Loading...
PC 01-28-63 10321 So.'SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD 252-4505 • C I T Y OF CUPERTINO Cupertino, California MINUTES FOR-THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, JAN. 28, • 1963 • Time: 8: 10 P.M. Place: 10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road I SALUTE TO THE FLAG 11) II . ROLL .CALL: Commissioners Present: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, :Small,Small, Snyder Commissioners Absent: . None Staff Present: City .Attorney, City Engineer, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, January 14, January 15, 1963 The sixth paragraph, page 3 should read: It was moved by Commissioner Small and seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald that the application be continued until the second hearing. AYES: . Adamo, .Fitzgerald, Leonard, Small, Snyder NAYS: Frolich ABSENT: Rampy MOTION CARRIED 5,1 On page 5, first paragraph, on the definition of a lot, Commissioner Frolich also objected to the fact that the graph was part of the ordinance, rather than not a part of the ordinance'. It was moved by Commissioner Fitzgerald, and seconded by Commissioner Small that the minutes of January 14, and January 15, 1963 be approved as corrected. Motion carried 7-0'. . III COMMUNICATIONS: . A. Written 1. McKay & Somps - request for one year extension - 3128 It was moved by Commissioner Small and seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald that the extension be granted. AYES: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Small, Snyder NAYS: None ABSENT: None Motion carried: 7-0 2. Letter from Cupertino School District expressing their gratitude for the meeting of January 15, and confirming meeting of January 31. . , r_ 3. County of Santa Clara Planning Commission, Feb. 6 meeting . Robert W. Huey, 4554 Tony Ave, San Jose, application for • Use Permits for 4-plex and duplex at Pasadena & Lomita Present zoning C-1-H . 410 'Commissioner Leonard felt this might be an opening to convert all Monta Vista to multiple . Commissioner Adamo stated that there has been a building moved onto the corner of Pasadena and Lomita, which could be the duplex. Two new• duplexes have been built to the north, toward Stevens Creek Rd. Chairman Snyder asked if the Commission should get together again with the County. to restate the City' s position in that area. Commissioner Leonard felt there should be a letter written stating that this might be .establishing a trend, asking that a meeting be held cn handling areas -in Monta Vista relative to redoing 11=1 areas. --1 ti , Commissioner Small pointed out that .the plans are for an office . building, but the request is for a duplex and 4-plex. It was suggest- ed this point also be clarified by letter. 4: County-Agenda for . February 6. Minutes for County meeting . . of January 16. . - i • 5. Legislative Bulletin from League of California Cities: • a. Governor' s Inaugural Message b. League opens Sacramento office ' . . c. City Street Deficiency . Program . • 6. Answer to a letter requesting PG&E' s publication on the III modern approach to underground utilities. Publication is unavailable at present. It was moved by: Commissioner Small and seconded by Commissioner Leonard that the communications be received and filed. B. There were no verbal communications . IV HEARINGS SCHEDULED A. STONESON DEVELOPMENT CORP. : Application 68-Z-62 to rezone 69 acres from R-1-A:B-2, R-1:B-2 and R-1 to PC-H; adjoining north side of Stevens Creek Blvd. , bounded on . the. west side by future Stevens Creek Freeway. • Mr. Ruth, representative of Stoneson Development Corp. , had not yet arrived, therefore this item was postponed until later in the meeting. B. DONALD EXCELL: Application 45-Z-61 to rezone 11.02 acres from A-2:B--4 ' to C-1-H; west side of Highway -9 & 450' south of Homestead Road. Denied by Planning Comm. Resolution 101. I • 1 C. .PAUL MARIANI & MATHILDA SOUSA1 Application 41-Z-61 to rezone SE corner of Lucille Ave. and Highway . 9 (337' x '1314' ) - from A-2:B-4, R-3-H and R-1 to C-1-H. Denied by ,Planning Commission Resolution 97. Appeal continued. . D. PAUL A. MARIANI, JR. ET AL: Application 25-Z-61 to rezone 65 acres from A-2:B-4, R-3-H, R-1:B--2 to C-1-H on Highway 9 between Stevens Creek Blvd. and Homestead Road. Denied by Planning Commission Resolution 98. Appeal continued. E. RALPH RODRIGUES: Application47-Z-61 to rezone 13. 1 acres from A-2:B-4 to C-1-H, adjoining the west side of Highway 9, about 150' south of a projection of Lucille . Denied by Planning Commission Resolution 100. Appeal continued. • F. ANTONIO P0S0: Application 47-Z-61 to rezone. 12.6 acres from A-2:B-4 to C-1-H, adjoining the east side of Highway 9, 420' .south of Lucille. Denied by Planning Commission Resolution 99. • Appeal continued. Mr. Paul Mariani consolidated items B, C,' D, E, and F. He stated that he had returned to the Planning Commission because the City Coun • - cil felt. they were unwilling to block 'zone such a large area at one -, time. Mr. Mariani stated. that his coming back is not_ an admission that Cupertino couldn' t stand that much sales tax to . spend., however he now asks for rezoning on the basis that 'unless the existing zoning is changed to something other than R-1 and R-3, there will be the diamond instead of a cloverleaf at the interch'ange. ' The area under considera- tion is approximately sixty-eight acres, the original a.pplication .was • . for 110 acres. Except for a ten-acre parcel, all property under co,l.- sideration is south of the freeway.' ' The possibility of an 1, 100 employee office building in the area was also pointed out to the Commission. . S. Commissioner Leonard asked if a traffic count had-been considered as an argument for a. cloverleaf,. . � • Mr. Mariani replied. that he had checked this out, and found that • _.2.... . 1 the count shows;;three.. vehicles per: day per acre, in residential ,areas; twenty-seven per acre per day in commercial. The 'diamond is based on R-3 zoning. Although Mr. Mariani had shown the City' s plans to the Department of Highways, he reported they are interested in zoning. Commissioner Leonard asked if the State would accept rezoning at face value, or will it be questioned; also if the fact that more commercial may be moving out toward. Cupertino because of the traffic problems in San Jose, Santa Clara, and nearby areas would have any bearing on the matter. Mr. Mariani again replied that the State' s longdistance planning is based on existing zoning. He had also learned that each quarter mile away from an interchange, the effect: of an interchange becomes less. He told the Commission that he had been questioned by .a representative of the firm considering the location of their 1, 100 employee office building here, about the fact that there would be 1, 100 .employees .entering and exiting from the .freeway here. Commissioner Small asked that the City Manager try to get addition- al information from the State regarding the need for a cloverleaf at the meeting with the Division of Highways January 31. Mr. Mariani added that the contracts are about to be let . This is the last shot at this . It was moved by Commissioner Frolich and seconded by. Commissioner Small that. Applications 45-Z-61, 41-Z-61, 25-Z-61, 47-Z-61, and 46-Z-61 be continued to Thursday January 31 at 9: 30.. It was also requested that the City Manager be present. AYES: Adamo, Fitzgerald, - Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Small, Snyder ' NAYS: None ABSENT: None Motion carried 7-0, A. STONESON DEVELOPMENT CORP. Mr. Herman D. Ruth, Planning Consultant representing Stoneson . appeared for the applicant. Commissioner Leonard reported that he had been asked if there would be a bar included with the restaurant which might be' included in the commercial area. . The Proximity of the Jr; College was given as a reason for the objection, and it was asked if the commercial should be excluded because of the development of a restaurant bar combination. Commissioner Small pointed outthat Cupertino is getting loaded with five or six acre commercial areas . Mr. Ruth : I don' t think it is necessary that any development carry commercial with it. However, this is ' a neighborhood center appropriate for the location. I feel it is compatible with the Town Center. A grocery store and half a dozen small shops is quite differ- ent from' that' proposed for the Cupertino 'Town Center, of' one or two junior department stores and a block of shops. One of the possibilities is a restaurant, perhaps a garden restaurant. Essentially we are talking about facilities to serve a local area. Chairman Snyder asked about maintaining the common green. Mr. Ruth agreed that there was .no plan at present . Ownership is ® uncertain, it may be rental. Development isn't scheduled for this year, however, Varian' s recent announcement may change this. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked about Mary Avenue . Mr. Ruch said it was largely upto the City. If Marydoes nob through, andth ere y gog is no need for -it, the developers would like to cut it back to 'a collective street . The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Commissioner Frolich felt that the Varia,-ipossibility and the freeway interchange decision might have considerable impact on the decision for this application. He asked: that the hearing be continued until the Commission has the findings on the matters mentioned. Mr. Ruth asked what determinations the Commission hoped` 't.o'. make • Commissioner Frolich, replied that tlhe employment picture might that. this might lead the: Commission thane Commissioner Leonard added z g • g to seeing the commercial :favorable rather than unfavorable . • Mr. Ruth reluctantly acceded to the request. City Attorney: Something that worries me about our' Planned Community Ordinance is that: if the City sees a highly, desirable parcel of sixty some odd acres, there still is the question of the ordinance and its requirement of what should be submitted by the applicant when he applies for planned community zoning. I feel i' the interest of .the' applicant and of this group, there should be some 110 method where all' planned community ordinances are referred to the .Staff . level for review. This means that somebody at Staff 'level has gone through this and dete mined if all requirements are met. If they are not met, the issue is clear. The planned community is very close to a final map. Commissioner Leonard: We have the own Center project. City Attorney: I have no knowledge how the Staff has worked out the Town Center thing, 'whether it is satisfactory to the applicants or the City.. .: Before any decisive action is taken on this, it would be advisable for the Staff to review the Twn Center thing. . . Mr. Ruth: Approval of the zoning means that the developer can build according to plans presented in the .PCH governing zoning. It does not mean a building permit will b.ejissued until a review is made by the Staff. I have suggested that procedures which are used in Milpitas, including -a check off list, be followed. City Attorney: Theoretically, procedures have already been established and the ordinance enacted stating the requirements to be met . I'm talking about a report that this body ;might have showing the requirements have been met. It was moved by Commissioner Frolich, and. seconded by Commission- er Fitzgerald that the hearing be continued to February 25, and that the City Staff review this application and the Town Center application to see that the requirements have been met, and that a check list be requested from the Milpitas City Staff.; AYES: Adamo, Fitzgerald, ' Frolich, .Leonard, Rampy, Small, Snyder' NAYS: None ABSENT: None ' Motion carried 7-0 ' The City Engineer stated that the !C?,ty does have a check list. When the Commissioners voiced their surprise, it was pointed out that a check list hadn' t been requested. G. GOODWIN B. STEINBERG: Application 73-Z-63 to .rezone 7.3 acres Lot 10, Parcel 2; Lot 11, Parcel 1, Page 3., Book 316, S. C. Co. Records, on. Blaney Ave. from A-B-2 to , R-24-H. First' hearing. Mr. Goodwin B. Steinberg, representing Mr. Wilk and himself, gave some of his background, and added 'that some of his work was on Pepper Tree and Brookside Glen. Because of the freeways coming through, he feels R-i zoning is not the base use of the property, and feels that R-24-H, handled properly would be ;advantageous. There are 7411 acres, 120 apartment "units, 120 carports' and 72 additional parking spaces. The units would be 4-family, two stories. Mr. Steinberg' s exhibits are to be part of the record. ; Commissioner Small asked about possible use of the land adjoining the property. Commissioner Leonard also felt there would be a problem for the owner with the property that was already cut up by the freeway. Mr. Frank Zeszutek.of Blaney Avenue stated that the developer had contacted them and said they would ask for zoning for the Zeszutek property at the time of application.. The driveway 'of Mr. >`: inhere ' s development would go past the bedrooms of the Ze, zu:7.k I. HELEN AND GEORGE PIEPGRAS: Application #72-Z-62 to rezone • l,acre from R-3-H to C-1-H; north. side of, Stevens, Creek , Blvd, between Randy & Blaney. Second hearing. Mr. .Gross, . architect for the applicant, presented his• sketches:. Commissioner Leonard asked' the reason for pulling one building . out further than the others . Then he proceeded to point . out examples of this type of setback along Stevens Creek Road. He also' mentioned. • the Willow, Glen and Burbank districts, where narrow lots are used, and pointed out that this type of property is not always satisfactory to the City or .the owner. _ Granting commercial zoning on a lot of. this type Would probably bring in about 20, or 30 more parcels of the.. same kind. Commissioner Small asked if the applicant would come before. • Architectural Control and City. Council before 'the building permit was issued. The City Attorney felt this would 'be required. , Commissioner Leonard stated that working with anything sized 4 to 1 is pretty difficult. He favored denial until the applicant comes in with something more desirable. Commissioner Frolich agreed. He felt the property would be unproductive for the owners.. Commissioner Leonard felt Mr. Gross had done a fine job of design, but the problem is with the land, not the design. Mr. Kyser, representing the applicant, agreed with .the reasoning. He pointed out that the applicant is being penalized because of the fact that the lots were divided years ago. He said the applicant was open to any ideas of design or changes, but know the possibilities are limited'. The .owner of the adjoining land is not':interested in .selling., and they are not interested in rezoning. Commissioner Frolich pointed out that it isn' t a matter of penalizing the owner, but he doesn't see why the City should be penalized for someone who bought a lot with these dimensions. The City Engineer stated that he felt the people who joined the Assessment District for improving Stevens Creek should be supported. The Piepgras' are among those who joined, Commissioner Leonard felt this threw new light on the matter, but added that any owner in that area has experienced an increase in property value. . He added that anyone in real estate would know- that a 4 to 1 ratio is hard to work ,with. If the lot was bought with. this in mind and the cost extracted from the seller, then there, is no reason to extract it from the City now. . Commissioner. Small said that the thing .that concerned him is that if the lots go commercial, there will be. a bunch of small busi- nesses in a row. Mr.. Gross pointed out that if Stevens Creek Rd is developed, it almost has to be commercial or professional. He said there isn't going to be a development like Macy' s, the Emporium or that type of store, and that 'they wouldn't necessarily be any more handsome . In order that some stores be put on this, it must be commercial with offices upstairs. If you have. ten in the total community, I don't think there is a real problem. It was moved by Commissioner. Small that the second hearing be 'continued until February 11. Seconded by Commissioner Frolich. AYES: Commissioners : Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Small, Snyder NAYS: None ABSENT: None . Motion carried 7-0. • • • -6- . 1 residence. Commissioner Leonard stated that the best way to solve the problem would be to look into the 'adjoining parcels . • Mr., Steinberg stated that he and Mr. Wilk have 'a limited amount of capital. He felt that tieing in the !,triangular parcel is an unfair requirement. The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. There were none , Commissioner Leonard pointed out that there would be 120 families entering the development at the bottom of an overpass . . The Commissioner 410 also asked that Mr. Nudelman as the other owner of the triangular shaped piece of land, be contacted. The applicant and a member of the City Staff should reflect on the grade l5roblem. The problem of a two- story residence with one door, carports more than 200 ft. away from dwelling, promoting parking in areas where they were not expected, should also be considered. Mr. Steinberg reported that the design had been checked by the Fire Department, and no objections found. It was moved by Commissioner Frolich, and seconded by Commission- er Small that the first hearing be closd. AYES: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Small, Snyder NAYS: None ABSENT: None Motion carried: 7-0 It was moved by Commissioner' Small, and seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald that the property owners be notified of the next meeting and that accessibility be cleared with the City Engineer. AYES: .- Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich,', Leonard, Rampy, Small, Snyder NAYS: None ABSENT:None Motion carried 7-0 RECESS: 10: 20 RECONVENE: 10:30 H. -DUC 84 ELLIOT BUILDERS:' ' Application 74-Z-63 to rezone 17.9 acres from R-1:B-2 to R-1; approx. 700 ft. north of Stevens Creek Blvd. and G00 ft . west of Mann Drive. First hearing. 'Mr. Larry Shott, presented a 'tentative map. Farlatt & Woodbury are main access streets . There are 59lots,' .with an average of over. 10, 000 sq. ft. Homes will be $27, 000 to $30, 000. Commissioner Leonard pointed out that the subdivision would cut off access to the creek. He asked if the applicant was aware of the plan for a park along the creek. Mr. Shott replied that he was not aware .of. the plan. Mr. Duc, who was also present, said he had, no knowledge of the plan until this minute. - He said a let of the area along the creek had already been developed. ' , ` The . Chairman asked for comments from the audience. - There were 411 none. , Mr. Shott said there are no utility problems. It was moved by Commissioner Small and seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald that the first hearing be closed. I AYES: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Small, Snyder NAYS: . None ABSENT: None Motion carried 7-0 -5- • J. GEORGE AND ROSE VOSS: Application #71-Z-62 to rezone 29.7 acres from A-2:B--2 to R-1 and, n- 3-H west of Mt. .View-Stevens Creek Blvd. , adjoining west .side of Monta Vista School. Second hearing. Mr. Pat '0' Connell .and Mr. Mason, from Mason Bros. , appeared for the applicant. There is 17 acres in the hill portion (R-3-H) and 12 acres of flat (R-1) . Mr. O' Connell stated that R-3-H was suggested by the City Manager with engineer control. • Chairman Snyder asked for comments from the audience. . There . were none. It was moved by Commissioner. Frolich and seconded. by Commissioner Small that the second hearing be closed. AYES: Commissioners : Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Small, Snyder NAYS: Commissioners: None ABSENT:None Motion carried 7-0 • • It was moved by Commissioner Frolich and seconded by Commissioner Small that: 1. Whereas applicant has proposed single-family homes in an area sorely in need of re-development, and the Commission is particularly interested in encouraging R-1 developments in this area, and 2. Whereas the R-3-H portion of this property presents unique grade problems, making an econimic impossibility of most other used, and 3. Whereas the R-3-H portion is accessible from only one direc- tion and. this fact is not likely to alter in the fore- • seeable future, and 4. Whereas' the R-3-H portion offers unobstructed view for 180° or more, and due to topography of adjacent land, this view may reasonably be expected to be unaffected if and when adjacent property' is developed, and 5 . Whereas the Commission is interested in the outcome of an effort to provide view multiple of a more elegant nature .and with due regard for the amenities, on carefully selected sites which offer such wide-angle unobstructed view but which are unsuited for R-1, and 6. Whereas the Commission is cognizant of the probable necessity for variances at some stage of development in order to meet the 'objectives of this rezoning, ' Now therefore be it resolved that Application 71-2-62 rezoning 29.7 acres from A-2: B-2 to R-1 ( 12 acres) and .R-3-H ( 17 acres) be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1-12: Exhibit "B" 12 Standard Conditions • 13, That the developer and/or architect make every effort to avoid showing open carports on the east elevation of the apartment complex, 14. That every effort be, made to develop a scenic on-site road, 15 . That street and/or driveway patte ^ns and drainage be laid out subject to the City Engineer, and granting of necessary variances: AYES: Commissioners: , Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Small, Snyder NAYS: Commissioners: None ABSENT:None • Motion carried 7-0 . -7_ K. • 'HUMBT.F OIL & REFINING CO: : Application 75-Z,,-63 to"rezone .9423 of an acre to commercial use for construction of • service station SW corner Selling Rd. &. Stevens .Creek. Blvd. First hearing. - Mr. Karl. Stump, from Humble Oil: Co,. ; stated that his •company has agreed to dedi�cate. property- to the center line of, Stevens Creek Rd, • also to improve that property according to the City' s future plans. • - Mr. Stump passed around photos of Humble Oil buildings in •various. - . cities. Mr. Stump explained that his company is interested in5the business from the neighborhood near .thestation, as that is- where most motorists buy their gas, near their, homes. He pointed out that - the corner would be widened, and this would help the traffic con- •• gestion problem; also that the station would-be floodlighted at night. 110 Commissioner Small felt the corner is badly in need of opening up possibly a station is . the answer. jh - Commissioner Leonard: I think we would have a Lot of trouble showing there is any more need of gasoline stations at the 'moment. Somebody buys a lot of less than an acre, from what I, can see, what has been said to date, this would just bring another station to Cupertino. . It probably. -would be argued this is a location near the Foothill College, and might be a reasonable place for a station. It seems to me by the time of the second hearing that the applicant might marshall his arguments and present a comprehensive argument . A' station would have to be part of someth 'ng•else that would bring a lot more to Cupertino than just another gas ''station. The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. Mrs. William J. Watkins, 20924 Pepper Tree Lane, Cupertino had a few comments. - Mrs. Watkins ` stated that the site is relatively close to.. the Jr. College. It seems ridiculous to surround the college with a great deal of comm- ercial zoning. In this one block there are already four gas stations . There doesn' t seem to be that great a need. "I would think this site would be more appropriate in something-to blend with the .Jr. College rather than just another gas station. . " FF It was moved by Commissioner Small and seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald that- the first hearing be closed. AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, "Leonard, Rampy, • Small, Snyder NAYES: Commissioners: None ABSE[VT: Commissioners: None Motion. carried 7-0 . L. GEORGE YAMAOKA - AMCOE SIGN CO, :. Application 27-V-63 to erect free-standing sign to advertize a liquor store in ' -- Portal Plaza Shopping Center. • Mr. Lionel Stone from Amcoe Sign Co. , represented the applicant . He . stated the stores are over 200,i from the highway and need more advertising . space. Commissioner Frolich pointed out that Portal Plaza. is already one sign over the one allowed by the ordinance . Other developers seem to be able to live with the one sign.: . I Chairman Snyder remarked that allithe stores, along the strip would be in for another' standing sign if• this request were granted. Either the Commission should stick with the ordinance or discard- it. 411 It was moved by Commissioner Leonard and seconded by Commissioner Frolich that Application 27-V-63 be denied. AYES: Commissioners: • Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard Rampy; Small, Snyder 'NAYS: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: . None - - V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS • A. ALPHA LAND CO. : Application 21T-M. -63 for Tentative Map Approval: 4 lots on Terry Way at Rodrigues , ( Purpose: . .To Record Map - Project Already Built) . -8 1 • This item has been postponed until the variance is granted. B. Miscellaneous • Commissioner Frolich referred to the minutes of December 10, and asked if the Pflegar application had been handled by the County Planning Department since it was not in the City, or handled with the applicant as stated in the minutes, also the newspaper. The City Clerk answered that the County Planning Department had been notified of the Commission.' s recommendation. VII ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Small and seconded by Commissioner Frolich that the meeting be adjourned to Thursday night, January 31, 1963 at 8: 00 P.M. All in favor. Meeting adjourned: 12: 05 APPROVED: D: /S/ Charles K. Snyder Chairman • ATTEST: • • / • Lawrence K. Martin, City Clerk • P _9_ L