PC 02-27-61
P. O. Box 597
AL 2-4505
C I T Y 0 F CUP E R TIN 0
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COIJIMISSION
FEBRUARY 27, 1961
?lace: 10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
rime: 8:00 P.M.
I SALUTE TO THE FLAG
II
ROLL CALL: MINUTES OF
Commissioners Present:
Commlssioncrs Absent:
Staff Present:
THE LAST REGULAR MEETING: February 13, 1961.
Small, Adamo, Fitch, Leonard, Rampy, Snyder
Bagar
Clty Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney,
City Engineer, BUllding Offlclal
Commlsslon asked that the parenthetical notatlon "(see VI-A)" be
placed after III-A-12; page 4, add "s" to appropo; page 6, change
Porte 1 to Portal; page 7, change Amhurst to Amherst.
Minutes approved as corrected.
III COrJIMUNICATIONS
A. Wrltten
1. County Planning Commisslon: Agenda for March 1, 1961.
2. County Planning Department: Santa Clara Valley Plans, Feb-
ruary edition.
3. A.S.P.O.: Bulletin announcing conference to be held in Denver
AprLl 30 to May 3, 1961.
4. Santa Clara County Flood Control: Letter advislng that R. W.
and W. M. Forward have met the right of way requirements of
the district on Calabazas Creek.
5. Discussion developed relative to a letter from LOUlS D. Segal,
President of the HJmeowners Association of Idlewlld Greens.
Tl1e City Attorney advised that the hearings have been closed.
Therefore, the letter should be filed, made part of the record
but not introduced for reading. at this time.
Commissioner Leonard asked that the record show that he has
no objection to readjng the letter or not reading jt, as the
case may be.
Commissioner Fitch stated that it was his Vlew point that the
letter should be accepted and treated as a written communica-
tion, per se, and not necessarily conslder it as part of the
hearing material If that would prevent the letter from being
read. He said that In that sense it lS not necessary to re-
open the hearing in order to read the letter.
By request of the Chairman the City Clerk read the letter in
full.
6. The Clty Attorney's memo to City Council re 90 day limitation
-1-
on Planning Commission hearings. Counsel advlses that 90 day
Ilmltation is no longer in effect.
B. Verbal
None
IV BUILDING INSPECTOR
A. Page Properties: Application for variance to allow 15 ft. front
set-back; 25 lots; Tract 2741 & 2808, Pepper Tree; Stelling Road,
e$ side.
CommissJ.oner Leonard observed that, as a generallzatJon, he lS In
favor of abidlng by the accepted standards.
Mt. Mlttelman, representlng the applicant said that hls applica-
tion met the lntere3t of good planning, speciflcally, lmprovlng
the appearance of the neighborhood streets. He said the 15 ft.
set-backs would relieve the monotony of the uniform set-backs and
that the average set-back would equal the requirement of 20 ft.,
some set-backs belng 30 ft.
In answer to a questlon the City Engineer stated that the lmprove-
ment plans call for the closing of Western Drive by means of a
concrete curb and gutter plus barricade.
It developed that the size house that the builder intends to con-
struct on certain lots can not be built by observlng the set-backs,
front and rear.
Commissioner Leonard observed that the builJer should have cut
lots blg enough to accomodate the size house he intended to build.
Mr. Segal said he concurred with Mr. Leonard that the size of the
home should be related to the size of the lot.
Mr. Mittelman said he would consider himself penalized if he were
refused this variance lnview of the fact that past ground ru1B
have allowed 15 ft. front set-backs with a curved drive-way.
Commissioner Leonard said he agreed with the advantages of stag-
gered building fronts, but emphasized that the staggerlng should
start at 20 ft. instead of 15 ft. from the property line. Comm-
lssioner Fitch said that the set-backs shown on the plan were
greater than those in Idlewlld Subdivision and consequently should
look better than the Idlewild set- baclcs.
Commissioner Leonard said he has reservations about granting a
variance to such a large proportion of the subdivision, specific-
ally 25 lots in a total of 73. He said that this raises a ques-
tion on the value of imposlng a 20 ft. set-back.
Upon request of Commlssioner Fitch the Clty Attorney read the
section of the pertinent ordinance describlng the nature of a
variance and the reasons for granting same.
Commlssloner Fitch moved that the application be denied since the
applicant has not shown that there are special conditions or ex-
-2-
ceptional characterlstlcs In the nature of the property as such
to perrIn t the Commisslon to malœ a determlnation that literal en-
f'orcement of'the ordinance would result in practical dif'ficulties
or unnecessary hardshlps; Seconded by Commissioner Adamo.
AYES: Commissloners: Adamo, Fitch, Leonard, Rampy, Snyder, Small
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Eagar
MOTION CARRIED: 6-0
B. Charles P. Rindt: Application for variance to allow 6 ft. fence
where ordlnance permits 3 ft.; 10481 E. Estates Drive.
The Chalrman, Mr. Small, reported that he visited the site and
interviewed neighbors and that he could find no objection to a
6 ft. fence on the property. In answer to a question he stated
that a variance would not impair traffic visability in the inter-
section.
The applicant, Mr. Rindt, stated that he lS willing to stain the
fence and would even be willlng to use the same color paint as
on his house, a pale green. The basis of the appllcation is to
raise the level of the fence above the garbage cans which he is
obllged to place at that spot.
Commissioner Leonard ~d he thought the hardship aspects were
passibly well covered in he instant appllcation.
Moved by Commissioner Fitch that the variance be granted; Seconded
by Commissioner Snyder.
AYES: Commissioners:
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissi oners:
MOTION CARRIED:
Adamo,
None
Eagar
6-0
Fitch, Leonard, Rampy, Snyder, Small
V HEARINGS SCHEDULED
1. Ellen Craft: Application to rezone 118 acres from A-2:B··4 to M··I-H
R-3-H, C-I-H, and PO-H; north side 'tevens Creek Blvd. at eastern
City limits. Hearings closed. Vote scheduled.
Commissioner Leonard vacated his seat.
Commissioner Snyder moved as follows:
1. 0 That the Planning Commission recom¡nend to the C)ty Council that
the Ellen Craft application to rezone 118 acres from A-2:B-4 to
M-I-H, R-3-H, C-I-H, and PO-H; north side Stevens Creek Blvd. at
eastern Clty limits be approved with the following stipulations
and conditions:
2.0 The C-l-H zoning consisting of approximately 27.5 acres fronting
on S.evens Creek Blvd. is conditioŒ"...l as follows:
2.1 The twelve standard conditions be complied with as per
Exhibit B.
2.2 That prior to the developement of the property precise site
control and architectural plans be presented to the Planning
CommissiJn and H Control Committee.
-3-
2.3 The owner or owners, touched by Calabazas Creek are to dedi-
cate lands as normally requj.red by the Santa Clara County
Flood Control D:i.strict. Agreements sUltable to the district
and the City are to be flled with proper authorlties before
any building permlts are issued.
2.4 We recognize the need for participation in a signalization
program at Mille:;.' Avenue and Stevens Creelc Blvd. We rec-
ommend that thls be considered at time of developement.
2.5 Land should be dedicated to allow Stevens Creek Blvd. to
be wldened and improved to 120 ft.
2.6 This zonlng shall not apply to lands requlred for freeway
developement.
2.7 Prior to deve~opement all street plans are to be submitted
CO and approved by the City.
3.0 The R-3-H zoning consisti.ng of appro)[imatel~\T 19.4 acres is conditionec~
as follows:
3.1 The twelve standard City conditlons be complied with as per
Exhibit B.
3.2 That prior to the developement of the property preclse site
control and architectural plans be presented to the Planning
Commission and H Control Committee.
3.3 The owner or owners, touched by Calabazas Creek are to dedi-
cate lands as no:;.~ally required by the Santa Clara County
Flood Control District. Agreements suitable to the district
and the City are to be filed wlth proper authorlties before
any bUllding permits are issued.
3.4 This zoning shall not apply to lands re~lired for freeway
developemcnt.
3.5 Prior to developement all street plans are to be submitted
to and approved by the City.
4.0 The M-l-H zoning consisting of approximately it5.8 acres is conditione~
as follows:
4.1 The twelve standard conditions be complied with as per
Exhibit B.
4.2 That prior to the developement of the property preclse sií:;e
control and architectural plans be presented to the Planning
Commlssion and H Control Committee.
4.3 The owner or owners, touched by Calabazas Creek are to dedl-
cate lands as normally requlred by the Santa Clara County
Flood Control DJ.strict. Agreements suita;Jle to the district
and the City are to be filed with proper authoritl8s before
any building permits are issued.
_i. ._
4.4 This zoning shall not apply to lands requHed for freeway
developement.
4.5 Prior to developement all street plans are to be submitted
to and approved by the C1ty.
4.6 The Planning CorrmÜss:Lon realizes that the City of Cupertino
has not adopted a Standal~ for M-l-H Zoning. The Commission
has conducted a detalled study of the M-I-H standard employe~
by Standard Industrial Park. It is recommended to the City
Council that thls study (referred to in thls motion as
Exhibit Ä-2) become a standard for the City of Cupertino
and also recommended that it become a condition for the
Craft M-I-H rezone.
EXHIBIT Ä-2
M-I-H Zoning Requirements -- City of Cupertino
Uses Permltted:
~~~
Professional and Administrative Offices.
Manufacturing, processing, assembling, or storage of products
and materials, lncluding institutes and laboratories, provided
that such uses are not or will not be offensive by reason of
the emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes, odors, or vi-
brations, or otherwise; and provided further, that prlor to
the lssuance of a building permit, the Building Inspector may
require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or devices
have been provided to insure and protect the publiC interest,
health, comfort, convenience, safety, and general welfare from
such nUisances.
Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requlrements.
Lot Area: 1 acre.
Lot W~dth: 150 feet.
Maximum Building Coverage: 40 per cent.
Front Yard: 50 feet.
Side Yard: 20 feet, except that 40 feet shall be required for any
--'building over one story or 25 feet in height, when adjacent to
any "R" District.
Rear Yard: 30 feet, except that 40 feet shall be required for any
buildlng over one story or 25 feet in height, when adjacent to
any "R " District.
Automobile Parking: One (1) car space for each 150 feet of gross
buildiDg floor area excluslve of halls, rest rooms, vaults, eleva-
tor shafts, lunch rooms and building maintenance areas. Such
parking spaces may not be located within the required front yard
nor occupy space provided in satisfaction of~ading area requlre-
ments.
Please note that the City requires off=street parking. Sufficient
parking spaces must be provided on the site for all employees and
visitors. Prior to any construction, written approval will have
to be obtained from the Cj.ty for the site plan which will have
to show the building (the square feet in same), the parking lay-
out with the number of parking spaces and the proposed landscaping.
Loading Area: OLe (1) perm&nently maintained loading space not less
-5-
than ten (10) feet in wldth, twenty (20) feet J.n length, and four-
teen (11,) feet in heJ.ght shall be provided 1'01' each forty thous-
and (40,000) square feet of gross bUJ.ldlng floor area or fraction
thereof. All loading space shall have lngress and egress from
alleys or service drJ.ves. Required parlcing space may not be sub-
stituted for 10adJ.ng space. Loading space may not be located in
the requlred front yard.
Buildllw; Height Limit: THO (2) stories but not to exceed 35 feet.
Minimum dlstance between two bUlldings on same lot: 30 feet.
Fences, hedges, and walls shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Fences,
hedges, and walls along property liœs must be of materials approved
by the Clty. No fence, hedge, or wall shall be higher than 3 feet
within the front yard setback. All rear property lines shall have
contlnuous planting together WJ. th a standard City fence. All plant-·
ing mU;Jt be approved by the CJ_ty.
Signs will be for identiflcation only; maXlmum size 10 square feet
each, one sign pe~ buildlng; to be mounted upon the face of the
bUJ.lding with no flashing or mov<'!i ng lights. Layout of signs pro-
posed location and content must be submitted to the City for approval.
No free-standing signs wlll be permitted. This paragraph is subject
to increase of sign area.
Architectural Review: Schematlc drawings of the plot, parking, land-
scaping and bUilding must be submitted to City together with an actual
colored perspective drawj.ng of exterioi" for preliminary e.pproval.
If final drawings of site, buildings and landGcaping are In substan-
tial accordance wlth schematics, the final drawings become an ex-
hibit and attached to the buildlng permit applicatlon.
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5 .J~
5.5
5.6
The P-O-H zoning consistlng of approximately 24.8 acres is
conditioned as follows:
The twelve standard conditions be complied with as per
Exhibit B.
That prior to the developement of the property precise site
control and archltectural plans be presented to the Planning
Commission and H Control Committee.
The owner or owners, touched by Calabazas Creek are to dedl-
cate lands as normally reqlÜred by the San:Ja Clara County
Flood Control D:.strJ.ct. Agreements suitable to the distrlct
and the C:ty are to be flled with proper authorities before
any building permlts are lssued.
This zoning shall not apply to lands required for freeway
developement.
Prlor to developement all street plans are to be submitted
to and approved by the City.
The Planning Commlssjon realizes the, t the City of Cupertlno
has not adopted a standard for PO-H zoning. The Cornmisslon
has conducted a detal.led study of the PO-H standard employed
by Stanford Industrlal Park. It is recommended to the City
-6-
CouncE that this study (referred to m thlS motlon as Ex-
hlbit A-I) become a standard for the C ty of Cupertino and
also recommended that lt become a condition for the Craft
PO-H r.ezone.
EXHIBIT A-I
PO-H Zoning R~qulrements
Ci ty of Cup; rtlno
Uses Permitted:
a Professional Offices
b Executive and Administrative Offices
c Medical and Allied Laboratories
Buildin '
a
b
c
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
f~~
Site Area Re uired:
Minimum lot size: One Acre
Minimum lot dlmension: 150 feet.
Maximum building coverage: 40% of lot area. ThlS maximum cov-
erage is permltted on the basis that landscaplng sàtisfactory
to the City is provided and the parking requirements for the
type of office or laboratory are fully complied with.
Mlnimum yard dimension bUllèing to lot Ilne: Front yard 50 feet;
rear yard 30 feet; and side yard 20 feet. No buildlng or parlc-
ing permitted in front yard setback.
Off-street Parking: There shall be provided sufflcient off-
street parking and access lanes to accommodate the permanent
working force within the bUllding to be constructed as well as
any and all visitors to the building. The C:cty reserves the
rlght to check and approve the parklng layout. As a minimum,
one car space shall be provided for each 150 square feet of gross
area in the bUildings. A car space shall be defined as suffic-
ient room to park the car and also sufficient pavement for in-
gress and egress. Off-street parking wlll not be allowed in
any required front yard setback nor wlll such parking be allowed
in a required side yard faclng the street on a corner lot. No
on-street parking will be permltted in the Professlonal Admin-
istrative Area. Off-street parking is also subj.ect to the
current Clty of Cupertino Zoning Ordinance.
Loadinß: At least one sapce, 10 feet wide, 20 feet long and
15 feet high shall be provided. More loading spaces may be re-
qUlred if in the opinion of the City one space does not serve
adequately the bUlldings involved.
Building height limit: Three stories but not to exceed 35 feet
to the top of parapet wall. The height of a radio or T. V.
serial, elevator penthouse, utility structures and necessary
mechanical appurtenances constructed on a roof shall not be
counted in determinlng building height. The approval of the
City must be secured for any of the foregoing items extending
above the roof line of the bu~ing.
M~nimum distance between two buildings on same lot: 30 feet.
Fences, hedges, and walls shall not exceed 6 feet in height.
Signs will be for ldentiflcation only; maximum size 10 square
feet each, one sign per building; to be mounted upon the ~ace
of the þuilding with no flashing or moving lights. Layout of
signs proposed location and content must be submitted to the
-7-
(Ie)
C:'.ty for approval. No free~standing signs will be permitted.
A:,"cln tectural ReV:_eVl: Schematic dr2.wings of' the plot, p<'1.rkj.ng,
landscalnng a;"ld buLI.ding must be subml t ted to C::_ ty together with
an actual colored perspective drawing of exterior for prelimin-
ary approval.. If fino.l dl"o,VJJ_ng3 of site J "buj.ldings and land-
scapìng are in su'ost2.nt~_al accorda-;ce WJ_th schematics.9 the flnal
drawings become 20'1 exhibit Elnd attached to the bUllding permit
application.
Seconded by Commissloner Fltch.
Moved by CommlssiOl" l' F:.tch th2-t the Planning Commisslon amend
the recommendation for 2cpproval by adding the following:
Hhereas, it is important to protect our ci tJ_zens from lnvasion
of prlvacy and, whereEls, this problem also has been repeatedly
touched upon by residents adjoining thls applicant's property 2.S
ìJelng of similar C'oncern, it lS therefore recommended that dwell-
J.ngs erected on R-3-H parcels not only conform to existing zoning
ordin2nces but that they also have setbaclcs from ,J.d,joining R-l
or R-2 properties of not less than 10 feet per story.
No second.
Moved by C.'mmlssioner Fl.tch that the P1Elnm.ng Ccnm1ission amend
the recommendation .>."01' approv2.l by adding the following:
Vlhcreas, the inconvenience of noise, fumes, and traffic conges-
'cion resulting from cOI11lnute trafflc should not be visited upon
DGighooring residential dlstricts, and vrherc2~3J 'jhe hazards from
co~mutlng traffic to the Ilfe 2.nd 11mb of neishboring lnhabitants
and their children are by no means lnconsequential, and whereas,
this problem has be on repeatedly touched upon ':y" resldents ad-
joj.ning this applicant's property as being of primary concern,
it is therefore recommended that access to said residential dis-
trlcts from the M-l-H zoned parcels plus such other parcels as
the developers may wish to include oe permitted only by way of
Stevens Creek Blvd., Homestoad Road, and Blaney Avenue.
No second.
Roll call on hereinabove mentloned motlOl"l and second.
AYES: Commlssj,oners: Adamo, Fitch, Rampy, Snyder, Small
NAYS: Comi11issioners: None
ABSENT: COI11lßissioners: Bagar
ABSTAINING: Leonard
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
2.
Leonard Family: Application
C-l-H, M-l-H, R-3-H, & PO-H;
of Linnet. Hearings closed.
to rezone 88 acres from A-2:B-4 to
South slde of Homestead Road east
Vote scheduled.
1.0
Commissioner Snyder moved as follows:
That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that
the Leonard F'ar,llly applica'cJ.on to rezone 88 2.cres from A··2:B-,!+
to C-l-H, /ll-l-H, R-3-H, and PO-H be approved ,lith the following
stipulations and conditions:
-8-
2.0 The C-I-H zoning consisting of approximately 12 acres fronting
on Homestead R,ad is conditioned as folloVls:
2.1 The twelve standard condltions be complied wlth as per
Exhibit B.
2.2 Tlillt prior to the developement of the property precise site
control and architectural plans be presented to the Plann-
ing Commission and H Control Committee.
2.3 We recognize the need for participation in a signalization
program at Wolfe RJad and Homestead Road. vIe recommend
that this be considered at time of developement.
2.4 Land should be dedicated to allow Homestead Road to be
widcned and improved to 90 feet.
2.5 Land should be dedicated to allow Wolfe Road to be widened
and improved to 90 feet.
2.6 This zoning shall not apply to lands required for freeway
developement.
2.7 Prior to developement all street plans are to be submitted
to and approved by the City.
3.0 The R-3-H zoning consisting of approximatcly 20 acres is condi--
tioncd as follows:
3.1 ~he twelve standard conditions be complied wlth as per
Exhibit B.
-o-
J
3.2 That prior to the developement of the property precise SJ. te
control and ar'chJtectural p12.ne be prc:Jented to the Plann-
J.ng CommissJ.on and H Control CorruTIJ. ttee.
3.3 Land should ;)e ded:lcatcd to alloVl Homestead Road to be
wldened and j.mproved to 90 feet.
3.4 T;Üs zoning shall not apply to lands rcquiped for freeway
developement.
3.5 Prior to developement all street plans are to be submitted
to and approved by the City.
4.0 The M-l-H zoning conslsting of approxi ately 45 acres is condi-
tioned as follows:
4.1 The twelve sr.andard conditions be compliad with as pel'
Exhibit B.
4.2 That prior to the developement of the property precise site
control and archJ.tectural plans be presented to the Plimn-
ing Commission and H Control Committee.
4.3 Land should be ded~cated to allow Prune ridge to be widened
and improved to 90 feet.
4.4 Land should be dedicated to allow Wolfe Road to be widened
and improved to 90 feet.
L:..5 T;Üs zoning shall not apply to l2.nds required for freeway
developement.
4.6 Prlor to developefi~nt all street plans are to be submitteù
to and approved by the City.
4.7 1'he Planning Commission reallzes that tile City of Cupertino
has not adopted a standard for M-l-H zonlng. The Commissir
h2cS conducted a detailed study of the M-l-H standard emplo;y_
by Stanford Industrial Park. It is recoIT~ended to the City
Council that thj.s study (referred to In this motion as
Exhiblt A-2) become a standard for the Clty of Cupe rtino
and also recommended that it become a conciition for the
Leonard Family H-l-H rezone.
(See page 5 for Exhibit ^-2)
5.0 The PO-H zoning consisting of approximately 10.7 acres is condi-
tioned as follows:
5.1 The twelve standard conditions be complied with as per
Exhibit B.
5. 2 That prior to the deve lopement of the ppoperty precise SJ. te
control and architectural plans be presented to the Plann-
ing Commission and H Control Corru'j1Ì ttee.
5.3 Land should be dedlcated to allow Prune ridge to be widened
-10-
5.)<·
5.5
5.6
5.7
and lmproved to 90 feet.
L3..nd shoUld '..>8 dedicated to allow 1'Jo1£'e Road to be widened
and ~mproved to 90 ":-cet.
This zoning shall not apply to lands requlred for freeway
developement.
Prlor to developement all street plans are to be submitted
to and approved-by the City.
The Planning Commission realizes that the Clty of Cupertino
has not adopted a standard for PO-H Zoning. The Commisslon
has conducted a detailed study of the PO-H standal~ employe~
by Stanford Industrial Park. It is recommended to the City
Council that tIEs study (referred to in this motion as
Exhibit A-l) become a standard for the City of Cupertino
and also recommend that it become a condition for the
Leonard Family PO-H rezone. (See page 7 for Exhibit A-l)
Seconded by Comnlissione~ Fitch.
AYES: Commiss:'.oners: Adamo, Fitch, Rampy, Snyder, Small
~AYS: COmnlissloners: None
ABSENT: Comr.lissioners: Eagar
ABSTAINING: Leonard
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
2. Lester & Lester: Application to rezone 100 acres from A-2:B-4
to M-I-H, C-I-H, R-3-H, & PO-H; north side Stevens Creek Blvd.
adjoining east side of Idle1¡lild Greens. Hearings closed. Vote
scheduled.
Commissioner Snyder moved as follows:
1.0 That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that
the Lester & Lester application to rezone 100 acres f~om A-2:B-l¡
to M-l-H, C-l-H, R-3-H, and PO-H be approved with the following
conditions and stipulatlons:
2.0 The C-I-H zoning consisting of approximately 14,1.~ acres fronting
on Stevens Creek Blvd. lS condltloned as follows:
2.1 The twleve standard conditions be complied with as per
Exhibit B.
2.2 That prior to the developement of the property precise site
control and architectural plans be presented to the Plann-
ing Commission and H Control Committee.
2.3 He recognlze the need for particlpation In a signallzation
program at Wol.ie Road and Stevens Creelc B".vd. 'II", recommend
that this be considered at time of developement.
2.4 Land should be dedicated to allow S~.eve;'ls Creek to be wid-
ened and improved to 120 feet.
2.5 Land should be dedicated to allow Wolfe Road to be widened
and improved to 90 feet, less lands required by freeway
intercr.ange.
-11-
2.6 This zoning shall not apply t8 lc:,nds requ:ired for freeway
c1evel'8pement.
2.7 PrJ_or to developem8n~ all street plo..ns are to be submitted
to and 8.ppl'oved -:...~y the C-1 t~".
3.0 The R-3-H Z8¡Üng consi.sting of approxlmately 5.3 acres is con-
ditìoncd as follows:
3.1 The twelve standard conditions be complied with as per
Exhl~}it B.
3.2 That prior to the developemcntof the property precise site
control and archi.tectural plans be presented to the Plann-
ing Commission 3.ncl H Control Commlttec.
3.3 Lé:.nd should 'Je dedlcated to allow wolfc Road tv
be widened and improved to 120 feet, less lands required
by freeway interchGnge.
3.4 This zoninG shall not apply to lands requlred for freeway
developement.
3.5 Prior to developement 3.11 street plant1 are to be submitted
"Co and approved by the City.
4.0 The M-l-H zoning consisting of 56.6 acres condltloned as follows'
4.1 The twelve standard conditions be complled In th as per
Exhlbit E,
4.2 That prior to the developcment of the property preclse site
control and archltectural plans lie presented to the Plann-
ing Commission and H Control Comnn ttee.
4.3 Land should be dedicated to allow Wolfe Road to be widened
and improved to 90 feet, less lands required by freeway
interchange.
4.4 This zoning shall not apply to lands requ:'.red for freeway
developement.
4.5 Prior to developement all strect plans are to be submitted
to and approved 'oy the Cl ty.
4.6 The Planning, Commlssion realizes that the Cit<r of Cupertlno
has not adopted a ¡;tandard for M-l-H zoning. The Commissio,
has conducted a detailed study of the !·i-l··H standard employ",
. by Stanford Industrial Park. It is recommended to the City
Council that this study (referred to in this motion as
Exhibit A-2) become a st2.ndard for the C::.ty of Cupertino
and also recommended that it become a condition for the
Lester & Lester M-l-H rezone. (See page 5 for Exhibit A-2).
5.0 The PO··H zoning consisting of approxÌL1atelY 24.2 acres condltionc
as follows:
-12··
· !
+.
5.1 The twelve standard conditions be complIed with as per
Exhibit B.
5.2 That prior to the developement of' the property preCise site
control and architectural plans be presented to the Plann-
J.ng Cor.JJ!llssion an(l H Control Committee.
5.3 Land should be dedic a ted to aIIo;·¡ \101fe R:é'.d to be widened
and improved to 90 feet, less lands required by freeway
interchange.
5.4 ThJ.s zoning shall not apply to lands required for fr!!?8way
developement.
5.5 Prior to developement all street plans are to be submitted
to 2.:1.d approved by the City.
5.6 The Planning Commission realizes that the Clty of Cupertlno
has not adopted a standard for PO-H zoning. The C,œmission
has conducted a detailed study of the PO-H standard employeè
by Sta nford Industrial Par!:. It is recommend.ed to the Cit~
Council that this study (referred to In thlS motion as
Exhiblt A-l) become a standard for tillClty of Cupertlno
~nd also recommended that it become a condition for the
Lester & Lester PO-H rezone. (See page 7 for Exhibit A-I)
Seconded by Comnuss:oner Fitch.
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitch, Rampy, Snyder, Small
NAYS: Commlssioners: Non2
ABSENT: Comrnlssioners: ~gar
äBSTAINING: Leonard
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
Louis D. Segal addressed the Planning Commission to say that he
considered the vote on the Lester appllcation a flagrent disre-
gard of the property rights of Idlewild and Idlewild Greens
residents.
The Chairman stated that the Cemrnisslon had consldered the app-
lications long and concientiously and that the vote represented
their concluslons. He added that the appllcants must appear
before the Cl ty Council for a hearing wluch will be scheduled
for March 20.
RECESS AT 10:10
Ripley Homes: Application to rezone lots 36 and 51, Monte Vista
Subdivlsion, 10 acres, east side Blaney Avenue south side of
~ywood Subdivlsion; from R-l:B-2 to R-l. Second hearing. Ten-
tative map, 39 lots.
Clty Engineer reiterated that if all areas adjacent to the pro-
posed subdivision develope It mlght result In a street every
200 ft. or so along Blaney Avenue. This would be too many
intersections.
The applicant expressed willingness to change the map in some
respects.
-13-
Moved by Commissj.oner Adé\mo that the he8.l'lng be closed; Seconded
by Commissioner Snyder.
AYES: COITh'Tllss:'_oncrs: Aj,amo~ PltchJ R'lmpYJ Snyder, Small
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Bag8.l', Leom,rd
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
Commlssi8ner Leonard resumed his seat.
Moved by Commissioner Ad8.mo th2.t the Plamung Commlssion rec-
ommend to the City Council the change of zone from R-l:B-2 to
R-l subject to Exlllblt B and subject to the condition that all
City lmprovements be made along Portal Avenue, lncludlng the
two parcels lab led "exception"; Seconded by COffimissi oner Rdmpy.
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fltch, Leonard, Rampy, Snyder,
Small
NJne
Bagar
6-0
NJ\YS: Commlssloners:
ABSENT: Commissloners:
MOTION CARRIED;
The appllcant objected to the condltion that he lmprove the two
lots not a part of the subdlvlslon, although he saJ.d that he
fully intended to make the improvements.
Moved by Commissioner F:. tch that the tenta tl ve map appllca tion
be continued; Seconded ì:Jy Commi.ssioncr Rampy.
AYES: Commlssloners: Adamo, Fitdl, Leonard, R:unpy, Snyder,
Small
None
Bag8.r
6-0
NAYS: Commìssicners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
5. Sunshine Acres Investment Co.: t\pplici''ction to rezone lots 1 -
8 inclusive Tract 2086, IdleViild Greens, from R-l to R··2-H.
First hearing.
Postponed by request of applicant 0
VI UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Ordinance 002D: Amusement Resort Zone; referred back by Coun-
cll due to changes J.n ordim:mce.
Moved by Commissioner
ommend approval of the
by Com~issioner Adamo.
AYES: Commissioners:
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Com~lssioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
Pi tch théèt the Plannj.ng CommJssion rec-
changes made In Ordlnance 002D; Seconded
AdamoJ Fitch, Leonard, RumpYJ Snyder)
gmall
None
BClgar
6-0
Lo Miscellaneous
Relatlve to the suggested finance meetlng with the Clty Council
Commlssloner Leonard said he would clarify hlS posi tlon by a¡;\;:=
ing "what lS the City using for money and what liS being done
witil It'!''. He said there may not be enough slght for the ord..
erly develoj:-ement of the City. If se), what are the plans for
-11-1-.-
· ,
raising additional revenue.
Commissloner Fltch SuoIDltted a letter on behalf of the Planning
Commissìon expressing the request or that body for a fìnance
meeting.
Moved by Commissloner Leonard that the Fltch letter be typed
and submitted to the ClCY Council; Seconded by Comm:iæioner Snyder
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fltch, Leonard, Rampy, Snyder,
Small
None
Bagar
6-0
NAYS: Commissloners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
(See Clty Manager Report to the City Council under date of
March 1, 1961; last page)
VII NEW BUSINESS
A. Assembly of God of Monta Vista Church: ApplJ.cation for use
permit to bUlld church on east slde of S elllng, north of Stev-
ens Creek Blvd. south of Alves Drive; slte 264' x 660'
Moved by Commissioner Snyder that a use perrnlt be granted to the
appllcant wubject to the 12 standard conditions In Exhiblt B
and approval of the o.rchltectural and site control committee,
said permit to be lnvalid J,f not used withln one yeo.r; Seconded
by Cornrnissloner Rampy.
AYES: Commissioners:
Adamo,
Small
None
Bagúr
6-0
Fitch,
Leonard, Pzmpy, Snyder,
NAYS: Commissioæ rs:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
NOTI01~ CARRIED:
B. Miscellaneous
1. Commissioner Fitch asked the City Attorney to checlc the
educatlon code relative to Plannlng Commlssion approval
of school sites.
2. Cornrnlssioner Fitch expressed interest in an ordinance reg-
ulating industrial and professlonal zones modeled on the
exhiblts included ln the recommendations for the current
applicÐ.tions.
VIII
ADJOURNMENT
MeeUng adjourned at 11: 35 p.r1. Febru2.r'] 27, 1961.
APPROVED:
~/ Anthony J. Pelosl
Mayor
ATTEST:
~/ Lawrence K. Martln
Ci ty Clerk