Loading...
PC 07-07-61 P. O. BOX 591 AL 2-4505 C I T Y 0 Feu PER TIN 0 CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUly 7. 1961. Place: Time: 10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 8:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Commissioners Absent: Adamo. Fitch. Leonard, Snyder and Small Hagar and Rampy City Manager. City Engineer and City Clerk Commissioners Present: Staff Present: I 1961-62 Budget: The City Manager outlined the budget, page by page. Commissioner Leonard questioned the distribution of expenses asking the basis for the amount budgeted to the Planning Commission. The commission agreed that the cost of the City Planner should be charged to the Planning Commission. The fact that $3,000.00 was allocated to the City Council to $26,500.00 for the Planning Commission was also questioned. After consideration of tÞis point Commissioner Leonard referred to the annual conference of the League of California Cities and noted that he has seen reference to the fact that 10 reservations have been made for the City of Cupertino. He requested that 2 or more of these reservations be given to the Planning Commissioners. Further discussion concerned the street lighting bUdget and the fact that former street lighting district has been dissolved, effective July 1, 1961. and the energy charges for the street lights throughout the City will be paid by the general fund. The City Manager has estimated that 6¢ of the tax rate will be re- quired to pay the monthly street lighting charges. Commissioners Fitch and Leonard took the position that it is not meaningful to consider the present budget without reference to former budgets and annual financial statements indicating the exact classification of expenditures as well as revenue. Commissioner Leonard said that a copy of one of the audits or the State Controller's report would furnish the information. After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner snyder that the Planning Commission proceed to the next item of business. Seconded by Commissioner Fitch. AYES: Co111in1ssioners: Adamo, Fitch, Leonard. Snyder and Small None Bagar and Rampy 5-0 NAYS: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: MOTION CARRIED: Commissioner Leonard asked that the appreciation of the Planning Commission be expressed in return for the budget copies submitted to them for their consideration. II Herbert Ketell: Tentative Map. 10 acres zoned R-3-H; Northwest corner of Highway 9 and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Continued. Donald Barr, Pacific Engineers, Palo Alto, stated that the applicant will comply with any and all construction rules and details embodied in the City ordinances and resolutions, and in fact. all requirements of the City. -1- The application was considered in accordance With the recommendations of the City Engineers, dated June 26, 1961, point by point. Point No. 1 concerned the pedestrian walkways between lots 5. 6. and ll. also the Pedes~ easement to the school site north of the property. It was decided to allow the easement between lots 5. 6. and 11. and widen the easement on the north- east corner of the property to the school site to 20 feet instead of 10 feet as shown. At this point Mr. Ba!'r stated that the applicant would 111ce to use monolithic sidewalks. Point No. 2 concerned the 40' driveway easements and also the 24' driveway easements on the east and west sides of the 10-acre parcel. The City Engineer noted the maintenance problems that could arise with such an arrangement as well as public liability to the City. Mr. Barr maintained tl1at the easements are private in every respect, owned exclusively by the owners and users of the adjoining lots. Discussion developed about the responsibility of the City and the uses to which these easements or alleys would be put. The applicants. Messrs. Barr and Ketell, maintained that the deed restrictions would contain a provision making the owners of the adjoining lots exclusively responsible for their use. mainten- ance. upkeep. etc.. relieving the City of all liability. The City Manager said he could see no City liability on private property as would be the case with these easements. Commissioner Fitch asked what purpose the alleys or easements would serve if they were not to be used for public access. The applicant expects these alleys to be used for garbage service and garage ingress. Mr. Barr expanded on his explanation by saying that they are not public thoroughfares, not public property, and the City would not be asked to maintain them. Further discussion developed the fact that the lots are being subdivided into individual parcels, approximately 8 units to the lot. All of the parking ingress and egress 'till be off the easements. The location of the PG&E easements are not as yet determined. Point No. 3 concerned a note "to be dedicated by others". which refers to a portion of proposed Park Avenue. In response to a question by the City ~ineers, the applicant stated that the entire street will be constructed at the time of this development. Point No.4 concerned the City Engineer's recommendation stating that Saich Avenue has been deleted from the revised map. Discussion concerned this stub street and whether or not it should be installed and if so. at what location. The Chairman aslœd the mmer of adjoining property to state his position con- cerning this stub street. Mr. Bandley stated that he is definitely not opposed to this development providing surrounding interests are talcen into con- sideration. He does feel that the stub street should be included in the Ketell map and he has no objections as long as access is provided for the property on the northeast corner of the Ketell map from either the west or the south. He objected to being land- loclced. (rrhe revised maps submitted by Ketell Construction Co. showed alternate street patterns, one containing Saich Avenue, and the other eliminating Saich Avenue which is the stub street referred to above.) Point No. 5 refers to City standards stated in Ordinance 47 and the standard detail sheet in effect. Point No. 6 also refers to subdivision standards. -2- . The City Engineer stated that points Nos. 5 and 6 are apparently the important matters in the present difference between the applicants and the City. The City Engineer explained that monolithic walks might be desirable in multiple areas due to the maintenance problems. However. sidewalks should be wider than 4t feet if the City is to permit monolithic walks. Mr. Barr, the applicant, stated that they do prefer monolithic sidewalks rather than the sidewalks with planter strips as required by City standards. They feel that landscaping and maintenance can be better performed with the integral or monolithic pavement. However. he said he is inclined to view the recommendation of the City Engineer favorably and will certainly study it further. It is not a question of cost, he said, but rather of appearance and general benefit to the subdivision. On further discussion Messrs. Ketell and Barr agreed to set their sidewalks 4 feet back from the curb and provide for a planting strip at the curbside. The City Manager stated that variances from the standard details in Ordinance 47 would be time-consuming to the applicant. The applicant restated his intention to revise the map to comply with City standards relative to planting strips, sidewallcs. curbs, etc. He added he is satisfied with the unit requirements and lot sizes as stated in Ordinance l60. Commissioner Fitch observed that the lots shown on the tenta- tive map received June 2l, 1961. are too small for 8 units although the whole number of units is permissible on the parcel considering it as one piece of property. i.e., 20 units per acre maximum which is specific in the pertinent ordinance is satisfied by the present map. It is when the lots are cut up that some of them fall short of the graph requirements in Ordinance 160. Commissioner Leonard stated that a limit on density was believed to be the purpose of the ordinance, and that the City is not damaged if the overall density does not exceed 20 apartments per acre. The spirit of the ordinance is thus observed. Mr. Barr agreed that the total number of units and the cover- age has been construed to comply with the City ordinance. The City Engineer said he would like the record to show that the Planning Commission approves the tentativè map with relation to lot sizes and apartment units even though some individual lots do not have the necessary square footage according to the pertinent ordinance. The City Engineer added that ¡Lis department does not disapprove of the map if the applicant will meet the regulations of Ordinance 47. plus policy recommendations by the Planning Commission, with particular reference to the alleys or easements. Commissioner Fitch said that covenant restrictions in the deed relieving the City from all responsibility on these alleys, holding the City harmless. should protect the public interest. Mr. Ketell stated that restrictions on the maintenance of these easements or alleys will be put into the deeds and submitted to the City Attorney for his approval. Commissioner Adamo asked about storm drainage in the area. The City Engineer said that this is an important point and the storm water run-off facilities would have to be shown on the improvement plans of the applicant and would be checked at that time. The Chairman referred to the long pedestrian easements through lots 5, 6. and ll, asking if the Commission \dshed to recommend it as shown. Commissioner Snyder reflected that the easement is O.K. if fenced. especially With the break by the alley. He could see no objection. Commissioner Adamo asked about Lot 5 and the fact that the alley went directly through this lot in contrast to its position between the other lots. 7 and 10, and 8 and 9. This prompted con- siderable discussion and the applicant stated that frontage for Lot 5 is located on Beardon Drive. The plot plan revealed that two buildings are to be situated on Lot 5 in which case the eastern- -3- most building has no frontage on a publiC street. The Commission and the applicant agreed to relocate this easternmost building on Lot 4, presently shown as a play area, and make the eastern half Of Lot 5 a play area. The Chairman also stated that the pedestrian easement to the school site would be made 20 feet instead of 10 feet. Moved by Commissioner Leonard, that: WHEREAS, a comprehensive plan has been presented over a period of six months or more; and WHEREAS the map dated 6-16-61 is a revision substantially based on earlier presentations to both the Council and Commission; and WHEREAS, the following relatively minor points have been discussed by the City Engineer and the Commission: ~~~ ~~~ (f) (g) (h) Walkways and easements, Monolithic sidewalks. Access to Giuffrida property east of lots 19 thru 21 and north of lots 23 thru 28, Street names, Immediate paving of the full width of the east-west street marked "Park Avenue" on the 6-16-61 map, Land-locking of the easterly half of Lot 5 making it impractical as an apartment site, Failure to show access between Lots 12 and 18 to parking areas at the rear, Long-run maintenance of play area. WHEREAS, applicants have changed position and now agree: (a) (b) That they drop their request for monolithic side- walks, and will bUild per ordinance, That street names are to be as agreed with the Council at a meeting on July 3, 1961. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the map subject to these conditions: (1-12) (13) (14 ) (15 ) (16) (17) (18) Per Schedule B Easements and wàlkways to be covered by explicit written agreements satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Council which clearly holds the City harm- less, now and later, from any and all liability for injury or damage resulting from use of these ease- ments and wallG~ays, a first draft to be submitted at the time this matter goes to the Council. No building permits to be issued until such signed agreement is on file. Developer to dedicate and pave a 60' access stub street into the Giuffrida parcel somewhere in the area marked Lot 19 thru 28. No building permits to be issued until this requirement is met or adequately bonded. Developer to dedicate and pave the east-west street marlœd "Park Avenue ,. on the map. No building permits to be issued until this requirement is met or bonded. Lot 4 to be converted from a play area to an apart- ment lot because it has street access; and the easterly half of Lot 5 to become a land-locked play area, served only by the walkway shown. Developer's engineer to show access between Lots 12 and 18 if these apartments are to have parking at the rear as previously shown by applicant on a plot plan submitted to this Commission. Explicit written agreement on maintenance of play areas, satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Council which clearly provides for good continuing maintenance, a draft to be sent to the Council when _Lf- (19) this matter goes to them. No permits to be issued until the final agreement is signed and filed. Developer's engineer to reviSe the map in accord- ance with these conditions, and file the revised revision before the matter goes to the Council. During consideration of the motion, the applicant stated that he will put in the stub street shown as Saich Avenue. Mr. Ketell did say that he would like to eliminate the stub street if the school does not construct the site as presently indicated. The Chairman answered in the negative on behalf of the Commission, saying that the stub street must be constructed to prevent the property from being land-locked. The motion of Commissioner Leonard was seconded by Commissioner Fitch. AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitch, Leonard, Snyder and Small NAYS: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Eagar and Rampy MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 The City Manager marlced the Ketell application for the City Council agenda of July 11, 1961. III 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 addin¡¡; the classification II Professional Administrative Zoning" (PO-H) and further by adding the classification 'Light Industrial Park Zoning" (Ml-PH). The City Clerk read Ordinance 002(h) in full. The Planning Commission noted that no provisions for under- ground utility services have been made in the ordinance as dis- cussed by the Planning Commission and no provision for a buffer zone between single family residential and office or industrial district has been made. Commissioner Leonard referred to the absence of a clause spelling out the fact that applicants are entitled to seek re- lief from the specific terms of the ordinance through appeal or variance procedures. He said that most ordinances include a section specifically granting the right to appeal certain regulations. Robert Michaelson, present President of Idlewild Greens Homeowners Association, said that adequate buffering would end the long continued hassle between his subdivision and the applicants. He suggested a buffer zone of R-l houses around the perimeter of Idlewild Greens. He added that his subdivision was not opposed to the applications if adequate protection is afforded. John Englebrecht agreed that buffering is important; he suggested tall trees. He referred to the Philco plant in Palo Alto, stating that government security regulations require strong lights to be burning all night and that they can be a nuisance to adjoining houses. William J. Utterbach, 19777 vfueaton Drive, informed the Planning Commission that the parking ratio of 1 car space for each 150 square feet of gross area in the buildings is not sufficient. He gave examples of this by referring to plants situated in Palo Alto. He said further that buffering is an absolute necessity alongside R-l zoning. Moved by Commissioner Fitch that Ordinance 002(h) be con~ tinued to July 10. Seconded by Commissioner Leonard. AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitch, Leonard, Snyder and Small None Eagar and Rampy 5-0 -5- NAYS: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: MOTION CARRIED: