Loading...
PC 11-26-62 AL 2-'5l5 11321 SO. SARATOCA-SUN~~ALE ROAD C I T Y 0 p CUP E R TIN 0 CUPER'I'INO, CALI "ORNIA AOENDA L'OR THE RE~ULAR MEvTINr OF T:TE PLANNING COMMISSION, NOV. 26, 1962 1)321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 8: 10 P.M. Approximate Time Allocated Estimated Starting Time 01 I SALUTE TO THE "LAG 8: '1) ~.'" -' II ROLL CALL: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING November 13, 1962 8:''1 8:16 14 III COMMUNICATIONS: A. Written B. Verbal 25 IV HEARINGS SCHEDULED A. STONES ON DEV~LOPMENT CORP.' Application 68-z-62 to rezone 69 acres from R-I-A: B-2, B-1: 1='-2 and R-l to PC-H- adjoinlng north side of Stevens Creek Blvd., bounded on the west side by future Stevens rreek F'reeway_ Second Hearin~. 8:2' 2°, . V UNFINISHED BUSINESS: , ~'^-- (~-z. 8:45 9:10 A. ORDINANCE 22~ -A - Rough Draft ~. 2'j R Miscellaneous VI NEW BUSINESS' 25 A. GENERAL PLA~ PROCPAM: Discussion re: Extent of Planning Area' 0eorge Volker 9-3") 21 9'55 B. Miscellaneous VII ADJOURNMENT 10:15 10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road C I T Y 0 F CUP E R TIN 0 Cupertino, Calirornia AL 2-4505 MINVTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 26, 1962. Time: 8:00 P.M. Place: 10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. I SALUTE TO THE FLAG II ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Small. Snyder Commissioners Absent: Rampy Staff Present: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk. City Engineer MINVTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING - November 13, 1962: minutes: pa§e 5 - Motion made should read rigorous" instead prising" should be in place of 62-Z-62 instead of 62-2-62. Commissioner Frolich stated that he had some corrections to the by Commissioner Frolich, first line of "vigorous". Third line, word"com- "combining". Paragraph after No. 6 - Commissioner Snyder stated that at the bottom of Page ~ - felt that it would be a little more proper to say, rather than 're-drafting" "reviewed". The 3rd sentence under Section 10. the Master Plan, should be the "Mariani" plan. Chairman Snyder asked if there were any more corrections. Commis- sioner Fro1ich stated that on Page 3 - Foothill Jr. College (7th para- graph down) "because it is not commercial". Also second paragraph under IV-A., 6th sentence down - "Variety of uses - tower apartments included. " Moved by Commissioner Fitzgerald. seconded by Commissioner Small that the Minutes be approved as corrected. All in favor. III COMMUNICATIONS: A. Written: 1. Letter from McKay & Somps regarding the expira- tion date of tentative map. City Clerk stated that McKay & Somps were mistaken, that their tentative map did not expire until sometime in the middle of February. 1963, and they had been so notified. They had requested an extension of time. County Planning Commission Agenda - November 21, 1962. Summary of Actions - County Planning Commission - November 7th, 1962. Chairman Snyder asked if there were any verbal communications from the audience. 2. 3. Mrs. Betty Rice stepped forward and asked if she were correct in bringing to the Planning Commission's attention the matter of a traffic signal at the corner of Homestead and Bla~ey. Chairman Snyder informed her that proper procedure would be to contact the City Manager who would, in turn, bring it to the attention of the City Council. Chairman Snyder asked if there were any other communications from the audience. There were none. Commissioner Frolich noted th~'·the audience was composed of High School students and suggesteâ ~hat the Chairman asked if there was a particular reason for their being at the meeting. Chairman Snyder asked if there was a spokesman for the group. One of the students rose and explained that they were from Cupertino High School Senior History Class and had been given the assignment of either reporting on some civic matter from the newspapers or attend a meeting of local Government. The young ladies and gentlemen in the audience had elected to attend a meeting and report on it. They mentioned that 1 <. they had abbcndod ~ho O~by Cnunc~l meeting· the week before. Commissioner Frolich moved that the commurlications be received and filed. Seconded by Commissioner Adamo. All in favor. IV HEARINGS SCHEDULED: A. STONESON DEVELOPMENT CORP. Application 68-2-62 to rezone 69 acres from R-I-A;B-2, R-l:B-2 and R-l to PC-H; adjoining north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, bounded on the west side by future Stevens Creek Freeway. Second Hearing. It was noted that the applicant's representative had not yet ar- rived and suggested that it be put off until later in the meeting, and proceed to the next item. V UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. ORDINANCE 220-A - Rough Draft: The City Attorney stated that he had a Resolution prepared for the Commission to pass on to the City Council if there were no changes in the drafted ordinance before them. There was some discussion regarding which graph would accompany this Ordinance. This was clarified to the effect that the graph which indicated R-3-H units to start at 9300 net area with increments of 1400 square feet net area would be the correct graph. lwwever, that the Ordinance would take precedence over the graph, that the graph was merely a rough measure. Commissioner Frolich asked why there was no definition of a lot in this Ordinance. He felt that it should be plainly defined to avoid any questions. It was decided that the definition of a lot would appear as Section l:a, and would be as it appears in Subdivision Ordi- nance No. 47. Moved by Commissioner Frolich, seconded by Commissioner Small that Resolution No. 120 with the addition of the definition of a lot be adopted which recommended the enactment of Urgency Ordinance No. 220A. AYES: Commissioner: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Small, Snyder None Rampy NAYS: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioner: MOTION CARRIED 6-0 - 1 ABSENT. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Herman Ruth, representative for Stoneson Development arrived and the Commission went· back to that part of the Agenda, Public Hearings. Mr. Ruth stated that this being the second hearing for this appli- cation, he would be happy to answer 'any questions the Commissioners may have, in view of the fact that the entire development had been gone into in detail at the first hearing. City Attorney Anderson suggested to the Chairman that for the benefit of the High School Students in the audience, it might be well to have the applicant give a brief summary on what is proposed by this applicant. Mr. Ruth stated that he would read the Summary which appeared in the brochure and elaborate wherever it was felt nec~ssary. The application is for rezoning of the Fisher property to a planned com- munity. He went into detail as to the type of housing, town houses, apartment, some commercial, recreation area, open green. He stated that this had been before the City.for several months, but could not be acted upon due to the fact that ,the City did not have appropriate Ordinances to cover such a planned community. However, now it does, and therefore the reason for the public hearings. to see if there would be any strong objections to this type of development in Cupertino. After Mr. Ruth had read the summary. Commission if they had questions fo~ Mr. the Commission. Chairman Snyder asked the Ruth. He proceeded to ~ / c~Æ/ 2 Before~he Commission asked their quentio~s, Chairman Snyder asked the City Clerk if there were any written protests to this application. There were none. Chairman Snyder then asked if there were any comments· from the audience. There were none. Commissioner Frolich asked Mr. Ruth about the apparent discrepancy in the.amount of acreage to be developed. The Agenda gave one figure, the brochure gave another. Mr. Ruth explained that the figure shown on the agenda was undoubtedly the correct one. '.Che brochure figure being an estimate, and not including the p:\.ece of land that will be used for the freeway. It is estimated that the right-of-way will take approximately 19 acres, and the brochure figure of 51.2, plus the 19 would be closer 'to the figure shown on the agenda, 69. Commissioner Frolich stated that this did not present any great problem, since all of the development would be by use permit and therefore the City would be in a position to have the exact acreage as it develops. Chairman Snyder asked ¡VIr. Ruth aüout the maintenance on the common green area, as regards responsibility if the town houses are soldpff to individual owners. Mr. Ruth stated that this had not been definite- ly decided upon as yet by the developer. There were various W[¡ys that it could be handled. It is entirely possible that the entire develop- ment might be a rental project, in which case the maintenance would be the responsibility of the management. Another way, if the units are sold to individuals, is for the lender holding the mortgage papers and is collecting the principal, interest, taxes and insurance, to also withhold. a fee for the maintenance. This fee would go into a fund for this specific purpose. Still another way would be through a home improvement association. Or, through a community service - a city agency. Possibly an assessment district cottld be formed for this purpose. Nothing definite had been decided as yet. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked about the recreation area. Was there a possibility that this area could be sold to a private owner and that party may, in the future, since there are some 13 acres involved, de- cide to develop this land in some other way. Mr. Ruth stated that they could not predict what would happen five years from now. However, there is a possibility that the developer could dedicate this recrea- tion to the City. The City Attorney stated that in the case of the Ketell develop- ment, this was not considered because they wished to keep the recrea- tion area for the private use of the apartment dwellers. That possibly Stoneson may feel the same way. Commissioner Leonard stated that he had several questions to ask of the developer's agent, as regardè1 water, sewer.. etc.... He asked about the deep well on the north end of the 1'isher property. He wondered if the City might be able to gain control and make use of this well. The City Manager stated that Mr. Fisher had retained owner- ship of this well, and that too, it was not a very good well production- wise and he doubted if the City would be inter~sted in it. Commissioner Leonard then asked about the storm drain system. He said that the reason this property had not been developed sooner was because of the high cost of this system. Why now, does the developer choose to improve this property? Have the costs been analyzed? Mr. Ruth said that formerly this property had been considered for single,..family development. He st'lted that there had been a number of solutions decided upon, but with the freeway coming in at this point, it will have a problem of its own. He did not lmow the rela- tion between the two, he had not been assigned to do other than a layout for a planned comN~Dity. As far as the detailed engineering was concerned as regards cost analysis, he had no'" worked on this aspect of the project. Commissioner Fitzgerald s~;ated that there had been many plans drawn on this parcel of land and that he was sure that Stoneßon was well aware of the costs lilvolve6., or they would not be proposing the development. Commissioner Leonard asked about the oak grove. He noted that the developer had stated he was intending to keep these trees. Since they had been preserved by the owner, Mr. Fisher, he wondered if this 3 were actually the case, of was it just a statement made by the dev~loper. Mr. Ruth answered that he had been instructed to plan around thiª . oak grove and that it was the intent of the developer to keep thØ trees and build around them. Mr. Leonard asked if any other thought than shops had been &iv~n to the commercial area of which six acres was presently planned. ije wondered if the developer might consider a hotel, similar to the Paso Robles Inn? Mr. Ruth stated that he had not been consulted in this regard, but would suggest that possibly even a convelescent hçme would also be a good use for this property. The acreage is certainly large enough. Commissioner Adamo asked if all of the oak trees would be kept. Mr. Ruth answered yes. Commissioner Frolich asked, by granting this commercial, in view of the approval of the Town Center in recent weeks, with its own commercial, is it;possible that they could be going overboard in tþe .commercial zoning? Commissioner Leonard asked in comparing this to the Town Cente~ development and its commercial zoning - how much commercial could Mr. Ruth justify in a town the size of Cupertino? Mr. Ruth answered that a rule of thumb was two to three times commercial per development. Unless this is done, it tends to put a heavy hand on the value of land. There should be some area to move around. As far as the town center is concerned, this is meart to be .. the core of the City, where this other commercial would be·a neigqbor- ·.hood center. Commissioner Leonard asked if there had been any reactions from either Foothill College or the School Districts in regard to this application? The City Clerk stated that there had been none. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked the City Attorney if the Commipsion approved this plan, and when the applicant came in for a use permit on the commercial portion of it, could the Commission deny this or would the fact that the whole plan was approved by the Commission prevent them from refusing a use permit on this portion? Chairman Snyder asked the applicant if there was a possibility that the applicant might consider waiting for the master plan. Mr. Ruth stated that the developer wanted to get going as soon as pos$ible and that if they had wanted to wait for the master plan, they wQu¡d not have submitted it to the Commission for their approval. '. The City Attorney in answering Mr. Fitzgerald's question earlier regarding· the posslbil1tyot denying a use permit on the commerQiªl part of this application, stated that PC-H Ordinance, in Section 3:1 provides: "Application for the establishment of a "PC-H" Distr:l.ct shall include an application for a master use permit for all de~ velopments within the district, which use permit or any other uØe permit as required in Section 4 of this ordinance must be approved prior to establishment of the district. Such application for a 'use permit shall include the following: etc..." The City Attorney stated that he does not feel that the Comml~sion can or should hold out on some later date to approve a contemplat~d use, once they have decided on the uses proposed in this area. 'That it would take a material change of circumstances to justify this type of action, unless the master permit was approved subject to the commercial use. The Council has the power to upset this stipulitlon because basically, it is an application for a re-zoning. The Com~ mission has the power to grant any kind of use permit they wish, if the applicant is not satisfied, he can withdraw his application. Commissioner Frolich asked if there is a separate proceeding to grant this use permit, or does this become automatic at the same time the zoning is approved. The City Attorney answered that there will have to be a master use permit approved prior to the finalized re- zoning approval. Chairman Snyder asked how much multiple can the City stand? Mr. Ruth stated that for the first seven months of this year, all munici- 4 palities in the Santa Clara Coupty requested building permlte for over 53% of units which would be multiple housing. This year Santa Clara County is building more apartments and apartment units than single family. Mr. Ruth felt that this is a characteristic of the whole bay area. Last year 27% of all units were for multi-family construction. Of course, in future years, it may swing bäck the other way and the demand may be for more single-family residences. Commissioner Leonard further mentioned traffic signals, Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard, stating that there would certainly be problems involved and asked what consideration had been given to contributing to the traffic signals' installation, if any. Mr. Ruth stated that he felt thiS was a City responsibility and that the con- tribution would probably not be any more than any other developer. Commissioner Frolich moved this hearing be continued ÚDtil the next meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Adamo. AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Small Snyder NAYS: Commissioners: None ABSENT: CommisSioners: Rampy MOTION CARRIED: 6-0 - 1 ABSENT Chairman Snyder called a recess for ten minutes: 9145 - Meeting Reconvened at 9:55 P.M. At which time Commissioner Small excused himself from the meeting. V UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. ORDINANCE 220-A - Rough Draft - This item covered earlier in meeting. B. Miscellaneous - None VI NEW BUSINESS: A. GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM: Discussion re: Extent of Planning Area: George Volker. Mr. Volker displayed a large map. On the map Mr. Volker placed an over-lay and asked the Commission to decide upon a boundary line in which they wished the major plan to center. Mr. Volker stated that this map would be used in the future to demonstrate industrial, commer- cial and regional and sub-regional problems. After some discussion, it was decided by the Commission that Mr. Volker should set the boundaries at Fremont on the north, Lawrence Station Road on the east, and Prospect Road on the south. The western boundary was difficult to delineate, but it should include the foothills and the Permanente Cement Plant. B. Miscellaneous Commissioner Frolich stated that he had been looking at the apart- ment houses behind City Hall (Alpha Land Development) and wondered if there were a sufficient number of carports for the number of units. He did not think there were, and would like the Building Department to check into this. The subject about parking in the City was brought up and it was requested that the City Manager contact various cities and get copies of ordinances that covered the parking of privately owned trailers by homeowners in front of their homes. Moved by Commissioner Leonard, seconded by Commissioner Frolich that the meeting adjourn" VII ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 P.M. APPROVED: /S/ Charles K. Snyder Chairman ATTEST: .....'.1::'~~','':.~·, K ~!1~,.:::"~.;~1:1. 8:i ty (~} p:....~\