Loading...
PC 07-10-61 P. O. BOX 591 AL 2-4505 C I T YO F CUPERTINO CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR mETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION--July 10, 1961 Place: Time I 10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 8:00 P.M. I SALUTE TO THE FLAG II ROLL CALL: Commissioners Presentl Adamo, Bagar, Fitch. Leonard and Small Commissioners Absent: Rampy and Snyder Staff Present: City Manager. City Engineer, City AttOrney. and City Clerlé MINUTES OF THE Pæ\TIOUS MEETING - June 26, 1961. The minutes of June 26, 1961, were approved with the following correction: Page 2, paragraph 9. insert the word "plan" after the word i·site". III COMMUNICATIONS: A. Written: (1) Santa Clara County Planning Department: June 1961 (No. 27) issue of "INFO", containing statistics on population by various classification, developments, activities, etc. (2) Sunset Magazine: Draft of a report for the September issue of Sunset Magazine about tree planting and tree saving done by groups of citizens in western communities. The first draft written for Cupertino is enclosed. The magazine asks for further details from the City. The Chairman asked that the Sunset Maga- zine draft be corrected. (3) County Planning Commission: Agenda for July 5, 1961. (4) County Planning CommJ.ssion: Summary of actions, regular meeting of June 21, 1961. (5) Tri-County Council: Notice of meeting July 14, 1961 at Adobe Creek Lodge. B. VerÌJal: None. IV HEARINGS SCHEDULED: A. Louis Stocklmeir: Application to rezone from R-l:B-2 to R-3-H, C-l-H and R-l, property situated along Stevens Creek Road near Scenic Boulevard and Crescent Road. Second hearing. The Chairman announced that most members of the Planning Commission journeyed to the site for an inspection and took acoeount of the noise. traffic. location and slope of the property. He asked the Commissioners for comments on the application. Commissioner Leonard said that the best aspect of the site is its commanding view of the valley floor. With relation to installation of improvements. he said it is unlilcely ever to have much foot traffic due to the terrain and its position ad- jacent to a truck traffic road. He reviewed the physical status of the property, the outstanding feature of which is the severe grade. In considering eventual use of the property from the commercial standpoint, he mentioned that ground floors seem in such locations to be devoted to parking with the office space located abo~e. He said that authors, architects or researchers in technological fields might Choose such a location. but he could not envision it as a site for merchandising or service stations. -1- The applicant said there are approximately 3 acres in the R-3-H proposal, about 9,000 square feet in the C-l-H proposal, and about 6 acres in the R-l application. The Chairman asked the City Engineer to give the status of sewer and storm drain facilities at the Stocklmeir location. The City Engineer stated that sewers will be available at the subject location in the future although the trunk line has not reached this particular point as yet. He said he could see no real problem from the standpoint of sanitary se\'1ers. and the trunk line will probably reach the property before any develop- ment would in its normal course occur. Commissioner Adamo asked whether any ordinance prevents parking under buildings. No one identified such an ordinance and Commissioner Leonard added that while he is not generally in favor of variances to ordinances, he does feel that they have a purpose and that this s~te would probably constitute good grounds for such a variance. Moved by Commissioner Leonard that: WHEREAS, the terrain in this vicinity has governed the road pattern thereby making effective use of several parcels fairly difficult; and WHEREAS, this area has developed over many years a mixed character involving many uses. some of which are commercial; and WHEREAS, Stevens Creek Boulevard generates considerable traffic noise, because of grade, elimination of which seems u¡llilcelYj and WHEREAS, this property came into the City by annexation handled by the Council, and it appears that they raised no particular objections to the eventual use envisioned by the applicant; and WHEREAS. several members of this Commission have inspected subject property with the thought in mind of exploring all uses which might be successful and harmoItl-ous in the COIlJllUn- ity giving due regard to: a Small size, b Triangular shape, c Difficulty of ,developing safe access. d COmmanding view of valley floor e Noise level. f Existing R-l dwelling on the parcel. g Road pattern ~~thin a considerable radius. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend this rezoning to C-h,a. subject to these conditions: (1-12) 3ee Schedule B. (13) That no permits be issued until the single-family dwelling is removed, or suitably bonded. (14) That nO pel'll:!.ts be issued vntU floo!' plans aJtd elevations are subm1 tted yO the H Control CoImIIi ttee, and approved by them. This Commission believes the ~lans should provide clearly for: {a) Off-street parking on one or more levels below the 8tructure. (bc) Better than a.verage sound proofing, () Entry from the secondary street by one or more adeq,tate entry-ways, (d) Better than average development of the view potential for the business areas. (15) That no permits be issued until applicant has given reasonable detail on uses consistent with the plans. This Commission believes these uses should: (a) Require little or no fOQt. traffic, (b) (Require) Lower than average density of auto traffic. -2- Commissioner Fitch asked if the details of a nrot1on are binding. The City Attorney indicated by reference to the maker of the motion, that the provisions of the motion are more in the nature of reasons for the recommendation than fixed conditions of the rezoning which in the last analysis can be accomplished only by the City Council by such clauses as they elect to insert into the rezoning ordinance. ' Commissioner Fitch said that possibly the only way to safe- guard the community is to zone subject to certain characteristics. Comr,ùss10ner Leonard said that the property was annexed almost two years ago and he believes an owner is entitled to some guidance and direction in the use of Þis property. Furthermore, that he cannot be expected to hold the property idle indef1ni tely. The City Attorney said he considers reasons proper. ~uch as those outlined in Commissioner Leonard's motion. The applicant stated that no strings had been attached to the uses of the property at the time of annexation. Commissioner LeonardIs motion was seconded by Commissioner Adamo. AYES: Commissioners: NAYS: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: MOTION CARRIED: Adamo, Leonard and Small Eagar and Fitch Rampy and Snyder 3-2 . The motion carried 3-2. but the Planning Commission Ordinance requires 4 affirmative votes to recommend a rezoning. The Chairman marked the C-l-H portion of the Stocklmeir application for the next agenda, July 24, 1961. Moved by Commissioner Leonard that: WHEREAS, the terrain in this vicinity has governed the road pattern thereby rnajçlng effective use of several parcels fairly difficult; and WHEREAS, this area has developed over many years a mixed character involving many uses, some of which are commercial; and WHEREAS, Stevens Creelc Boulevard generates considerable traffic noiae because of grade. elimination of which seems unlikely; and WHEREAS, this property came into the City by annexation handled by the Council, and it appears that they raised no particular objections to the eventual uses envisioned by the applicant; and WHEREAS, several members of this Commission have inspected subject property with the thought in mind of exploring all uses which might be successful and harmonious in the community giving due regard to: a Size and shape of the two separate parcelsþ b Difficulty of developing safe accessþ c Commanding view of valley floor. d Existing R-l dwelline;>nearby and perhaps belowþ e Road pattern within a considerable radius. and f Considerable percentage of subject property un- usable for dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the rolling terrain on the bluff can probably be graded in steps to provide a rambling complex of dwelling units heavily buffered from street noise, carefully oriented toward the view, and attractively landscaped along the tluff; -3- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE!) that the Planning COmmission recommend rezoning to R-3-H on these conditions: See Schedule B. Floor plans and elevations be submitted to the H Control Committee and approved before any permits are issued. This Commission believes these considerations should be important: (a) Safe access by residents and guests. A single entry to each parcel may be in order. Parking at rear is likely. (b) Careful development of the view potential. (c) Some screening off of existing R-l homes to assure reasonable privacy for all parties, Density (families per acre) to be not over an average of 15 per acre even though the application of the ordinance might allow more. Seconded by Commissioner Small (1-12) (13) (14 ) AYES: Commissioners: NAYS: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: MOTION CARRIED: Adamo, Fitch. Leonard and Small Eagar Rampy and Snyder 4-l Moved by Commissioner Fitch that: WHEREAS. the Commission has investigated the site and considered those various problems associated with the application as enumerated in the preceding motions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that approval of that portion of the Louis Stocklmeir application for R-l be recommended, subject to Exhibit B of the City. Seconded by Commissioner Leonard. AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Eagar, Fitch, Leonard and Small None Rampy and Snyder 5-0 NAYS: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: MOTION CARRmD: B. City Title Insurance Co.: Application to rezone 7.6 acres from R-l to R-3-H; 400' west of Miller on Calabazas Creek, 745' south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Tentative Map in addition. First hearing, The Chairman read the recommendation of the City Engineer which states that there are no objections to the street pattern on the tentative map. The recommendation noted that the Commission may wish to consider the n~cessity of revoking the approval granted September 19, 1960, of a tentative map for this same piece of property. R. Simoni spoke r6r the applicant. He explained that City Title Insurance Company has title ~ the land, formerly held by Benson. They seek to rezone on the g!'bunds that R-3-H is the highest and best use of the land. It is î3ituated near property already zoned R-3-H for the Rousseau Organization. on the opposite side of the creek. The City Attorney stated that the applicant should request withdrawal of the formerly approved tentative map of the property in order that the Planning Commission may proceed with the present application. R. 3:imoniytíê'ri verbally requested that the tentative map approved September 19. 1960, known as Tract 2814, and submitted by Benson Construction Company be withdrawn. -4- Moved by Commissioner Leonard that the request of the applicant be honored. Seconded by Commissioner Adamo. AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Bagar. Fitch. Leonard and Small NAYS: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Rampy and Snyder MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 The map of Tract 2874 will be marked null and void. Charles Coggins stated that the builder has constructed View- crest in Los Altos, and he also ,gave the locations of two or three other projects completed by the builder interested in this property. He said that the houses will be first rate residential dwellings. In response to questions. he gave analyses of some apartments located in the Cupertino vicinity. The Chairman read off a check list which he uses for multiple dwelling criteria, including questions relating to the demand for apartments, percentage of vacancies, etc. Mr. Coggins identified the builders-to-Þe as Frank Dato and Fred Clark. Robert Michaelson. speaking when the Chairman asked for views from the audience, stated that he would like to see the City Planner go to work and plan the City, mapping out districts for multiple housing before granting any additional R-3-H. He proposed tha~ 'che City await the recommendation of the new City'Planner. both as to location and need. before proceeding further on this subject. Moved by Commissioner Leonard that the first hearing be closed. Seconded by Commissioner Fitch. AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Eagar, Fitch. Leonard and Small None Rampy and Snyder 5-0 NAYS: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: MOTION CARRIED: V UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Herbert Ketell: Tentative MaP. 10 acres zoned R-3-H; Northwest corner of Highway 9 and Stevens Creek Boulevard. See minutes of July 7. 1961. (Planning Commission action talŒn at that time.) B. 11iscellaneous: (l) Ordinance No. 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 Parlt Zoning" (Ml-PH). It was decided not to read Ordinance 002(h) in its entirety as has already been done at the meeting of July 7, 1961. Commis- sioner Fitch ~roposed the following changes and additions to Ordinance 002{h): Sec. 2:2:(d) - Add: "Where a lot in a PO-H District fronts, sides. or rears upon property in an "R" District, or fronts, sides or rears upon a street, the opposite side of which is in an "R" District, there shall be a yard at least lOO feet deep. "The 50 feet of any such yard nearest the lot lines shall be used and maintained only as a landscaped planting or screening strip -- except for accessways -- on which shall be placed hedges, evergreens. shrubbery, or other suitable planting or screening materials. The remainder of such yard space may be used only for off-street parking, or else the remaining yard space shall be maintained as a landscaped planting strip in the same manner as the first SO feet." -S- Sec. 2:2:(e) - Delet.e "Three stor1ee but" and substitute "bu:!.ld:tng". Ineert "reception only" af'ter "aerial" Sec. 2:5: - Insert after "chain fence". "except where property abuts an ¡'R" district in which case fence must be masonry according to City Planning Commission Resolution #26. Sec. 2:6: - Add "with the additional restrictions that: All signs shall be affixed flat against the wall of a building, and no sign shall project more than eighteen inches from the face of such wall. The subject matter of any sign shall not include anything other than the name and address of the establ1shment, the name of the operator or proprietor of the establ1shment and a description of the products produced or processed on the premises. ¡; Add "Sec. 2:8 Special Conditions. a. All uses and operations, except off-street parking, loading, and outdoor recreation areas, shall be con- ducted within a completely enclosed building. b. All storage areas shall be within a completely en- closed building. c., Industrial uses shall use only gas or electricity as a fuel; provided, however, that oil-burning equip- ment may be installed for stand-by emergency use. d. All yards shall be maintained as landscaped strips except tor accessways." Add. "Sec. 2:9 Utilities Sec. 4:l(b) - Insert "bright lights" after "odors" Sec. 4:1 - Add (c) (Making a misdemeanor, violation of uses permi tted) . Sec. 4:2(e) - Delete "Two (2) stories but" and substitute "buildings" . Sec. 4:3 - Substitute Section 2:3 for the entire section. Sec. 4:5 - Insert after "chain fence" "except where property abuts an "R" District in which case fence must be masonry according to City Planning Commission Resolution #26." Sec. 1~:6 - Add "with the additional restrictions that: All signs shall be affixed flat against the wall of a building, and no sign shall project more than eighteen inches from the face of such wall. The subject matter of any sign shall not include anything other than the name and address of the establishment, the name of the operator or proprietor of the establishment and a description of the products produced or processed on the premises." Add "Sec. 4:8 Special Conditions a. All uses and operations, except off-street parking, loading and outdoor recreation areas, shall be con- ducted within a co~pletely enclosed building. b. All storage areas shall be within a completely enclosed building. c. Industrial uses shall use only gas or electricity as a fuel; provided, however, that oil-burning equipment may be installed for stand-by emergency use. -6- d. All yards shall be maintained as landscaped strips except for accesswl>yÞ." Add "Sec. 4:9 Utilities" Sec. 5. - Add Title 'Constitutionality clause". Sec. 4:2(d) - Substitute for first and second "20 feet" 50 feet; 30 feet (To conform to PO-H). The City Attorney advised that provisions relating to signs should be in the sign ordinance. Placing sign regulations in another ordinance such as 002(h) tends to obscure the regulations by maldng them difficult to find. He explained further that people seelcing sign permits should be able to find all of the regulations in the sign ordinance rather than be required to locate them in other ordinances. The same reasoning applies to the administrative phases. He also advised that utility requirements whether underground or not would be better placed in Ordinanoe 47. the subdivision ordinance than in the zoning or land use ordinance such as 002(h). Commissioner Fitch proposed that the parking requirements be made more severe in order to meet further needs. Commissioner Leonard favored a statement in the ordinanoe to the effeot that parking facilities be sufficient to meet the needs of the partioular site, office or industry and, furthermore, be not less than some specific figure or ratio. Discussion followed concerning the propÞ.r method õf.dealing _ Wi th future parking needs, including the possibility of requiring too much parking space, thus penalizing the owners and employees using valuable lands within the City. Bill Utterbaok referred to speculative industrial building and said that the Planning Commission should consider this factor. Some buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area have been constructed as speculative ventures with no effective thought given to their eventual use, resulting in vacant buildings in some cases. and in other cases. to non-utilitarian buildings unsuited to any specialized use. As an example of poor parking facilities, he cited a building in a neighboring City comprising 17,500 square feet of floor space with 200 employees, thus malting the eXisting parking facilities completely inadequate. Commissioner Leonard agreed that sufficient parking is certainly very important but deliberated on the proper formula observing further that designating too much parking would be waste- ful to the whole community. Mr. Utterbach said that some government buildings need antennas which are more than the 35 feet provided in the ordinance. The ordinance provides that aerials are not counted in the 35 foot height. limit, but approval for such appurtenances must be secured from the City. He also said that some security regulations re- quire bright lights, referring to the addition proposed by Commissioner Fitch. Commissioner Leonard said a simple ordinance ~lOul be his preference rather than one which attempts to anticipate the con- tinuing technological advances. He proposed to mal~e such changes by a statement of intent reflecting the spirit of the law rather than the letter. Mr. Michaelson responded that the City np.eds more than a statement of intent; furthermore, he agrees with Commissioner Fitch that parking requirements should be not only specific but restrictive. He asked for an ordinance which provided strong buffering and strong restrictive clauses. Gary Stokes referred to loading operations and said that the Planning Commission could give this consideration so as to protect neighboring residences from annoyances of this nature. -7- Mr. Michaelson suggested a time limit on loading operations preventing this activity during night-time hours. John Gates, Westacres Drive, said the question of speculation in the field of industrial building is an important one. Further, that the beauty of Stanford Industrial Park consists largely in the utilitarian and highly specialized nature of the buildings, which he said can be readily identified with the industry itself and its trade name. He contrasted the Stanford development with a warehouse type building which he said would be built for specula- tive purposes and which he characterized as disagreeable and not an advantage to the community. The City Attorney stated the City must watch Government Codes carefully to determine allowable limits to which a City can go in exercising control over private property. Moved by Commissioner Fitch that the hearing on Ordinance 002(h) be continued to July 24. 1961. Seconded by Commissioner Eagar. AYES: Commissioners: Adamo. Bagar, Fitch, Leonard and Small None Rampy and Snyder 5-0 NAYS: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: MOTION CARRIED: The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 PM APPROVED: /s/ E. J. Small Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: /s/ Lawrence K. Martin Ci ty ClerIc -8-