PC 03-25-63
10321 SO. SARATOGA-SU."iVALE ROAD
252-4505
CI T Y OF CUP E R TIN 0
c..;UPERTINO'¡ CALH',mJJlA
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. March 25.
1963
Place: 10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvà1e Road
Time: 8:00 P.M.
I SALUTE TO THE FLAG
II ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Fro1ich,
Leonard. Small, Snyder
Commissioners Absent: Rampy
Staff Present: City Attorney. City Engineer,
City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS February 25. 26. March 11. 1963
February 25: Page 3. misspelling, should be metes and bounds.
Page 6, the 6th paragraph should read: The City Attorney pointed out
that now is the time to get it on record that there is a variance re-
quested for a six story apartment house.
Third paragraph from the bottom of page 6, third sentence should
read: If you build commercial under the PC. you have to meet all the
requirements covering commercial.
Page 9, the motion in the first paragraph should read as
follows:
It was moved by Commissioner Fro1ich, and seconded by Commission-
er Leonard that:
I. WHEREAS. in general. this Commission wishes to encourage
applications which merge properties and present a sound
larger solution rather than a piecemeal solution. and.
II. WHEREAS Applicant appears to be negotiating seriously with
a national firm regarding a Highway 9 - Junipero Serra Free.
way locatioh for a major West Coast office building requir-
ing a site of about 20 acres, and.
III. WHEREAS prospective user indicates others may have need for
about 10 acres of additional sites for office use nearby,
and.
IV. WHEREAS the prospective major user indicates a preference
for a reasonable assortment of service commercial up front
near Highway #9 to provide eating places, automotive ser-
vices, and other such uses convenient to and compatible with
high-density office complexes, and,
V. WHEREAS an office complex of the sort indicated is probably
a higher and better use of Highway #9 lands than the current
hodge-podge (dating back before incorporation, and being a
strip development). and should --- long range --- provide
not only a better tax base, but also a better assortment of
job opportunities. and.
VI. HHEREAS the central location of subject property in the
valley, plus the emerging road pattern suggests future uses
emphasizing large numbers of people rather than heavy
storage and movement of bulky goods by relatively few
people. and,
VII. WHEREAS the merged parcels provide an area large enough and
well enough shaped to stimulate imaginative and tasteful
planning in the interests of convenience. compatability, the
amenities. and economic success;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission recommends the
rezoning to the Council under the P-C-H ordinance with approximately 30
acres earmarked for uses similar to those provided in our P-O-H ordi--
nance. and the remaining 8 acres earmarked for uses similar to those
covered by our C-I-H ordinance; the entire rezoning being subject to
t~e following conditions:
-1-
1-12:
13:
Scheduie B. (Tho uoUèl:J. C,-,pert:tno requ:trements)
Sign:lng of nn rtg1.'eement sat:l3f3.ctüry 1;0 the City Council,
the City Ma.nager, the C1.ty Enginee:l~ ,and the City Attorney
on restoration to the Clty of such funds as may have been
expended on subject property fruiÐ the City's allocation
òf Trafficway Bond money.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
COlT.mlr'!sio1l8rs: Ji'itsgera1d, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Small, Snyder
Commissioners: None
Commissioners: Adamo
MOTION êARRIED 6-0 ~
Also on page 3. 5th paragraph from the bottom of the page,
it should read;" 'l'his same applicant is now" working - - -. not require-
ment.
1,1 Commissioner Leonard stated that thëinlriutes should be handled
¡'more in a reporting fa.shion,. rather than statement.s from the Commission-J
r ers, unless punctuated as quotes.. He added that for some time, . he has ð
1 had the feeling that the" minuteß aren't reporting what actually has
, been happening at the meetingB~ . . .
Regarding the Mariani application, the Commission wondered if
the fact that the resoJ.ution presented to Coun0il did not list the
reasons for the Commission's·recommendation might have influenced the
denial.
Maret. 11; rage 3, Paragraph, add to Jlth parð.gi'aph: The appli-
canta were told that the matter ~JOu1d be betore H·~Control the following
evening.
The City Clerk requested the.t copies of· lengthy statements to be
part of the record, be left with him.
The City Attorney told. the Commission that neither they, nor the
Council, are required to explain thelr votes, and that this can some-
times be dangerous. The arguments for or against should be for the
persuasion of other members. He added that the Commission has done a
very good job of fact findlng.
Commissioner Fro1ich asked if perhaps tbey had erred in their
logical procesoes, in presenting recommenùations to Council, adding
that when the Commission adds conditions to recommendations, Council
sometimes treats them as arbitrary. The Clty Attòrney replied that
when Council is considering the Ð.pplicatioll> they may have other con-
siderations, such as budget, to influence their thinking.
The City Clerk asked permissio!1
ornia Cities Manual on the function of
that further discussion would be taken
to read from a I,eague of Ca1if-
the minutes. 'It was decided
up under Unfinished Business.
furnish copies of Resolutions
~~embers of the Commission felt
did not fully outline the
The City Clerk was requested to
to members of the Planning Commission.
the resolution as presented to Council
Commission's thinking. .
It was moved by Commissioner Small, and seconded by Commissioner
Fitzgerald that the minutes be received as corrected.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioner's:
Commissioners:
Commie31oners:
Adamo, r:iit·zgera1d, Small, Snyder
Leonard
F'rolich
Eampy
Motion carried 4-1-1
III COMMuNICATIONS
A. Written
1.
Letter from Joru1 Fleming, re'Mackay Palo Alto ~oning
. Application.. This. must 1:)e annexed prior to final
approval, between two and three· months.
-2-
2. Copy v. Bulletin INFO
3. Letter from Travel Trailer Cl~b8, offering assistance in
preparing ordinance covering parking of trailers.
4..Ba.:v Area Air Pollution Air Currents
5. .Subdivisior. Report for FebI"_\az'y Yorktovm 1 - South
of McClellan Rd. 7.1 net acres.
6. Santa Cla:('a Valley PLAN8
7. 6th Street Tree ¡j~7:1).)(H):i.1,rl.' April 10, 1963
8~" Water ConseX'vs.tion News for February . Pump Tax Study
9. Letter from R. S. Shock, re Merritt Drive, in Belmont
~ract~ Unit #1 is nearing completion. Improvements
will not be accepted until lOt strip has been construct-
ed.
10. Letter from the City Manager with a copy of a letter
from the Superintendent of the School District pertain-
ing to the Mariani school site.
It was moved by Commissioner Fitzgerald and seconded by Comm~
ssioner Small that this be held for Unfinished Business. A1J. h~ favor. .
B. Oral
The city Clerk received a call from the Planner regarding
Tuesday night's meeting, asking the Commission to present
any ideas they might have on the topic of Goals and Princi-
pals.
It was moved by Commissioner Fitzge~ald and seconded by
Commissioner Leonard that the communications be received and filed.
All in favor.
Commissioner Frolich requested that the planning information
received from the County be provided for the Commission, and the City
Clerk was instructed to check to see if this is possible.
IV A. ALPHA LAND CO.: Application 28-v-63 for a Variance to
Ordinance 220 to allow side yards of 20' where Ordinance
requires 31'; Rodrigues Avenue & Terry Way. Continued.
B. ALPHA LAND CO.: Application 2l-TM-63 for tentative map
approval; 3 lots on Terry Way at Rodrigues. Continued.
The Chairman asked the City Clerk if tnere was a report from
the Building Department. There was not; the City Clerk explained that
the Building Inspector has been hospitalized.
Mr. Ingber, from Alpha Land, reviewed their application. His
firm has a piece of property on Ter~y Way, divided by metes and bounds,
developed under R-3 as existing at time of development. They have now
requested subdivision of the property into three lots, and find they
are 11' short on sideyards and have requested a variance.
Again, the possibility of a building burning down was discussed,
and the City Attorney stated that the variance is incorporated into the
final map, so there would still be a building lot.
When asked, Mr. Ingber said he didn't know if the property was
originally surveyed into six lots.- At the time-of presentation to
Council, Mr. Ingber said they had drawn plans on the first two lots
and told Council there would be four more lots all the same.
Chairman Snyder pointed out that initially the developer chose
not to subdivide, therefore tentative ma.p a.pproval was not required.
Mr. Ingber said they were in a hurF~ to build, and after examining the
ordinance, and feeling they met all requirements, th~y didn't file a
subdivision map.
The City Attorney ~a.id this was the first case he knew of w~er.e
anyone had tried to build on n·,3 without a sul)division map; and this
cut off resale by units. He adr!:;d t-.ha'.:; ',:he :,:mrpose of subdivision is
to break up a large piece of ls.~.
It was moved by Commissioner S-:·_;;~f;~.':'ald and seconded by Comm-
issioner Small that the hearing be closed. Motion carried .6-0.
..3"
·
It was moved bJ Com.missioner ¡,eonard, and .~conded by
Commissioner Fitzgerald thc:i;;
I. WHERE.AS the P,:.>.... .n,"i·.:':' ,)!'J glnally acquired 6 sites totalling
53.760 sq. f't, zoned fc)' multiple., und qJ..la1if'ying for not
more than 3 unHs each, a total of 18 units if developed as
six separs.te pa:.'cels; a.nd
II. WHEREAS Applicants, after investigation, elected to present
the parcels for consideration as a single parcel, thereby
qualifying their holding for the 24 units actually built, an
increase of 6 rentable units obtained by representations that
they wanted to treat it as a single parcel. and hold it for
investment as a single parcel; and
III. WHEREAS multiple housing is norme.lly owned as an investment
with earning capacity---and therefore value--- being roughly
proportional to the number of rentable units on the parcel;
24 units being more than 18; and
IV. WHEREAS Applicants now seek to subdivide the whole for pur-
poses of individual sale, pleading hardship if denied, and
near compliance on setbacks, and near compliance on density
(if the division is into 3 parcels of 8 units each;
NOW THEREFORE this Commission expresses the following conc1u-
sions:
1) The Applicants must he presumed to have been in full know-
ledge of the ordinances regarding both density, lot coverage.
and setbacks at the time of reqltesting architectural con-
trol; and in both instances held the property forth as
being a single parce1---such holding forth producing for
them very real financial advantages in building and renting; ant
and,
2) To reverse themselves now-·--after the í'act of building--··
using the variance device to accomplish that which probably
would not have been sanctioned before the building would
seem to confe~~ on the Applicants a unique additional ad-
vantage not fai:"J.y and unj.forml:r open to all at the time
·¡~he:.:.' ~):.'ojects in multiple are on <:he dz'awing boards; and
3) The effect of such re~uests as this would seem to be in the
long run a steady pressu.re to O¡'82.k down the car.eful1y set
low density aspects of o~r ordina.nces.
NOi'l THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission recommend
denial of A:x.:·. .:.()e:;~';J:1 r.,'\.".,,:;:,·, ".:~(- ;:'>""'I'~v¡..63o
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Commissioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich. Leonard,
Small, Snyder
Commissioners: None
Commissioners: Rampy
Motion carried 6-0
C. STONESON DEVELOPMENT CORP,,: Application 68~z-62 to rü:;rme
approximately 69 acres from R-I-A:B-2.. H-I-B-2 & R··I to
PC-H; north side of Stevens Creel{ BJ.vd., bounded on the
west by the fut¡,¡re Stevens C);eek rreeway. Second Hearing
Continued.
Mr. Arthur j"":f·,,,-,,,co.·?'l',,Vice P:c'esident of Ston:"ç;.1 told the
Commission they had sUÌJmih;ed their Pl':::posa:L f')I' 2. J:'lt,nned Community
development on the F'~_sher pX'ope!'ty pl'io:.' tG the PC-Ii ordinance being
adopted. iL"lticipated pO~)lÜatior. would ~e betw""m 1500 and 1900. Town
houses 1 three-story, sj_x'-StQ):';)T units are planned, with a common green.
The City C1erl~ repo':'ted tnere h2.ve ;)f,en no letter's pro or con
on this applicationo
The City Engineer, after s'~udying the checklist, recommended
approval.
The problem of 2.ccess was brought up, also the matter of the
~lell. The applicant pointed out that these problems can't all be
·'oJ.ved oct this time, the.t this is onl:¡l a tentative map.
-, . ~.....
The City Atto_ ,.ey told the Commission thb.. he didn1t Bee how
so, many things could w",:<:'c Úntil later.' to be l'esolved, because the appli-
cant. may not be in again until applying for a use permit, and this
talks only about the building ~;;:;self and the shrubs around it. There
j,s.a prob~em of: sidewa1.ks, street patterrlS, End st~'eet wj,dths, parkj,ng
areas,
Mr. Ruth, from Stoneson, said there are two covered parking
spaç~~ for each living unit. He added that he thought they had met
all requirements of the ordinance, in the brochure and supplemental
maps. Building location, open spac~~ landscaping, street cross section,
and density of 12.8 overall are shown. Depending on whether Stoneson
or the freeway is developed first, a road will connect providing
access to Stevens Creek. It is his opinion that there will be ample
connections to the Nortþ, East and South. Mary Avenue is shown, and
until a developer files a map, and this is sent to the Division of
H1~hways, this won't be decided.
'J:ownhouses were discussed. Mr. Ruth said they m1gþt come under
R-24, and the City Attorney pointed out two variances would be required,
town houses are single family dwellings, and they would not front on a
public street. Commissioner Leonard wondered if another ordinance
would cover this, and what it would be, for town houses, row housing. or
or the condominium type.
The City Attorney explained that town houses have double walls,
so it would be R-l without side setbacks. With a single wall between
units. it is multiple. He added that he couldn't see that R-24 would
Bolve tþe problem. Mr. Ruth added that he thought there would be
do~ble walls. as double walled units have wide-spread acceptance in
the, Bay Area.
The problem of a separate variance for each town house. or one
tor the town houses collectively was considered. Commissioner Small
felt one would b~ aufficient.
COmmissioner Leonard expressed concern over owners ,deciding to
se+¡, wondering what their rights would be in connection with the
common green. The City Attorney mentioned that a city park would
solve the problem. It was decided that a park could be abandoned too.
so this would only be a temporary solution. Commissioner Leonard
stated that the deed could spell out each owner's rights.
Commissioner Frolich told the COiumission this had been discussed
at the League of Cities Convention, and it W&S felt that it would go
unresolved until there is some state legisJe.tion on it.
Problems of cabana club membership were discussed, änd the
possibility of an assessment district for pool operation explored.
The City Attorney stated that an assessment district was only possible
On public develop~nts.
Mr. Ruth told the Commission that all these proble1!13 have been
met and worked out in Orange County,
Chairman Snyder outlined the problema:
1. Ingress and egress "
2. Adjacent properties undeveloped
3. Maintenance of common green area
Chairman Snyder aF.l!:ed that eventu.ally the problems will have
to be solved. adding that subdivision would be a real problem and could
not be resolved at present. Commissioner Fro1ich thought the problems
had resolved themselves as much as possible with w~1.at is av&; lab1e
now.
The Chairman asked for comments from the audie!1'_e. There were
none.
It was moved by Commissioner Fitzgerald and seconded by
Commissioner Frolich that the hearing be closed. Motion carried
6-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Fitzgerald and seconded by
Commissioner Small that approval be granted subject to the 12 standard
conditions on lots 1 and 2 as submitted. to rezonG to PC-H.
-5'"
,
,}>üLs¡¡iO!1c:." ::,.è..:2.'··' ';:-',8)"',:' ub::,ut the well, ",nd Commissioner
Fitzgera.Ld explained timt S'c..meson do~s not own the well. The problem
of access was also explored f1'Lt'thEôX', and Mr. h~th said that a frontage
road will either parallel iVJa.l'Y or overlap on Mary. riepending on who
builds first. The Commissioner. ~J.so ask':Jd ""boFt p!'ovision for' getting
onto Stelling and was told that Greenleaf will be the major street.
Gardenia would be a ~lo8ßipJ.e secondary c-pêning,
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NAYS:
, ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commiss"iuners:
Commissioners:
Fitzge'~ald, F')~olich, Leonard, Small
Adamo
Snyder
Rampy
Motion carried 4-1-1
RECESS:
RECONVENE:
11:10
11:15
D. EXCELL & SON: Application 77-2-63 to rezone 5.08 acres
from R-l to R-2-H; Lockwood Drive ¡;¡t the intersection of
Voss Avenue. First Hearing.
Mr. Excell, bUilder, asked that the Planning Commission look at
his recent development of duplexes. Commissioner Small reported that
they were ver.y good looking. There are two bedrooms and two baths on
each side of the buildIng, 1200 sq. ft, pe¡O '.mit, 2400 per building.
The.bedrooms are upstairs. Street pattern will not be changed.
Commissioner Small moved the first hea.:ê'ing be closed.
ed by Commissioner AGamo. All in favor.
E. CAMINO DEL HOMES: Application 78-2-63 to rezone 23 acres
from A to R-l; northwest of Terr&ce Drive, presently being
annexed to City. Pirst Hearing.
Second-
Mr. Ward Crump, 11247 Bubb Road, Cupertino, told the Commission
tnat access would be through Terrace Drive for the present. All lots
are in excess of city requirements.
The Chairman ask~Q for comments f~om the audience. There were
none.
It was moved by Cemmissior;er 8t:Jall c.ne iêecollded by Oommissioner
Le¡;:na'.'G that tIle f:;'¡'st hearing be closedo Motlon carr:1.,ed 6-0.
It was moved by Comrúlssioner SmaJ.l~ seconded by Comrr.issiöner
Adamo that Application 78·,z-63 be approved SUb;!ect to oompletion of
annexation by the City and Exhibit B.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
C',iK¡mmissionel's:
Adamo, Fitzgel~ld, Frolich, Leonard,
Small, Snyder
Non.e
Rampy
~'Ò¡jlin1ssioners :
Ö'ommissioners:
Motion carr:t,(" '. ':-0
F. CAMINO LV'.· OOMES: AP't'i.;l,eat10n 23-T~1-63 for tentative
map approval; 88 lots northwest of Terrace Drive presently
belng annexed.
The City Engineer pointed Q~~.. that the street patC:2rn is better
than the neighborhood plan. Ter.rac€! Drive, r:JtÐ.rting east gOl:'" west,
lot 158, should be 70 ±, not 75. 0,1 the slope, the arrow anå Der' cent
of grade is missing,
The Clerk read the letters from the following:
10 School district 0 No pro; leir!.",
2. Health Department. 'l'he Health ';'"pa.rtL1erri: has no objections
provided utili t;y- reY,'LÜ¡Oements are met 0
3. F'lood Control - Net within their scopeo
4. Sanitary District - '.rhere wiD. be an easement required.
It was moved by Commissioner Small, and seconded by Commissioner
J"'one.rd that the tentative map be tì?g::oved subject to the suggestions
made by the Sanitary Engineer, that offside easements be secured, bonds
be posted, and that slope indication of Mo'U.ntcrest Drive be shown.
Mr. Crump said that a split level home will go on Lot #158.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Con~issioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard,
Small, Snyder
Commissioners: None
Commissioners: Rampy
Motion carried 6-0
V UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. General Plan: George Volker
. ,"
Tuesday's meeting will cover Goals & Objectives.
B. Miscellaneous
The City Clerk read Chapter 7, on Council Minutes, from the
League of California Cities Manual.
Regarding the City Manager's letter on the Mariani school site,
there was some misinterpretation on the meaning of the district's
letter. Commissioner ~eonard presented a possible motion asking that
the site be abandoned. It was decided to consider the matter further
at Tuesday's meeting.
It was moved by Commissioner Small and seconded by Commissioner
Fitzgerald that the meeting be a.djourned to Tuesday evening, March
26, at 8:00.
Meeting Adjourned 11:15
ISI Ch~~..§.L~. Snyder
Charles K. Snyder, Chairman
ATTEST:
~'.i\~JU'(
Lawrence K.
/
,
\Lt.~Z
I '
Martin, City Cle~---
"7-