PC 08-14-61
10321 SO. SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD
C I T Y 0 F C U PER TIN 0
CUPERTIN~ALIFORNIA
MINUTES 0]' THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLA~~ING COMMISSION - August 14,1961
AL 2-4505
PLACE:
TIME:
10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
8: 00 P.M.
I SALUTE TO THE FLAG
II
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Present: Adamo, Frolich, Leonard,
Rampy, Snyder and Small
Commissioners Absent: Eagar
Staff Present: City Attorney, City Engineer
and City Cleric
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS: July 24 and August 2, 1961
The minutes of July 24 and August 2 were approved as submitted
after discussion of the letter of McKay and Somps relative to
Tract 2953.
III COMMUNICATIONS:
A. ìvritten:
(1) County Planning Commission: Summa,17 of actions, regular
meeting of July 21, 1961.
(2)
(3)
August 2,
County Planning Commission:
Agenda for August 2.
County Planning Commission:
1961.
Summary of actions,
City of Cupertino--County Planning COmmíssioners joint
meeting announced.
(4) County Planning Co~~ission: Agenda for August 16, in-
cluding application of Axel Nielsen continued public hearing of
July 19, on proposed amendment to change zoning district from
R-l-A:B-2 (sin~le residence) to R-24 (multiple residence
medium density), property located on the southerly side of
Permanente Road between Brado Vista and Lockwood, property of
Axel Nielsen. Deferred to close of Dymond hearing. See IV B
below.
(5) City ~funager: Letter from Planning Commission Chairman
E. J. Small concerning application of Alfred G. Plaehn for change
in ZOl1e from R-l:B-2 to "A" (greenbelt). The property is located
on the north side of McClellan Road, south of Alma Road and
Vallecito Road. Public hearing will be held on 9-20-61.
Deferred to joint meeting of Council and Planning Commission,
August 16, 1961. '
IV HEARINGS SCHEDULED:
A. Ripley Homes: Application to rezone 2 acres from R-l:B-2
to R-l; west side of Blaney between Mariani and B'orest Ave., ad-
joining Triumph No. 2 Subdivision. Second hearing. Tentative
Map: 10 lots, 7,500 sq. ft.
Mr. Podell stated that the map conforms almost identically
to the street pattern in the neighborhood plan, also that the
alignment corresponds to the street layout of the adjoining tract.
A copy of the neighborhood plan was posted. In response to a
question by the Chairman, the City R~gineer stated that the storm
drain facilities on Blaney Avenue are designed to provide capacity
for Idlewild Greens and Baywood subdivisions, nOli existing, and
for the remainder of the quadrant on the east side of Blaney. The
storm drain line on the east side of Blaney is not intended for use
by Triumph #3. The City is taking a certain amount of risk in that
a storm too severe for existing facilities could occur, on the
-1-
other hand it is possible that the storm drain faCIlities for the
area will be complete before a storm of sufficient magnitude to
fill present lines does occur.
The Chairman reviewed the situation and added that it is also
true that the additional storm drain facilities will be built by
money paid by subdiTIsions such as in the present case. Therefore,
if the subdivisions are denie~ the fees with which to build the
facilities are turned away. The City Engineer agreed that this is
the correct estimate of the situation.
No protests to the application were made.
The City Engineer estimated that the quadrant east of Blaney
is about 30% developed.
Commissioner Snyder said that he does not see how the Planning
Commission could deny this particular project on the basis of an
anticipated problem. There has been no objection to the zoning
nor the tentative map.
Commissioner Frolich agreed that a calculated risk should be
taken.
Commissioner Adamo sald that the subdivision to the north is
another question inasmuch as it will be before the Planning
Commission in the future. He agreed. however, that the present
application does not deserve serious objection.
Commissioner Rampy observed that there are only 10 lots in the
application.
Commissioner Leonard said that the storm drain question
warrants conditional approval.
Commissioner Leonard offered the following motion for considera-
tion on the zoning and map:
WliEREAS, there are no known objections to extension of the
R-l use if handled on a normal basis; and
WHEREAS, existing storra drain lines were designed for the
ezclusive use of development east of Blaney; and this unit
is west of Blaney; it would therefore be "borrowing" capacity
if allowed to connect.
NOH, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commlssion recommend
approval of the application and tentative map subject to these
conditions:
(1-12)
(13)
Exhibit B.
Filing an agreement with the City acceptable to
the City Attorney on legal matters, the City
Engineer on engineering, and the Council on
principle providing for taking this load off
the easterly system by the time their run-off needs
require 100% of the system on a basis of ordinary
risk calculations by engineers.
The applicant contended that such an agreement would be diffi-
cult on 10 lots.
The City
drainage must
subdivisions,
Engineer explained that the 10 lots with their Rtorm
be integrated with the Triumph #1 and '1'riumph #2
not considered on its own.
The applicant stated that he is up to his limit on expenditures,
that the price of the land prevents him from sinking further fUnds
into the subdivision.
The City Engineer said he could see no reason why the 10 lots
could not be integrated with the 70 lots in Triumph 112.
Commissioner Leonard maintained that an oversight on the 70
lot subdi vi sion is not a good reason for perpetuating the error on
-2-
10 more lots. He said it would be just as well to have the
applicant to drop the option if he cannot gUarantee proper storm
drainage.
The City Engineer reiterated that he does not think the 10
lots will make a radical change in the Ripley Homes subdivisions
with particular reference to the storm drain facilities. He pointed
out that the ordinance in effect gives the City the right to re-
quire an emergency run-off system. Such requirements as the City
will impose will probably not be affected in any substantial way
by the 10 lots presently before the Commission. He said he thought
the additional two acres could be dove-tailed into the improvement
plans for the other two subdivisions.
Moved by Commissioner Adamo that the second hearing be closed.
Seconded by Commissioner Snyder.
AYES:
Commissioners:
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Snyder and Small
None
Eagar
6-0
Commissioner Leonard made the formal motion as offered above.
(See Page 2). Seconded by Commissioner Snyder.
AYES:
Commissioners:
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Snyder and Small
None
Eagar
6-0
B. Jack Dymond, Jr.: Application to rezone 9.5 acres from
A-2:B-2 to R-2; west side of Hountain View-Stevens Creek Road,
south side of Monta Vista School, north of Alcalde. Revised
application. Tentative Map - 41 lots.
The Chairman asked the City Clerk to review the history of
the application and the present status.
Dymond filed the applìcation on February 27, 1961. The
Planning Commission held a first hearing on March 13. It was
on each subsequent Planning Commission agenda until May 16, on
which date a letter was received from the applicant's representa-
tive aslcìng that the tentative map and rezoning be held in abey-
ance until further notice due to the fact that a private school
was then negotiating for purchase of 21 out of the 31 acres in
the application. The Plannip~ Commission moved to grant the
request and the Mountain Vie\! Union Academy subsequently purchased
the aforementioned 21 acres and received a use permit from the
Planning Commission. On July 28, 1961. Dymond submitted a revised
application involving the balance of the original 31 acres, total-
ing 9~ acres. The application has been republished in the
Cupertino Courier for hearing August 14, and the standard notices
posted in three places on or near the property.
In response to a question the ,City Attorney advised that the
new publication cost should be borne by the applicant. He also
said that the hearing notices and procedure appear to be in order.
Moved by Commissioner Snyder that the Planning Commission
count the present hearing as a first hearing. Seconded by
Commissioner Leonal~.
AYES:
Commissioners:
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Snyder and Small
iJone
Eag'3.r
6-0
The City Attorney further advised that hearings be counted as
first hearings on amended applications when in the judgment of the
Ci ty Clerk and/or the Planning Commission the revision or amend-
ment constitutes a substantial change.
-3-
Gene r~ston briefly reviewed the application, posting a
copy of the initial exhibit for comparison with the current appli-
cation. All of the proposed R-3 has been eliminated and roughly
one-third of the proposed R-2.
The recommendation of the City Engineer dated August 14, \'ras
read saying that there are no objections from an engineering stand-
point and further that (he) "would like to call the Commission's
attention to the access provided to the property located to the
west of subject tract. You may wish to make further study of its
desirability from the City standpoint."
Mrs. Anthony Voss took the floor and explained that her
property adjoins the subject application and that she is interested
from that standpoint; she wanted the fact understood that she was
not protesting the application per say. The prevailing wind is
from the north and she therefore requested a substantial 6-foot
fence to lŒep papers, trash and any blowing material from accumulat-
ing on her property. She also made a point of the fact that she and
her relatives have lived on the property for many years and they
have no intention or desire of changing their ways with the advent
of an adjoining subdivision. She referred to the fact that they
had a feN head of cattle uhich she keeps on the property and the
fact that they occasionally bellow. She said she wanted no objec-
tions from the future neighbors on the grounds that some phase of
her ranching disturbs them.
She also referred to the quarry operations alongside the
Stevens Creek Dam and emphasized that Mountain Vieu-Stevens Creek
Road is to a great extent a truck route. She said he intends to
put up signs marking it as a truck route. She does not expect
objections from the future neighbors to the quar~r operations
meaning the trucking.
Discussion developed about the street pattern and IiJ',ether it
is good for the abutting properties. Commissioner Leonard asked
whether the street pattern is designed properly should the A. Voss
property become a multiple dwelling district. He also referred to
the adjoining schools, one public and one pri1~te and considered
the street pattern with respect to access thereto.
The City Engineer suggested that one or tvro of the cul-de-sacs
shol'm on the tentative map be omitted and provision made for contin-
uing the street into the Voss property.
11rs. Voss agreed that this will be good and that their own
property could then be served by one or two of these extended
streets.
Commissioner P~mpy asked about sewer capacity. The City
Engineer answered that the selœrs at that location are designed for
7 people per acre. The storm drainage is O.K. he said.
Commissioner Adamo aS~Œd about the road width adjoining
the lands of George and Rose Voss. The tentative map shows a 30'
road uith the remainder of the 60' necessary, i.e., 30' on the
property of George and Rose Voss. City policy requires a 40'
half street unless the tHO halves develop simultaneously, in
which case 30' on each property is satisfacto~J.
The City Engineer agreed that the developer Hould have to
put in the LW' half street Hhich would require hit:! to acquire 10
more feet of property. Discussion then al'ose as to whether the
private school wants a stub street between lots 35 and 36. It
lTaS decided to give further consideration to the street pattern
between meetings. so that agreement could be reached at the second
hearing.
Commissioner Snyder aslæd the applicant to present site plans
and elevations at the next hearing and Commissioner Adamo asked
the applicant to justify duplexes in the area.
Mr. Maston said that this question has already been explored
but he w:Lll be prepared to dj,scuss it further at the next meetinG
and he l-nll submit site plans and elevations. He l~sted a duplex
_L¡,.
project at Iromoctead F¡oad and Fallen Leaf Lane as an example of
the proposed constructiOl. 'I'his other project is apparently under
construction and can presently be seen in all stages. It is
located across the street from Chuck Thompson's Swim School.
Mrs. Voss agreed that the duplexes would be satisfactory since
there is already much renting in the area.
Commissioner Leonard aslced the applicant to explain why
multiples would be good for the location, giving reasons which
would not qualify most of the other aC!'eage in the City of
Cupertino.
Moved by Commissioner Adamo that the first hearing be closed.
Seconded by Commissioner Rampy.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Snyder and Small
None
Bagar
6-0
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
Louis Segal asked the Commission to keep in mind when looking
at the duplexes that they are new buildings, not structures which
are 5 years old.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Axel E. Nielsen:
The City Attorney read the R-24 regulations for the county.
The basic requirement is 8,400 feet for 2 units plus 2,400 feet for
each additional unit.
Commissioner located the area on the map and described it as
a run-down neighborhood.
Conwissioner Leonard moved that the County Planning Depart-
ment be sent a letter suggesting that the Nielsen application for
R-24 be tabled or denied until such time as a comprehensive plan
for multiple dwellings can be devised, including such facilities
as water supply and sewer lines, stating further that the City
of Cupertino is in the process of hiring a Planning Consultant
who will, in due course, submit a master or general plan to the
City Council; tl,erefore, the Cupertino Planning Commission deems
it inadvisable at this time to grant the Nielsen application
until further study has been made. Seconded by Commissioner
Rampy.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Snyder and Small
None
Bagar
6-0
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSEl1T: Commissioners:
MOTION' CARRIED:
C. Prank l~aral: Application to rezone 175' x 108' from C-I-H
to l~-l-H; south side of Stevens Creek Blvd., 611' Hest of Blaney.
First Hearing.
Jane Brooks represented the applicant stating that Pierson
is the eventual buyer and user; he presently operates Cupertino
Plumbing Company located south of Bollinger Road on Highway 9.
He will move into the Stevens Creek Boulevard location if possible.
Commissioner Leonard said that similar operations (naming two)
are on the unsightly side.
ConIDÜssioner Snyder referred to Ordinance 002(h) which requires
one acre for M-l-PH zoning. The City Attorney responded that
Ordinance 002(h) is designed for industrial paries and does not
rescind existing M-I-H zoning regulations adopted from the County
ordinance \/hich places no such size restrictions on M-l-H districts.
Louis Segal asked the Commission the purpose of Ordinance
002(h), elaborating to the effect that he considers it an addition
to the present zoning and that the present application j,s not in
-5-
conflict with Ordinance 002(h). He also noted that developers
have been forced to change their plans, therefore, he suggested
a time element, perhaps 6 months, at the expiration of which the
City would revert the zoning to the original if' the contemplated
development does not materialize.
No other statements Nere made from the floor.
Commissioner Frolich aslced whether the propel'ty could be sold
and used for another M-I-H use. The anSI.¡er is in the affirmative.
Commissioner Rampy said that the proposed application would
make a small parcel of C-I-H in the front, possibly too small to
develop anything good.
The zoning ordinance Nas consulted to verify the fact that
a plumbing materials yard required M-l-H.
Commissioner Leonard agreed that M-l-H is the proper zoning
for the use intended, but he questioned the appropriateness of the
loca tion, 1. e., should r·1-l-H be spotted along Stevens Creek Boule-
vard.
He proposed that the applicant, through the City Building
Department, investigate use of the existing house for commercial
purposes on the basis that the building code imposes regulations
for co~aercial buildings which differ from the regulations for
residential.
In response to a question, the City Attorney advised that
rescinding a zoning ordinance can be dubious if a¡1Y improvements
have been put on the property. How8ver, it is well within the
power of the City Council, he said, to revert zoning to its
original status if no improvements have been put on the property.
He further advised that the Planning Commission Ca¡1 amend an
application with the consent of the applicant.
Commissioner Leonard aga~n indicated that the proposed loca-
tion may not be the proper place for a plumbing materials yard
requiring M-l-H zoning.
Moved by Commissioner Adamo that the first hearing be closed.
Seconded by Commissioner Leonard.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, F'rolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Small and Snyder
NOne
Eagar
6-0
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
D. Joseph F. Brown: Application to rezone property from R-3-H
& R-l:B-2 to M-I-H & R-3-H; approximately 81 acres on the west
side of Highway 9, 1,819 feet north of Stevens Creek Blvd. Re-
hearing.
The Chairman asked the City Clerk to review the status of the
Brown application.
The application was filed February 27, 1961, and was published
March 2, for a March 13 hearing before the Planning Commission. On
March 27, 1961, a second hearing was held and Resolution No. 47 was
adopted recommending the proposed rezoning. On April 6, notice was
published in the Cupertino Courier for hearing Aprj,l 17 before
the City Council. At that time, the Council tabled the application.
Dr. Brown \'¡rote to the City Council on July 18, 1961, asking for
a rehearing and the City Council referr3d thA application to the
Planning Commission agenda for the current hearing.
With reference to some former objections, Commissioner
Leonard stated that he could not take the argument of "spot" zoning
seriously, referring to other instances in which "spot" zoning
was granted.
John McGowan, 10401 N. Highway 9, asked the Commission why
M-l zoning should cover 4 acres. He explained that he is the
--0
owner of a lot 90' x 180' abutting Highway 9 on the north side of
the Brown property which extends behind his own lot so that the
proposed application would put M-l-H zoning on two sides of his
property. He said he objected because of the fact that the M-l-H
would adjoin his property on the two sides and requested that the
light industrial zone be confined to the actual animal hospital.
The Chairman observed that apartments on the R-3-H to the
rear would be difficult to rent alongside dog runs and kennels.
Mr. McGowan said he does not object to the depth of the
M-l-H zone which is 496' from east to west, but he does object to
the proposed M-l-H extending to the north behind (to the west) his
lot.
Dr. Brown stated that he will need a street situated on the
north side of his property and this will provide some sort of
separation from the McGowan property. Aside from the animal
hospital proper, only 98' of frontage remains on Highway 9; the
eventual street will have to run through this 93'.
Mr. McGowan asked why it should be zoned industrial if the
majority of this new frontage will have to be used for a street.
Commissioner Snyder said he still thinks that a use permit
would be the right answer and be good protection for the applicant
as well as the public. He feels that it can be written in such a
way that 2t protects the ovmer, especially since many other cities
employ use permits in such instances.
The City Attorney said that a use permit wouldn't solve the
problem and would not protect property values. He said that the
theory and purpose of a use permit indicates that it should be
used sparingly. He pointed out that several adjoining uses are
also M-l-H.
Mr. McGowan proposed that the north side of the Brown property
be rezoned to C-2.
Cownissioner Leonard countered that a lot 90' x 180' such as
McGowan's possibly should not be allowed to continue as a mixed
commerc2al and residential use.
Dr. Brown stated tl~t the proposed application will not change
the present use of the property, to wit, an aninml hospital, which
he described as the best and most valuable use of the land.
The Chairman asked for a review of the vote in Planning
Commission Resolution 47.
Commissioner Leonard summarized by saying that the animal
hospital will probably continue for an indefinite length of time
at this location, secondly that it is an existing use and was an
existing use at the time it was zoned R-3-H by the County; third,
that the location is a reasonable place for an animal hospital
and there is probably no better location in the City; fourth,
that the owner will dedicate and "go ahead with the rest of it";
fifth, that John McGowan is not in the proper district for a single
family residence; sixth, that the proposed M-l-H is passively
well away from the main commercial district and the residential
district is not squarely in the heart of town; lastly the zoning
ordinance is not a precise fit for M-l-H related to the animal
hospi tal.
Commissioner Frolich asked whether the architectural and site
control applies to the dog runs. The City Attorney answered that
the "H" factor applies to the erection of a building only.
Commissioner Snyder aslced how much of the L~ acres will be
used for the dog hospital. The answer indicated that plenty of
room is wanted for expansion.
Moved by Commissioner Small that the Planning Commission
reaffirm the motion as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution
-7-
No. 47. Seconded by Co~~ssioner Frolich.
AYES: Commissioners:
NAYS: COmmissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAINED: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
Frolich, Leonard, Rampy and Small
None
Bagar
Adamo and Snyder
4-0
V UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Ordinance 002(h): Amending Ordinance No. 002 which ordinance
incorporates Ordinance NS 1200 of the County of Santa Clara by
repealing "Professional Office District" classification and adding
the classification "Professional Administrative Zoning" (PO-H)
and further by adding the classification "Light Industrial Park
Zoning" (Ml-PH). Continued.
Cow~ssioner Leonard suggested that the ordinance be submitted
to about five reputable firms in the light industrial business for
their opinions on its workability, effectiveness, etc. In this way
the City could get the reaction of desirable industries to the
ordinance. The Planning Commission itself, the public, and the
staff have expressed opinions on the ordinance and it might be help-
ful at this time to get the views of companies ~n1ich could be
effected by such an ordinance.
Robert Michaelson asked what happened to the recommendations
of Dr. Fitch. He was advised that these recommendations are part
of the record, specifically outlined in toto in the pertinent
minutes.
Louis Segal proposed that the application of
be limited to plots or sites of 25 acres or more.
he does not think it is intended to affect single
requiring a couple of acres or so.
Ordinance 002(11)
He said that
industries
COmmissioner Leonard said that he has heard industrial people
say that an industrial park of less than 100 acres is a waste of
time.
Commissioner Snyder said he would start a list of prominent
and reputable firms in the light industrial category, with the
help of COmmissioner Frolich, from which several could be picked for
contact with regard to Ordinance 002(h).
Moved by COmmissioner Leonard that the hearing be continued.
Seconded by Conmdssioner Snyder.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Snyder and Small
None
Eagar
6-0
NA YS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
B. Ordinance 89: Sign Ordinance. (Particular reference to
sign size).
The Chairman formed a sub-committee to study the sign ordinance,
composed of Commissioner Leonard, Chairman, and Commissioners
Small and Adamo.
C. rüscellaneous:
None
VI NEW BUSINESS:
A. Miscellaneous
( 1)
Planning
Planning
Commissioner Adamo asked the subject of the City-County
Department meeting which was listed in the last County
COmmission agenda.
The City Clerk answered that it is probably a general meeting
to discuss county applications in the Cupertino--Monta Vista
·,8·,