City Council for approval per plot plan submi_tted `and,, incl`uding
. recommended the 24 standard conditions as enumerated in the PTanning'D,irector s...
memorandum dated July 24, 1970.
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Irwin, Meyers and Chairman-'Pueti _
Noes: None '• :a
Absent: Commissioner Hirshon p
Oral Comnunica'tions
There were no oral communications introduced at this timer ~
Public Hearings
1. Application 17-TM770 of Franchise Realty Interstate
Corporation: Tentative Map to divide. A.7 acres into two
parcels. Property is _located_ at 'the 'southwest cor'aer'of
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal 'Avenue .in a CG .'(General
Commercial) zone. First. Hearirg 'continued. L
This item was previously postponed to the meeting of February! 22, .1971.
17-Tai-70 &
16-Z-70 2. Application 16-Z-70 of F'alender Homes Corporation"for
postponed rezoning from Al-10 (Agricultural-Residential) to P ?'
(planned Development) with intended use of 185 'sing le- '
family attached dwelling units, approximately 21.55 acres
t:'
located southerly of and adjacent to Voss Avenu ,' northerly
of and adjacent to Alcalde Road , and westerly of Lockwood
Drive. First hearing continued. POSTPONEMENT REQUESTED
BY APPLICANT TO MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1971.
3. Application 17-Z-70 of 4:'hitecliff Realty for prezoning'' r
3.36 acres from Residential Multiple Medium Density''(R3-2,7)
to Residential Single-family Cluster (R1C-3),. said property
is located westerly of Merriman Road and Voss Avenue:` '
First Hearing ,
h
4 - k
t
,
4
r •�.^1w".{-f' •�yy ,i� i• ,�7 ;.ft+flt r s,k7,' r' s, k� a
'• ,,,4;t •t•�! r,it� ,y���t �`�' Tit �;�4�L�,+�'x�S• yV � YY �sy o`n R +� �y } •i1'f�}ss
• � pad � i C� •,a.t�-(�a�FNa°C^t��`'?�'Et x1"`3 x'"i� ji+It�I��*��".£"re 4„�;,^ � "
#1 e.•Jr I..W@ r•
Minutes of the P.lanoing-Commission, January 25, 1971, � . PC-26
r t' , ,`., t• ; ,r,. r'. ,,i. ''0 4,aun.iM 'Page:3
Public Hearings (continued) j }
4. Application 9-V-70 of Whitecliff Realty for variance to
• , reduce,,thc.,acreage: r.equi.rewent of'•; R1C;,(Single--fami-ly)
Cluster)..f acres, to; 3,36,;acres•.;riSaid proper.t.y .isrf:i . !-
located. ,westerly• of 1 Merriman!Road and-;Voss=Avenue.%,,,.;,;;; !
First ,Hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Buthenuth, seconded by Commissioner. Irwini Z
and passed unanimously that-. Application 9-V-70 ,be,acted; upon ac;,the:-,
same time as Application 17-Z-70. ! . ;i. ,
Planning Director Sisk presented •a visual ;aid'-of• the property)and;;;,,_; 3
its location pointing out that several: features,of cluster„developments
had been included, i.e. , tennis courts,. barbecues.and;a.swimming';pool,.
lie went on to say that, in 1968, the City took action;.on.-6.0,4,;acres;:; 1
and since that time the westerly 3.36 acres had been acquired by
Whitecliff Realty located at the• rear,of the property.r• ,;The,frontl-5,;;;:, 17-Z-70 & }
portion, he said, was still under; the original ownership. ; ;,;t.� ;t ( 9-V-70
;,; •i presentation
Mr. Sisk, continued, by saying, that. th, -request ,was, for' -a change,of,,,-;_ib
prezoning from R3-2.7.•to R1C-3 resul,ting•,in• a„reduczion•,of the--present;f
prezoning density from 39 to.•36 units and:also.:fo.r';_a!variance; vo;allow;
placement. of -the cluster development. on' 3.36' acres instead of•, 5,acres r
(the minimum acreage requirement of );he, R1C, Sing le-family„Cluster; ,,;,
Ordinance). „
In response to Commissioner Irwin's :inquiry, as,.tof,access;;Mr., Sisk pi.,
}
responded that, in addition to the ,citl-de-sac, !there•,would,'be•-an-;- 3 t
additional access from Alcalde Road.
The applicant, Mr. Owen H.- Carter,, Secretar Y 'and• P art-owner= of ,White-
cliff Realty, 935 Fremont. Avenue, Los Altos,. coTimented,,tliat,.the,.p?cppf-r,LN applicant's
was conducive to cluster development„ He said,. in. working•,with ,tie,,•, comments
Planning Department and the Federal Housing Administration, he, had,,,r: `.
obtained an additioria.l strip or. land to provide access, from Merriman,
i
Road.
Discussion followed and Commissioner Irwin indicated his ,feelinr,,that .;
the City was not at fault for the lot. split which had previously taken.
place and, if a variance was to be granted, the doors would be open to
others in the future to request the same action to be taken. lie added
that this could also prove damaging because •the Planning Commission
would not be in control as a decision.-making body and writer of
ordinances. In concluding his comments, 111_. Irwin offered his
opinion that the 5-acre minimum should be maintained and questioned .
.the internal circulation should an emergency situation arise.
discussion
Planning Director Sisk responded that there was a 24-foot wide driveway
located around the entire area not including street parking. He then ,
pointed out that there were 14 visitor parking spaces provided and - ,
the plan was a functional one as far as internal circulation was i
concerned.
WE G 11
I
1.
,
•r �.
R
. .,. ... t aSS.,A .' ,i:•.j,� fi-�.7N�,C tuh I,t� Iftl �Y4ti�Fl 1V'�.�, +6yd i1�¢\.,.,.y,�1 � A..Y�i i„4M dY '��tr�YS(*�,y''li�$a.{• P' ��'Y1 jt Pj�
>sb o �; :�j .-F [v.K�!'it ti a{a�'l:`�{•f"�� �`tTM��;�� 4 �r'� 'd ' Sx.���riM!�+''4,7 �1.� � � �t�!.p�.��h"�r' iM�w•�arv�'� :
, m., e�y 4 .ti i •
T... slit .i' )' 5::3,1 SJ7 :ii
Page 4 Minutes of the Planning Commission,, January, 25, 1971 Pc-2
Public Hearings (continued) \
In further describing the proposed development;:Mr:•"Carter mentioned
that attempts had been made''to purchase' the`�Vo•ss; 'portion of the
property but the-price had i been• toci h.get:' ' He' said.: the 'development is
complete, as is, but could be successfully expanded to' include the
additional parcel if purchased at a later time.
Commissioner Buthenuth questioned Llie�-difference' •in• open•ispace'ifrom'
the application when first acted upon, -to which` Mra Sisk •responded':''z'
that there was a substantial amount: of open space including the
tennis courts, barbecue and swimming pool' areas. In° concluding,'' `°''�
Mr. Buthenuth indicated that it appeared to him 'the�:application',
was unclear and Mr. Irwin agreed' sayin.g that it appeared: to' him''t
to be quite vague.
Audience comments were' requested by Chairman Puetz at 'this 't'iuie"and''•1'. t
audience Mr. Dean Sayre, 10805 Stevens Canyon' Road ,• Cupertino,'-voiced ,his ^t y:
comments opposition to the proposed development saying that the local resi- l
dents did not want -high-density developinents:`in 'thy' are'zi'."�'•He'=- t
requested that the- Commission wait--until- the Master,tPlan•'is
pleted before mdlcing•decisions on high-density developments `ardl '='wY=i
suggested, inasmuch as there were `triplexes' and' single'-fam
units in the it°,mediate area, that the property be•'considered 'f'or =r;
duplex, use.
public
As there were no further audience r_otnments' indicated-at -this''time',, 1
hearing it was moved by Commissioner Irwin, secortded by Commissioner��Buthenut
closed and passed by a unanimous vote that the public hearing.'be closed,`i: i
Chairman Puetz commented that , if i_his� 'application •wa's -to fbe 'approved,
a precedent would be established in this area"and' suggest,ed•th;at'the,
development be returned for future consideration 'as a �5-acreiparcel:'
Agreement was indicated by Commissioner Meyers who also felt :that:•the
request for variance should be denied.
9-V-70 It was moved by Commissioner Irwin and seconded by Commissioner .
denial. Buthenuth that Application 9-V-70 be recommended for denial-.xto:•the , s
recommended City Council. r ' r
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Irwin, Meyers and Chairman Puetz }
Noes: None
Absent: Ccmmissioner Hirshon `
Commissioner Irwin further moved that denial be recommended of: App.lica-
tion 17-l-'70 to the City Council based on the fact that 9-V-70• had::been
1.7-Z-70 recommended for denial. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Meyers.
denial
recommended Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Irwin, Mevers and Chairman-,Puetz• ?
goes. None
Absent: Commissioner Hirshon [[;
Chairman Puetz informed _he applicant of leis right to appeal':thisAenial 6
within S days, in writing, to ity Council.
e
4
T
'j( .. . •,,;p sx Y.Y.Jar:.•(' �,txx .r, .sett,, t��ttt7,ry}iA>. t't r�}J.y`44'1�:�L`1..;ti: .;i 't:3S�hl �J..� tt,th,J,eA :!}ti%,r t,�' {IYS' , ?F. '�a��1'�,t '� �•tK+
• ...`� ?,'7,:t�.�� it -::��t,..
. .,.J�,. .
• ., a:!-F�,7 S,• v , *, 1i,411brlS �\ �45.�a't4yn+j4 �A ';, jyw�' 1.•
, 1
Minutes of the Planning.Commission, January. 25, 1971 _ , ( PC-26 tl .
_ S' t,rsz', I PaRed,S
Public Hearings (continued) 7 l
(;7:'t�t'::.'z i';r:•..•, ,;tt.1':i.:�:.ii : :1.1.i'ilcaf i
Commissioner Buthenuth requested a,Minute.Order be,made to 'the Council, I
,. � . - „ ,_. .'C r•:tr. :y � • (Minute Order
that, if the decision `of _the Planning• Com.mission is.`.overruled, the ,
1 )indicated
matter be returned back to:the'P1 nninl; `Commission for furttrer review.
The Minute Order was.seconded by,'Commission Irwin.whomeiili one d that,
if this application was allowed to stand as' is and.,is overridden, the,
Planning Commission would not know all of the desires of,,the Council 1
and could not, therefore, condition th'.Ls as asked 'to 'do in certain
cases. He said it was very difficult to.condition,an.•application,.at ; : ,
this point in time without knowing what- the Council;:s:•wishes•,were;•as 0 r f
t
far as whether or not to accept it
Chairman Puetz mentioned that it was.,hi:s understanding,,,i- there,;,..;
should be a major change, the Council would refer the application'
to the Planning Commission. Ile then asked for: suggested;changes., ; .
for inclusion in this application to which Conunissioner,Meyers
responded by saying that the map-was very unclear and„suggested r.•• '•
that a better map be supplied before a recommendation. is, given.,,;
Inasmuch as no vote was previously taken, the Commissioners voted,,on Minute Order
the Minute Order introduced by Commissioner Buthenuth at;,this;time. .�I vote taken
Ayes: Comm'issioi �rs Buthenuth, Irwin, Meyers and Chairman Puetz
Noes: None
Absent: Commissioner Hirshon
5. Application 1-Z-71 of the City of Cupertino rezoning t
11.46 acres of P (Planned Development) with. commercial, • r.•.
use intended, to BA (Public Buildings) . Said 'property- -'
is located at the southwest corner of. Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Stelling Road. Owner:, Foothill Junior �
t
College District. 2.Furst Hearing.
Planning Director Sisk reported that the application was one,_that ,
had been originated at the Planning Commission level and forwarded
to the City Council for a change of zoning. fie said the, area.is 1-Z-71
part of the college facility and is developed as a nar.t of the presentation
facility and it had been proposed to rezone the parcel to BA
E•
(Public Buildings) to correspond with the remainder of the college
property. He then referred to a letter indicating agreement with
the proposed rezoning which had been recently received from Mr. Flint .
and of which the Commissions-.: had previously been forwarded a .copy.
a .
Inasmuch as there were no a• ience comments offered at this time,
it was moved by Commissioner Irwin, seconded by Commissioner Meyers public
and passed unanimously that the public hearing be closed on this hearing .,
item. closed
It was then moved by Commissioner Irc:in. and seconded by Commissioner
Buthenuth that approval be recommended to the City Council of Applica-
tion 1-7-71, subject to the 14 Standard Conditions. 1-Z-71
approval
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Irwin., Meyers and Chairman Puetz recommended
Noes: None
Absent; Commissioner Hirshon
. M
t X
.. •-��-P v.r �..K ` vz r ';.;v 1" lKt'e'`�
!� .t a ��v;, t � :• ':iLS� ;e°f��lF vy :f ,r tii'ly+ V �1 r t"n n'?.s
? S-�` .r �,ry;yn,C'r!!. iJ • i , a.:! ��7 !�,�4" si'_�•}+t �' 1 ,
A.
Page 6 Minutes of the Planning Commiesion, J uary"25'; 1971 y
?,, ,r I ?r:r.,�,' fib,l'itbi'.�;1 •1F. I r`a:!'t
Public Hearings (continued)
6. Application 2-Z-71 'of G:3rrod,',Trust 'for` rezoning.,lll':9
acres from 'A1-43 (Agricultural-Residential 'S'ingle-familytl t}
one-acre lote) to A�215 (Agricultural) . Said property
i is located adjacent to and easterly of Steveris�Creek. ;,
ti
County Park approximately 1500 feet north of'Mount'
Eden Road. First Hearing.
Ir_ was reported by PLanning-'Birector, Sisk' that 'the request 'had'i been
y
to change the present Al-43 zoning to A-215 zoning' as a; preludeito a
4—Z-71
at ion contract before the. County regaiding.,• the Williamson Act placing the''' '
p property in an agricultural preserve. Fie continued by saying that
the applicant had also made the same request of -the City of 'Saratoga:''i? }
hearing Commissioner Irwin voiced his favorable comments regarding the` applica=
closed Lion and, because there were no audience comments indicated,� it; was
_ .
moved by Commissioner Meyers, seconded by Commissioner Irwin and passed
unanimously that the public hearing''be closed.
It was then moved by Commissioner Meyers: 'and seconded'by 'Commissioner"
' Irwin that Application'2-Z-71 for' zoning Prom—Al-43: to 'A-215 'be;il l'
2-Z-71 recommended for approval to the City Council.
recommended ~
for approval. Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Ircoin, Meyers and Chairman'_PuetZ ' t
Noes: None
Absent: Commissioner Hirshon
Unfinished Business
7. Recommendation' of proposed ordinance to-'repeal ordinance �
002(e) and' recommendation of proposed'eresolution regarding
zoning of property upon annexation,'"`
Mr. Sisk reflected that this item was previously sent to thetCitv'Coun-
cil and sugglasted that the appropriate action at this' t-ime•would• be,
for the Planning Commissior. to adopt a Minute Order .reconmlending'a' : '
F Ord. 002(e) specific ordinance and resolution be considered by the Council. .
4
di5CllS5:1011 -
t�n inquiry was made by Chairman Puetz regarding the possibility of
including rezoning and prezoning in this ordinance to which City
Attorney Adams responded that prezoning is identical to zoning 9
except tlult it does not become effective until the land is annexed
to the City. fie further explained that , if the prezoning is not
favorable upon annexation, proceedings can be initiated to rezone
the prezoze. °
Concern s•:as indicated by Commissioner Irwin at this time that, if
Chairman Puetz' Sug€estion was included, the far.-re,aching effects
could be quite costly and he Suggested that when prezoning is';questioned,,
public hearing be scheduled.
'i
- —----- Mill, SY, - - - - -
,' x'
. .. - a� t,-�•t a\;t`�',`''r 1Nr;...,�'�as � ;r y r+���
T•.. M1 r }.
x
Minutes of the Planning Qonimi.ssion, January•�;25; 19911,; r'; ^rrfi ir; r.5, t r:}'•i i PC-26 ;I r•'
1 Page 7
Unfinislick] Business (continued) I,,•,ruri 1:c< a ,r '.:.!: ,jn ': i
It was moved by.Comm.i.ssi.oner, Irwin)and seconded by.rCon-.missioner)!Meyers;' a
that the 11lanninF;, Conunission!recommend enactment„.ofr.,Ordi.nancec100,�(e-3.,)'
in its entirety to the City Council. enactment of
I Ord. 002(e-1)
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, •Irwin, Meyers• an&,Chairman,Puetz•> F r,1 1 recommended
Noes: None
Absent : Coumiissiotier llirshon
It was further” moved by Commissioner Irwin and seconded by Commissioner .
Meyers that a resolution be recommendedytoethe City,Council,fortadop.t•ion Resolution
setting forth that Cupertino intends. to prezone all land beingiannexed,-. I recommended
to the City.,
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Irwin, Meyers and Chairman: Puetz,i,
Noes: None
Absent: Commissioner llirshon ,a• i
,
i
Now Business
l
8. Request for one-year extension of_ time ;on,Variance .
1-V-70 granted to J. Cyril Johnson Investment,Corpora.-gi•, ,:;
tion to allow 136 apartment,u:r.it.s on property.presentlyj!'o ! i
zoned for 130 units. Said property is located southerly
of and adjacent to Honiesteadl Road,, 500 -feet. west-;,of
Barranca Drive, in an R372.2 zone. .
Planning Director Sisk reported that the applicant had no plans to
develop the property in question at this !time.. •lle,then presented 1-17-70'
a map for the Commissioners' information chile explaining .that l36-.;;'.'.T '. report
units had been originally permitted, however, a Variance:had•!heen- ;;•}; ;i;• ',
granted subject to a plan being submitted to the-Planning- Commission...;;-, fS
lie concluded by saying, that there was a new property owner involved
who wished to keep the Variance effective'on this- property. .
'r
It was moved by Commissioner Irwin and seconded by Commissioner 1-V-70
Buthenuth that Variance 1-V-70 be extended for a period of one extension
year. approved
Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth , Irwin, Pleyers and Chairman Puetz
Noes: None
Absent: Commissioner llirshon
i
9. Request of Stoneson Development Corporation for one-year
extension of tim3 on Tentative Map 32-TM-69 and Use Permit '
26-U-69 for a 7.86-acre shopping center in a P (Planned
Development) zone, Said property is located at the north ;
west corner of the intersection of Stovens Creek Boulevard ,
and Mary Avenue. }
C' a:s
OU
y
f
1 •
t
- � Y
_d - - �! 7 i.1•v t.-( d1X,h> S •u�r�}' �h� +F5 H!1 t� vidN1 ��n
':�°' i •'.' �'4F'f ` rt. Ryy''�� �"jrdjj'9a V" �' Y'ti)"t '� C`n /� gry h ''•AFB ;
11�• r1:'S.Y
• 4i a�' r acv h; 1.., f
Page 8 Minutes of the Planning Commission, January"2'5; 397;11'' I ' ',.rt1 ""' ":a:J'."t"`t PC-26
New Business (continued)! ti i; al:,.er.r..3rrt
Mr. Sisk commented that the-request -had been"for''an:ex tens ion"oftitae?`- •
for a proposed shopping facility on both the tentative"•map':and 'the 'I!
use permit. .:1 t rte
F'
.i
In response to an inquiry made by Commissioner Irwin as' to prior
opposition to this application, Mr. Sisk reflected that, in-the
Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1970, 'there was'no' oppoaition'."`^'' j
32-1-1-1-69 & indicated to the proposed use.
26-U-69
t irie Commissioner Irwin recalled that one of the reasons'he vot'ed''for this'"`
ONtCns1011 application was that there would be a great deal 'o'f'housirg•� devel'opme' nt f
di.scussioil behind this area and off of Mary Avenue, lie said he felt th'ati:a 'small'
shopping center would be preferred t-:o a sprawling development because 7
of the Planned Development zoning; and also because' of• the'•location:of:•`'•
the island. Iie continued by saying that he felt, with this use being. ' ,t
incorporated into the area, strip zoning would'be "staved off
further, the general^ layout of the plan had been appealing to him. a
An inquiry was made by Commissioner Buthenuth as to when thd-.,re?figment
of Mary Avenue would be taking place: to which Mr. Sisk replied that 'the
matter of a change of zone on Mary' Avenue'would be he'ardi,by the Planning
Commission at its next meeting. He then presented a'visual aid and pointed
out the effect of the realignment.-of Mary'Avenue'. ' ' : r
It was moved by Commissioner'Butheuuth and seconded by-Commissioner
Irwin that Tentative `tap, 32-TId-69,' be extended- for' a;period of one t
32-T!1-69 year.
e:<tcnsion f t7
approved Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, 'Irwin and-Meyers : "` ' "•''�I
Noes: None ,..
Abstain: Chairman Puet_z
Absent; Commissioner H"irsllori
Chairman Puetz indicated his reason for abstaining being. that- recently'
another application was deni.ed in the area and he felt that Stelling
Road had been established as the cutoff. line- of commercial zoning-. f
With the denial of the previous application, he felt that' certain
ground rules had been established and should be adhered to at this
time {
It was moved by Commissioner Buthenuth and seconded by Commissioner a
Irwin that Use Permit , 26-U-69, be extended for a one-year' period
subject to Planning Commission Resol-ution No. 728.
2G-i:-69 '
F
extension Ayes: Commissioners Buthenuth, Ir;..!:in.and Meyers
Y' '
approved Noes: None
Abstain.: Chairman Puetz
r
Absent: Commissioner I+.irshor
Ren}?ort of Plan-11i.t; Commissioners +i
Commissioner Buthenuth introduced the subject of a change, in meeting
time to 7:30 p.m, instead of 8:00 p.m, as presently done and made Y
11 MIMI
KMMMOMEM
, .r�• . .. .�{tu, ::,:inn ,,:m+ K yi?.i�x�>.;ilq��yv,�tsv r r ti {,a�,tt�r�r., ^'q-'�jy°;��if� S�''" t a�'y�i"�l; � ' ��'����,�Y
a 11T IT
Minutes of the, Planning Commission, January 25, 1971 PC-26
1 Page ,9
Report of Commissioners' (cohtinued)
reference to Commissioner Irwin's comments of- the previous meet'in'9 III
wherein lie suggested ,the earlier„nice tinF;,,time,,, Chairmari,.Puetz
requested that discussion of a new,mccLinPjimetbe postponcJjuntil,,_tj
Conunissioner. Hirshon was present bectus£ he had been. the;primaryt ;r
objector to a change to 7:30 p'.m. mceti:ngs. l
. 1 1 i t (.,.; . , i
Discussion continued during which'Cor.-nissioner Irwin commmented tliat
he would not have. any objection to ,continuing.with the.8:00 p m. rii f
q
meetings as long as there were not tcro ;many' items on. tha,agenda,„t, ,„1
for public hearing. He mentioned the possibility thay.•circumstances
had been such that the recent mcetinr.s were Lengthy and was hopeful
that: this situation would not be occurring„very•frequently in the ,
future. i meeting
f
• r r ; �
length
th ,
In referring; to a listing previcus.i.y given to the Commissioners which; discusses
indicated advertised hearings, Mr. . Sisk suggested, that a, policy abe,,
set as to how many items will be, heard, per evening,,
Commissioner Buthenuth was of the opinion that limiting the. numbexof °y
applications heard would not necessarily, reduce',the length; of.,the; :
meetings.
r It was suggested by Commissioner Irwin that, if At is known. that a ..,
particular item is a controversial one and 'likely 't o result it,. a
1Cngthy hearing, the number of'public l:,earings sched6led,be reduced , r
in advance, lie continued by.cfferi.ng the, additional sugge,s: n:that
the interior policies of meeting conduct coit,ld be'the"answer.
Dialogue continued briefly wherein Mr. , Viskovich offerad the possib'ilit-,
` of lengthy meetings being adjourned to the next evening for conclusion.
Recalling the previous meeting, Mr. Sisk commented that this. had been!
suggested, however, no mutually agreeable meeting 'time,could be decided
upon.
Chairman Puetz concluded the discussion by recommending that .it,.,be „
established at the recess (usually occurring'at 10:00' p,n.) and a•
motion be made to continue items at the end of. the agenda'to th'e
following evening. By doing this, he said , the applicant would
lose only two hours instead of the eni:ire evening waiting for, his
applicatioit to be heard ,
Concern was indicated by Commissioner Irwin, at this time, relative to; J
Mr. Lacey's assurance. that the large van would be removed from the
Urich service station property located on the corner of Stevens Creel.
Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. He had noticed that not only was the p.
van still parked on the lot , but another v-_hicle was there also.
varied
A request was made by Chairman Puetr, that a listing be presented to, comments ”
the Commission of all commercial areas within the City which have-
been developed or are under devel.opnieri:: at the present time. ' He
said, if the Commission was aware of these areas, control could
be provided for the various areas. Commissioner Irwin interjected a
request that City Attorney Adonis give a legal opinion on 'this' proposal.
i
s!'
1, 4
r
•i+,-.. 7 c.q.,n r{i R�,p ,^r°,�k�k i 4'''It •mot f .Y ;qc* Y:.� � ,�`,�,, iii .&S �{^r•6�r• �Y
5 .. •�G'l�ss .. ''"t � Cf�`�rkc81!��,1(�,?7� 1�,d�"�-+wt,�. '�'�,/'�µ• �tidt""7� r`�' 'fj;,`7 � q ' aj(`,�}�+°y�,'•.:.F� ;
f t , .�,I w J a"•fr )'�'�i u� r1 F{�+-s•5u 5 r" Y+.
f,
• •,,��7 S' {,. ','i , , 1 7,;.: ,. + ;ti�l 1 :,f`t�F lj '26 r 1
Page 10 Minutes of the Planning Commission, January, 25,"1971 r PC-26'=
• , �7 .�•i.
� s•5
Report of Commissioners (continued) '
An opinion was offered'by' City Attor;tey'Adamsrthet'to.. .: k zoning,
revertible to its original "state 1; not developed within a certain , z£
,l• a ,i , :xet::f°�J e.
period of time could be` subject to criticism.
Dialogue continued during which Mr. Sisk recommended this matter be f
held in abeyance ,pendi.ng deeper involvement in the formulation of
the general plan. lie indicated it would be preferred :to'relate• ` ' .
to an overall plan for the entire City but agreed to'return,witli' ' ".'
a report regarding the zoning of the City as it now exists. . r
Report of Planning Director.
, r
Concerning th.: landscaping of a parcel located easterly of, the..Payless
Drug Storo at the 'corner of Homestead Road and'Highway'9,"Mr: Sisk-
reported that contact had beta made at' :-)hich time'it'was 'discove'red'
th,.t property ownership was in the process of being transferred. 'He 1
further indicated that the building plans would be submitted_ to. the g
City on this parcel. As far as' the proposed, use was concerned,:he 4.
sa.ici the n,?.w owners had been talking about an aucomobile=orie'n[ed`use
which would be sul,ject to a Use Permit.
r'
The Commission was then informed by Mr. Sisk' of a Goals Committee �l '
Goals report f Meeting to be held on Saturday at 10:30 a.m. at the Monta Vista High
cc,n:menu School auditorium which was to be the second phase'kicF off' meeting.
He commented that the intent of the'meeting' was° for, reviei,, of :th`e first
j phase topics in the hopes that' recommendations could be made to' tlie''
i 1 City in the eariv summer and .slso to interest as many citizens as f:
I
possible in this process.omm :i
issou s
er Irwin explained that' second phase would be'a` formal ;
stud• of the Lopics brought up throughout the brainstorming session•
and indicated his feeling that the job had been done very well s`o''far. f
Dir. Sisk referred to s Planning Commission report rc:!�ently presentee
to tile City Council. cnncerni.ng tile. City Ordinance covering the 'offs'1. • ' '
strr�ee ^:;rking of trc;ilers , car.7t�er<,, boats, et cetera',' which 'the_
i Council wa, r.eturnin;; tl7 the P.l.aunink Commission for' sk:heduling''of'.
.` a pui .l.:i.c hearin(;, il�t recommended that this matter he discussed by„'
City lard . the: Commi.ss.ion prior to the scllecluling of said hearing,
di.,CL7Z;S_on
In response CO an inquir,v made by Chairmain Puetz concerning on-street
parkin; of campers, Commiss.ioncr Meyers indicated that a change' h'ad-
{ 7 v;>.ar aso ohibitin on-street
been made in ti{e Vehiclt! Coda a,?out Pr g'
n;irking, of campers but that this
is sae section had also been nullified
in the i.n ter.inr.
f
Flnnning Director Sisk acivised the Commissioners that he would';b� ' r
pres.'nt.ini; a report on this Ordinance= and it was suggested by' Com=",
missi.oner ?`Meyers :it tili:. Lime , that the report also include 'tlte',
!,. ..
t latt' .t revision of the Code coucorning cm-street`•p'a;king „} (
s *�
of campers
4
f t?'yf{T
�� � �• rA
Lc,xe' ::.s..J.1 �. �, .,,•.4
A +w
.f:
i. :i•w �7a l n� ,irr t
-i s Vxd
i`3
Th Piz R'; s,
.. ..r , t, •SA Y„� f; kd 1-bar fri s y v
+ V! ?iY ' tR1� e 1
- +A f ' a }1 f +V.S�'� Kt �;•�si,fwi,i � t �A� " Z,r T
w r Y rt+i •�t.�.. 5 h,
?iinutrs of file Planning G:>mmiesi.on, January 25. 1971
' PC-26
Page 11
t
Report of Planning Director (continued)
ardi.n, the Jact� that `
Concern wa:; indicated by City Attorney Adams raF. R •
there had been no minimum lot.' size established for c�,:ntmerci.al use`
within the City. Ile said , c.tl,r.n a lot split question ,arises, the
policy has bec,n that :;,rn; ler nacre trot desirable and, inasmuch as
this had been only a policy, it could be difficult to defend legally. {
Ile then sllgge,,tcd that a minimum be established by .tile. Commission in
this area, '
A Minute Order was })roposecl by Co.^,tmi.ssioner. Irwin and seconded by
*� Minute Order
Commissioner cyers that tire. 1'l.,nninC, Director further itivestigatc indicated
the subject of minimum lot si.z, of cc,mmerc,.nl ventures, i;-icludinf
the entire st.r octure. of co,mercial zanirl•r,, and orescnt a report to
the Comuiissicm. The Minute order was. passed by a unanimous vote
and 1.117. Sisk agreed to present a repe'rt to the Commission.
Comments indicated by City Attorney ,Adams at the previous meeting
retarding vi.ctai.ng of local Parcels pri.or to public hearing were
questioned by CU^1mi.S5iOner Irwin at this time. Mr. Adams explained
that his intent had been to discourage the viewing of parcels on an
i.ndi.vidu 1. basis prior to public hearing ot, a pending application and City
sugrestcd that field trips be scheduled and duly announced to the
Attorney's
public rather than the individual going alone to the site. comments
The general rule was,° he 'said, . to get: all. information at the public
liearing because any prior evidence could influence a Commissioner'^
vote on an application. Ile continued by saving that this should be
done for two reasons, the first of Wlilich uas to insure due process
and a fair hearing based on information made available to all of the
Commissioners at the same time and , secondly, to make items more legally
k�
defensible.
Adjournment
it was moved by Commissioner Meyers, seconded by Commissioner Buthenuth
that the meeting be adjourned.
adjournment
The meeting was declared adjourned by Chairman Puetz at 9:58 p.m. `
AP P RO
T/ �C iairma a
ATTEST:
Cit Clerk
IBM
��'��l��",,
�1"-n:x; .."`r. �.!� ... .1F.:rc'�S N�31r+�,._.?'c i �! =a.,to � � ^ t�"� 'C '�'��>�� �,'' °. -r°',�k ,� X '✓ -. N