Loading...
PC 09-25-67 ,j" f 10300 Torre Avent Cupertino, California 95014 Phone: 252-4505 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PC-20 80,000.4 CITY OF CUPERTINO California MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 1967 8:00 PM Held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, CUpertino I SAWTE TO THE FLAG II ROLL CALL Comm. present: Hirshon, Hot gan, Buthenuth Comm. absent: Bryson, Frolich Staff present: City Attorney, Sam Anderson Director of Planning, Adde Laurin Director of Public Works, Frank Finney Assistant Planner, Jim Nuzum (Recording) Comm. Horgan reported that Comm. Frolich was absent due to the death of his father. The Chairman was instructed to convey the condolences of the Planning Commission to Comm. Frolich. III MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, September 11, 1967 Page 6, para 2: Comm. Horgan wished to clarify his remarks. He is not necessarily against Light Industrial zoning in this are~ but does want to make certain that Dr. Brown speaks for all of the property owners. Dr. Brown stated, during the hearing, that he does represent all of the property owners covered in the application (16-z-67). Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to approve the Minutes of September 11, 1967, as corrected. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Hogan, Buthenuth Nr...,..... Camm. Bryson, Frolich Motion carried, 3-0 IV ANNOUNCEMENT OF POSTPONDIENTS, etc.: 81,004 A postponement of the Light Industrial Ordinance 220( j) was requested by the Planning Director. So moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Hirshon.. Motion carried, 3-0 -1- PC-20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes of the /25/67 Planning Commission Meet· , V WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: A. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIJI CITIES: Report on Legislation. B. All other letters pertained to items on the Agenda. VI VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS 80,000.3 A. Th, Planning Director brought up the matter of the joint meeting with the City Council for discussions of planning policies and possible revision of the General Plan. October 4th or 11th was suggested. The Planning Director would contact the absent Commissioners. 81,004 c. B. The Planning Director also brought up the matter of the joint meeting with the County Planning Commission, to continue dis- cussions on planning of the Monta Vista-Foothill Blvd. area. October 25 was suggested. Mrs. Carole W. Fritz, 22005 Regnart Road Cupertino, wished to present her views on Ordinance 220(i), regulating Agricultural and Agricultural-Residential zones under Verbal Communications since the Public Hearings had been closed at the last meeting. Mrs. Fritz stated that she felt that the number of horses per parcel (Section 78.5) should be limited to three (3), with any lar«er J'1"mber sub.iect to the Use Perr it procedu"'es. Mrs. Fritz recapped the previous discussions or. chis point and urgec. a ret~n to the three (3) horses per parcel limit. Under the provisions of the 4th Draft of 220(i), 79 horses would be per- mitted in the area immediately surrounding her house. There was no discussion by the Commission, as this will come up under Unfinished Business. VII PUBLIC HEARINGS 16-z-67 A. JOSEPH F. BROWN, et al: REZONING &pprox. 15 acres from Single- family Residential (RI-lO) and High-density Multiple Residential (R3-2.2) to Light Industrial (ML), and REZONING approx. 4 acres from High-density Multiple Residential (R3-2.2) to General Commercial (CG). Located west side of N. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, approx. 2600 feet north of Stevens Creek Road. First Hearing continued. Dr. Brown was not present due to a conflict in meetings. The Planning Director had met him earlier in the evening, and both agreed to request a continuation of the Hearings. However, the Planning Director offered to make his report if the Commission so preferred. The City Attorney questioned the advisability of the Planning Director making his report without Dr. Brown being present. Since no one from the audience wished to speak, Comm. Horgan moved to continue Application 16-z-67 to the next regular meeting. Seconded by Comm. Hirshon. Motion carried, 3-0 -2- PC-20 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes O~ ,he 9/25/67 Planning Commission eting 22-U-67 B. STONESON DEVELOIMENT CORP. and L. BURT AVERY: USE PERMIT to construct a Multiple Unit Complex in a Planned Develop- ment (p) zone, North side of Stevens Creek Blvd., East of Mary Ave. and West of City of Cupertino park site. First Hearing. L. Burt Avery, 479 Castro Street, Mountain View, the developer, presented his exhibits and gave a rundown on his company's background in the garden apartment field. In the past they have developed 20 to 35 dwelling units per acre. Parkvi~w West in Mountain View is an example of their recent work. Mr. Avery said that many sites have been reviewed and this one was chosen due to its size and because he feels that this site and the permitted density of 16 d.u./gross acre allow more latitude in design and layout and therefore a higher quality development can be achieved. V Mr . Avery showed slides of the Mountain View development. . The same architect and site planners, Messrs.Sandy and Guzzardo, are being employed in the Cupertino project. Basically, the buildings are two story apartments with one story accessory buildings (carports, sauna baths, recreation centers, etc.) The exteriors will be resawn redwood siding with shake roofs. The carports will have peaked roofs with shakes; they would be open and not garages. The developer feels that carports allow visibility and ease of access and egress; garage doors are undesirable beca.use they are usually left open. Mr. Avery introduced Mr. Anthony Guzzardo, the Site Planner for the project. Mr. Guzzardo explained in detail the site layout and the environment he was attempting to create. The project would be tied together by the meandering stream. There would be no through traffic. The living units will front into courts except for a few buildings which will be heavily landscaped. Internal circulation will reflect a residential character and variety rather than an apartment rental proj ect . Each unit will have individual private areas and large recreational areas are provided. Mr. Avery stated that most of the trees shown on the exhibit are now existing, grown fruit trees; some other types will be added. The lighting will be customized. There will be no pedestrian traffic along the interior drives, it will be confined to path- ways throughout the development. Chairman Buthenuth asked about private streets and mail delivery. Mr. Avery said a roster would be provided. There would be direction boards at each entrance. There would be only one address for mail delivery. The Planning Director stated that this development will be regu- lated through the Planned Development Ordinance, specific requirements of R3-2.2 zoning and the Subdivision Ordinance, but, that application of many requirements would make a development of this type impossible. However, it is permissible to modify requirements; conditions to the Use Permit and the Development -3- PC-20 Minutes of the ~5/67 Planning Commission Meeti., ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Plan (as an Exhibit to the Use Permit) will then take the place of various paragraphs in the Ordinancès; they are legal documents. To write the conditions to the Use' Permit' is tantamount to writing a Zoning Ordinance for this particular property. The Planning Director was of the opinion that the concept of the plan is very good; but' some minor problems and one major problem need ftlrther discussion and elaboration. The major problem revolves around'private vs public streets. Three principles should be dis- cussed: (1) Public streets of standard 60' width; this would make the applicant 's concept impossible-. (2) Public streets modified to 'standards apprOxil/lately a.s shown in the plan presented by the applicant. (3 )Pri vatestreets (they are too long to be called dri vewáys) å,s proposed by the applicant. Do we want private streets at all? The Planning Director presented a staff list of problems, one group created by the private street concept; the other created by modifications of width, etc. but independent of whether thev would be public or private. He felt that the problems could be solved, but they would require further work by the planning staff, the Director of Public Works and the applicant. The list defines the problem, but preseilts no solutions yet. The Director of Public Works commented that he was in favor of the overall plan; but had many big questions he wanted answered before he could endorse this project. (1) Do we want private streets? (2) What do we do about pedestrians and utilities? We must provide certain services (police, fire, electricity, gas, water, sewers, etc.). Certain standards have been established to provide safety in public streets. In the proposed development we would have no control unless we imposed a long list of conditions. All streets would have to be Public Service Easements. The areas for parking and turning adjacent to carports are too small to accommodate moving vans. Fruit trees tend to be low-limbed and if they hang over the street they could be dangerous. Mr. Finney felt that the problems could be worked out. Gomm. Hi\!shon asked the width of the streets as shown. The applicant stated that they were 26 feet wide. "', Mr.' Avery felt that pri'VR'te:stI"sets should be,- of no conce,rn'to the 'City'. ,- 'Theowneir..:developer will control theenti;;e development, in- cluding the' streets. Hf> ,.,,,,,1<1 "I'll the i,.,tf>",.,,,l ciJ'"~111"t,;"T\ system "driveways" and not "private streets". Further, these were "private problems" and not "public problemÅ¡'" .-- :He agreed t& work w1:'th the City but stated that he had a timing problem and would have to drop ¡the'project; if City regulatory action became a major issue. Cháirma.n BU'thenuthquest ioned Mr . Avery relat i ve to insurance and how these matters are handled on the other project he owns. Comm. Hirshon asked Mr. Avery if he would be willing to dedicate the interior streets, and the developer said that he was"98% sure" that he would drop the project rather than dedicate the streets. Comm. Hirshon asked how the previously mentioned problems could be con- trolled, and Mr. Avery said they would all be handled by the owner- developer. For example, in the Mountain View complex if people -4- PC-20 ----------------------------------------------------..-----------------------. Minutes O' he 9/25/67 Planning Commission eting park in the streets the Manager tags the car, and if the offense is repeated, the car is towed away. The Mountain View police do patrol the complex just like any other part of the City. Mr. Guzzardo offered the following comments: This is a develop- ment on one parcel, there are no streets, but private drives. As examples of narrow, winding:-private drives we have cemeteries (which have lp.rger traffic volumes on Memorial Day), and golf courses. Complexes with many more units and many more people go completely unpatrolled by the police; for example, a tower apart- ment with the parking at the lower levels would seem to have many more traffic hazards. Mr. Guzzardo emphasized that the exhibit as submitted is not a working plan or a final drawing. They are still working on many problems; i.e., trees, turning radii, etc. He suggested a central mail pick up, perhaps a "local post office" for this complex. Further, the streets would be posted, and the speed limits would be enforced (he didn't"SB¥ how). Comm. Hogan asked Mr. Avery the number of employees that would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of this complex. Mr. Avery stated that in a complex of this size they would probably have four husband/wife teams living on the premises, three full time gardeners, and perhaps a recreation director. The applicant stated that he hopes to begin work on the project in 3 months, and is concerned over any delay. He advised that he only has an option on the rear portion of the property. The Planning Director asked Mr. Guzzardo if any other City had imposed conditions on a development of this type. It would be helpful to the staff if we had such a list, then we would have some guidelines. Mr. Guzzardo said that so far no City had done this, but conditions could be worked out. Chairman Buthenuth was enthused about the project, but wanted the staff to work with the applicant to solve some of the problems. Comm. Horgan concurred, adding that it was something new and different but very desirable. Comm. Hirshon agreed, but stated that he was apprehensive of the problems relative to the private streets. He felt some unsafe conditions may exist, and if so, they must be worked out. Mr. John Rodrigues stated that if the problems do exist, and aren't solved, that the landlord (Mr. Avery) stands to suffer the most. The problems are "private" and not "public". The streets would be similar to Town Center Lane. Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Hirshon to continue Application 22-U-67 to the next regular meeting. Motion carried, 3-0 Chairman Buthenuth called for a short recess, and the meeting reconvened at 9:55 PM. -5- '} PC-20 Minutes of the ~ 3/67 Planning Commission Meetir ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13-TM-67 C. EDWARD CALI, et al: TENTATIVE MAP, 35.8 acres located North side of Columbus Avenue, West of Kennedy School. First Hearing. Mr. George Ditz of Ditz-Crane, reported on the Tentative Map. He prE-' ferred to ewait the staff report and answer questions; but did give some background information on the subdivision. He is especially con- cerned over the requirement of a street connecting to Foothill Blvd. He does not want through traffic and feels that the "Old Cali Home" blocks any possibility of putting the connecting street through. He also stated that the staff map complicates the drainage problems. The Tentative Map as submitted provides two exits to McClellan Road, and he feels that is sufficient. The Planning Director said that planning must be concerned with the future, ten to fifteen years from now. The County General Plan shows an Inter-City Arterial connecting Foothill Blvd. with Prospect Avenue through this area, but it ~s now too late to implement this road. The issue is not whether this traffic will pass through residential streets or not; it was decided two or three years ago that it will. The issue now is in which streets, and whether it might be better for the neighborhood to divide the traffic volume between two parallel streets rather than concentrate it in one street. He demonstrated two alternatives pre- pared by the Assistant Planner, one with right angle turns, and one with a continuous design speed of 25 mph. In reply to a question from the City Attorney, the Planning Director said that Rainbow Drive will not be a major collector, but that Prospect will be an Inter-City arterial, partly with back-up policy. Chairman Buthenuth asked about County studies and was advised that the County aims toward Prospect to carry the traffic from most of this area. Prospect will have an interchange with the freeway. Comm. Hirshon asked about the two outlets; why not just one through Linda Vista? The Planning Director said that to concentrate the traffic volume in one street may prove to be unbearable to the resi- dents along this street. Traffic estimates are needed, based on general knowledge of the area, but we do not have definitive studies available; such studies must be based on origin and destination survey, etc., for a much larger area than Cupertino" Chairman Buthenuth was concerned about the results if we continue to develop and do not provide proper street connections. The Director of Public Works commented relative to the County's actions on zoning along McClellan Road. He feels that McClellan Road should be branched to provide two roads that would be approximately parallel. He emphasized that we must have an alternate route through the property covered by this Tentative Map. He stated that if we approve the Tentative Map as submitted we will allow the residents to strangle in their own traffic problems. A further consequence might be that we would have to widen Bubb Rd. "t the City's expense. Comm. Hirshon asked about the widening of McClellan Road and the Director of Public Works said that it is not planned. -6- PC-20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes ( the 9/25/67 Planning Commissior ~eting The City Attorney asked just how severe were the problems; is it necessary to put tÇis street in now? The Director of Public Works said the existing residential streets are excellent, but they will not serve the anticipated volume. The City Attorney asked if the public prefers a 60 ft. or 90 ft. street, and the Dir. of Public Works said that a 60 ft. street would be best here; but the City should require setbacks sufficient for future widening to 90 ft. if it should be necessary. Comm. Hirshon said that he prefers to divert traffic away fr~ residential areas and not encourage it to go through a subdiviøion. The Dir. of Public Works replied that you have to hav~ some street. that will allow traffic to move with some continuity. You qannot exclude any one area from your traffic planning. Further, where else could you put the street; this is the key piece of property. Mr. Ditz stated that this same matter came up when units #1 and #2 of Montebello were planned. He feels that since 1;here will on1.y be 16 acres remaining for development in this area after this tract that there is no need for any connecting streets. Further, there is a natural barrier (Stevens Creek) preventing the connection of this area with Foothill Blvd. The Dir. of PublicWorks stated that we definitely do need a con- necting street. We will feel the pinch in a few years. Comm. Horgan asked what areas remain to be developed. The Planning Director said that the foothills above B~od Terrace (Lindy Lane, Candy Rock, Regnart Canyon and the McDonald-Dorsa property) must all feed through the Bubb Road area unless we secure an alternate access. COIIIIJ' Horgan said that Prospect Rd. was not the solution; but that Foothill Blvd. with its connection to the freeway was the logical access. Chairman ButÞ.enuth agreed. Comm. Hirshon reaffirmed his previous position. Mr. Don Bandley commented that Rainbow Drive would be the answer when it connects with the freeway. The City Attorney felt that better access is needed for the new high school. Comm. Horgan stated that we do need a connecting street to Foothill Blvd., but that he did not know where it should be placed. Mrs. Juanita McLaren mentioned the McDonald-Dorsa plan that would have pro- vided a road through their property to Foothill Blvd. The Dir. of Public Works felt the problem needed further .tudy. Chairman Buthenuth felt this might be advisable. Mr. Ditz agreed to further study but wanted clarification of the matter of the "old Cali home". He stated that he would "resist a through .treet" , but would agree to discuss it. The "old Cali home" matter must be dealt with now; is the City prepared to live with the possibility of a dead end street? The Dir. of Public Works said we could put the street just south of the Cali residence. Camm. Horgan asked about putting Columbus through to carry the load. Mr. Ditz said that with his plan, traffic would go from Columbus to Linda Vista through the Twin Palms subdivision and out on to McClellan Road. -7- PC-20 Minutes of the 25/67 Planning Commission Meet: ----------------------------------_._---------------------------------------- Mr. Ward Crump stated that Foothill Blvd. should not dump traffic via McClellan Road on to Bubb Road. The Dir. of Public Works said we were concerned with just the opposite. Relieve the conjestion on Bubb Road by allowing some of the traffic access to Foothill Blvd. which will be widened. Moved by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Horgan to continue Appli- cation 13-TM-67 to the next regular meeting. Motion carried, 3-0 14-TM-67 D. ROBERT H. ZIMMER and MACKAY & SOMPS: TENTATIVE MAP, approx. 4.3 acres located south end of Regnart Road. First Hearing. Tom Floyd of MacKay & Somps said that he was available for questions. The Dir. of Public Works started the staff report by presenting a large map showing the existing property owners in the Regnart Canyon area. The Planning Director stated that there~ 800 acres in this area, and that it might be possible to develop in such a way that 300 to 400 dwelling units could be built. If we do not plan and require streets now, we may block off part of the area and prevent its de- velopment. We need a good map of this area and then a Master Plan of the entire area. A Local Improvement District, as has been suggested by some of the residents, may solve this. The L.I.D. could start by having the map prepared, and then work with the City on the Master Plan. It is possible that the City Council may require a "Master Plan" prior to any development; and it might be in order for the Planning Commission to suggest this to the City Council. The Planning Director also feels that the present appli- cation is illegal since the property does not abut a public street; but it has been submitted to the Planning Commission for their deliberations. Comm. Hirshon questioned the water and sewage service; the Planning Director advised that the Health Department may approve septic tanks only under certain criteria which do not seem to exist here. The City Attorney was asked about the legality of the Tentative Map. He was advised by the Planning Director that no street exists here, only an easement. The City Attorney said that in reply to septic tank matter, that they are regulated by the Sanitary District and the County Health Dept. As to the Tentative Map not abutting on a public street, Ordinance 002(a) requires that all buildings abut a street; but exceptions may be granted by the City Engineer if he feels that the development is proper. Further, Regnart Road has attained the status of a "public street" through usage. The Dir. of Public Works said there are no utilities here with the possible exception of electricity. The property has already been 'split once,unlawf'ully, and the 12-month protest period has expired and the City can do nothing about the split. The City Attorney -8- PC-20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes l the 9/25/67 Planning Commissio~ ßeting 81,004 stated that the 12-month protest period was for the protection of the buyer and is not a limitation on the City; we do not have to issue building permits even though no one was aware of the illegal split, and no protests were filed within the 12-month period. The City Attorney emphasized that the decision is up to the City Engineer where the matter concerns the issuance of building permits; but here it is not a question of a building permit, but a lot split. The City Attorney quoted the Ordinances relative to sale of land and elaborated on the points of law. The City is not bourtd by any statute of limitations as to this matter. The City can stipulate any conditions or improvements that are deemed necessary. Comm. Horgan feels that further studies should be made. Chairman Buthenuth said it is his understanding that if no improvements are required we could accept a "record of survey" in place of a Tentative Map. The Dir. of Public Works said he would prefer a Tentative Map for his department to work with. Comm. Hirshon felt the Tentative Ma; Has not acceptable since it did not comply with the Ordinances. Chairman Buthenuth and Comm. Horgan preferred to continue the matter for two weeks to allow further studies and in- vestigation of the L.I D. proposal. Mr. Robert Zimmer laws in the past. time, just divide stated that he was not aware he h~d violated any He does not plan to build on the land at this it for sale. The Dir. of Public Works asked for a clarification as to "raw land" and "City lots"; when do we require streets? We will increase the density without providing proper streets if we allow lot splits without street improvements. He said the L.I.D. was the logical way to handle this problem. The Commissioners asked if it was possible to establish an L.I.D. in this area. Mr. Zimmer is willing to participatr in an L.I.D. and several other residents have indicated their willingness to cooperate. The City Attorney reviewed the Subdivision Map Act. The Planning Director said that we must be concerned with the development of the entire area, not only of a few dozen lots. Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Hirshon to close the First Hearing. Motion carried, 3-0 E. ORDINANCE 220(j) regulating Light Industrial (ML)zones. First Hearing continued. This item has been continued to the next regular meeting on October 9, 1967 -9- PC-20 Minutes of the '25/67 Planning Commission Meet , > ------------------------------------------------------._--------------------- VII 81,004 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ORDINANCE 220(i) regulating Agricultural and Agricultural- Residential zones. Comm. Hirshon referred to the remarks of Mrs. Fritz (Verbal Communi- cations) relative to Section 78.5. He feels that the problem has been solved with the present wording of Section 80.1(d) and (e). Chairman Buthenuth and Comm. Horgan were not sure that the problem had been solved. Comm. Horgan wanted a clarification on Mrs. Fritz's request. She wants the number of horses, on any one parcel of land, to be limited to three. Any number of horse~ more than three would be subject to the Use Permit procedures. Chairman Buthenuth exp:ained that this area is Residential with the emphasis on Agricultural. agricultural land and not residential land. zoned Agricultural- This is primarily The Commissioners discussed the matter in some detail and agreed tha~ Section 78.5 should remain as written. Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Hirshon to forward Ordinance 220(i) to the City Council with a recommendation for its adoption. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT : Comm. Hirshon, Horgan, Buthenuth None Comm. Bryson, Frolich Motion carried, 3-0 IX NEW BUSINESS There was none. X ADJOURNMENT Moved by Comm. Horgan, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 PM Motion carried, 3-0 APPROVED: /s/ John W. Buthenuth Chairman ATTEST: Údde. dcwh1''''' Adde Laurin, Director of Planning -10-