PC 02-11-63 10321 So, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 252-4505
CITY O_F C_U P E R T I N O
Cupertino, Caflfor�hia-._�.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, 'FEB. 11, 1963
TIME: 8: 00 P.M.
Place: 10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
I SALUTE TO THE i'LA.G
II ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present : Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Small,
Snyder
Commissioners Absent: Fitzgerald, Rampy
110 (Fitzgerald arrived 8: 30) •
Staff Present: City Atborney, City Engineer,
City Clerk
MINUTES OP THE. PREVIOUS MEETINGS: January 28, 31, 1963
January 28 Minutes, Page 4, last paragraph. The developer,
Mr. Steinberg, denied that he or a representative from his office had
told Mr. Zeszutek they would ask for zoning on the Zeszutek property.
It was moved by Commissioner Small and seconded by Commissioner
Leonard that the minutes of January 28 be approved as corrected, and
the minutes of January 31 be approved. Motion carried 5-0,
III COMMUNICATIONS:
A . Written
1. ASPO Newsletter - January 1963
2. There has been an appeal on the Wilson Application on
MacDonald' s Restaurant
B. Verbal
1. Mr. Mariani asked the Commission if the PC-H ordinance
limited a building to a story and a half, adding that
the firm interested, is considering a three or four story
office building.
The Commission and Mr. Mariani discussed at length whether a
variance could be applied for at the time of presentation of the
application. Commissioner Frolich pointed ouh that a six-story building
is allowed under commercial, therefore there would. be no need for a
variance, public hearing and the time delay involved.
The City Attorney told the Commission that they overlooked the
fact that Council may not want C-l-H to put in an office building. In
that case, there are two courses, either to change the ordinance, or
a variance.
Commissioner Fitzgerald arrived 8: 30 •
•
Mr, Mariani stated that his only concern at the moment is to deter-
.mine if he should do anything at that meeting.
The Commission agreed to review the plan submitted at the February
18th meeting, and to decide at that time whichever course was. necessary.
There were no other verbal communications.
V HEARINGS SCHEDULED
A HELEN AND GEORGE PIEPGRAS: Application # 2-Z- 62 to rezone •
1 acre from R-3-H to C-1•-H;' north side of Stevens Creek
Blvd. between Randy & Blaney. Second hearing continued.
Mi's. Helen Piepgras, 1635 Emory St . , San Jose appeared to answer
any questions the Commission might have , Mrs. Piepgras was under the
impression that all the problems had been solved.
Chairman Snyder pointed out that the problem is in the size of
the lot.
Commissioner Small: At the last Architectural Meeting, the
Commissioners stayed for a policy meeting. The H-Control Committee-
has made some errors just like our othe City agencies. Concensus
is that we are going to stiffen up so that development comes up to
the standard citizens expect . We have decided to spell out landscaping
various other things. I am sure, you will see a stronger picture.
On this ' particular application, we have gone into the building aspect
rather than the zoning. It ' 'is obviously commercial because of its
location.
•
On the for side:
1. Applicant has signed Assessment District agreement for
improvement of Stevens Creek Rd.
2. Good office space is at a premium in the City
3. Most cities are caught . with some parcels of this type.
The only thing we can do is to watch what goes in the.,:.e .
Against:
1. A small, narrow lot
2. There will be requests for extra signs
Commissioner Leonard: I .have done most of the kicking on the
ground that because of the size of the parcel, the applicant was
pleading to build a 50-year hardship case on less than normal sign
coverage and less than normal visibility!. I haven' t changed my mind
much on that. We have been trying for 6 or 7 years to get Stevens
Creek widened. If this turns out to be a compromise deal, knowing
the plea of hardship, that building doesn' t rent as well as it might,
I am agreeable to voting yes on the ground that if we get Stevens
Creek widened, that is fine. But, if tenants come in and ask for a
variance or move, let them move . If the applicant wants to go ahead
on that basis, fine.
Commissioner Frolich: I was against this originally because of.
the shape of the lot and didn' t feel it was up to the City to bail out
an owner, but I do think we ought to do what we can to encourage land-
owners to cooperate with the City in the', assessment district. The
architect _showed a fairly nice building. On those two grounds I would
be inclined to go along with the application also.
Chairman Snyder asked the applicant if she would be willing to
make the architect ' s sketch a part of the record. Mrs. Piepgras agreed.
This is . to be a condition of zoning.
Discussion followed regarding the setback. The City Attorney
concluded the discussion saying all that can be asked is that it line
up with the Mark Thomas Building.
There were no comments from the audience.
It was moved by Commissioner Fitzgerald and seconded by
Commissioner Leonard that the second hearing be closed.
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich; Leonard,
Small, Snyder
NAYS:. • Commissioners: None •
ABSENT: Commissioners: Rampy
Motion carried 6-0
It was moved by Commissioner Small, and seconded by Commissioner
Fitzgerald that the Planning Commission recommend that C-1-H zoning
as requested in Application #72-Z-62 be approved subject to the con- .
ditions of the Assessment District, that ''pr-eviollsly presented drawings
be made part of the record, that no special consideration be given on
extra signs, that building setback line cue equal to or greater than
the Mark Thomas Building, and must meet the conditions of Exhibit B.
AYES: Commissioners : Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard,
Small, Snyder .
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Rampy
Motion carried 6-0
•
-2-
B. GOODWIN . STmn mmTIa : 2..pplioation 73-Z-63 to rezone 7 acres
on the east side of Blaney, . 220' south of a projection of
Lucille from A-2:B-4 to R -24-•H. Second hearing.
Mr. Goodwin B. Steinberg, 321 Second Street, Los Altos, the
developer, presented drawings showing the development. Mr. Steinberg
gave a brief description of the development-: four apartments per -
building, three swimming pools, two stories to each apartment, 1200 sq.
ft. for 3 bedroom, and 900 sq. ft . two bedroom apartments . Roofs will be
almost vertical, improvised French Provincial styling, The developer
has already checked with the Sanitary District and is willing to dedicate
whatever is necessary.'
•
The Commission discussed the problem of accessibility to the
�develo development, theproblem of enteringunder the freewaybridge, and
p � g _
also the effect the development and the freeway had on the surroun3.ing
properties.
The City Engineer felt that the opening of a future street off
Lucille to cut back to Blaney would help the traffic problem.
•
Commissioner Fitzgerald heard of a school that has been planned
for 24 acres of the land.
Commissioner Leonard asked if there was any possibility of
serving this with a double entrance type of thing. Portal isn' t too
far away. Perhaps something could be worked out with the landowner.
If we could find a flat entry, then we would have two approaches. It
looks this way, like there is a built-in accident a week in connection
with the present entrance.
Mr. Nudelman, 10574 North Blaney, could see no problems on his
side of the property. He has no plans for development, and the plan
presented by Mr. Steinberg locks like a very nice development. "I. have
no objection" .
• Mr. Zeszutek: No comment .
Commissioner Frolich: Mr. Nudelman' s property is the only un-
developed property between Mr. Steinberg' s and Baywood Tract. I am
wondering if it wouldn't be possible to rearrange this so we have at
least one of the two access roads to line up with the other two streets
across the Nudelman peoperty.
Commissioner Leonard: There might be room. to continue the street
westward, north of Nudelman.
Chairman Snyder asked if the developer could arrange the plan to
accommodate two streets to provide accessibility. Mr. Steinberg said
he would be glad to look into it, wondering if the single-family
residences would object.
Commissioner Leonard pointed out that there is shopping at the
end of Portal. They could stay off Stevens Creek ge%ing to Portal
Plaza
•
The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. There were
none.
Commissioner Fitzgerald: On the school site, the reason I brought
this up is that there is a strong rumor that the school is going to
back off the Mariani site and go into this area . It is a possibility.
It teas moved by Commissioner Fitzgerald and seconded by Commission-
®er Leonard that the second hearing be continued to February 25.
•
AYES: Commissioners : Adamo, Fitzgerald,. Frolich, Leonard
Small, Snyder
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
Motion carried 6-0
C. HUMBLE OIL & RREFINING CO. : Application 75-Z-63 & 22-U-63 to
rezone . 94 of an acre from R--1-A:B-2 to C-1-H for construc-
tion of service station, SE corner Stelling Rd. & Stevens
Creek Blvd. Second hearing. (Use Permit also)
-3-
,
•
Karl ILar1 Stump, from rom Humble' Oil Co .', presented a prefabricated
steel building photo, redwood colored, which would look like wood in
appearance. They do not plan to develop the entire lot, and have
two banks and a restaurant presently into{rested in developing the re-
mainder of the lot. They have no definite committments on it. The
traffic' count in 1960 per day was 7,.500 ror Stelling, 15, 000
Stevens Creek. These figures show the area can support a station, and
where a: station can be supported, it is needed. 1965 shows an estimate
of 108, 000 cars per day on Stevens Creek.
Commissioner Small: We have been .accused of having 16 stations
in the City. I would like to discuss the following points:
1. I would hate to see that corner develop into a four-corner
intersection. I wonder if we would get four instead of two
stations .
2. The need for another gas station.
3. Is a station a useful product across the street from the -
proposed college. If not• a station, what use can be made of
the lot .
4 . There are three stations from Hwy 9 to there existing now.
5. A 100 ft. commercial lot on Stevens Creek. .
One advantage is opening up that corner. •
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred too the Shell Station denial
and asked what standards were' set forth then for incomin stations. -
Chairman Snyder said that one standard was that a gas station
should be part of an integrated plan.
Commissioner Frolich: We felt they, particular station w'is a
requirement of the area and that the development planned wasincom-
plete without it. The Commissions recommendation, which was refused
by Council, was also based on the beauty of the station itself.
Mrs. William Watkins, 20924 Pepper Tree Lane, Cupertino, again
was present to add a few comments to the, discussion. She opposed the
station' at the last meeting.. After surveying the area person'.11y, she
found four stations more than adequate to provide the needs of the
area. "I am still opposed to a gas station put up across the street
from the Jr. `College.
•
Mrs . Larson, 10208 Bonny, Cupertino: "I too am opposed for the
reasons stated. Also I understand them is a grammar school going
in on Stelling that will be very close t,o the station."
Mr.K. Engelson, P. O. Box 303, Cupertino, representing the
Williams family, commented that the college and station would not be
directly opposite. Mr. Euphratz has kept out a corner piece. Also,
the grammar school planned is separated from the station by some pri-
vate residences. .
Commissioner Frolich: On past history, ' we are hard put to find
a reason for granting this thing. We haven't even come close to the
guidelines we set down for the last station. One thing that is getting
out of hand is the thought that a service station is necessarily bad
next to a school. There is no bus service to speak of out here. The
school kids will be driving, and it seers to me that the traffic
generated by the Jr. College will be pretty great, and -it will be
necessary to locate a station near the school. Knocking these things
down on the basis that a station has ho business being near a Jr,
College seems fruitless . I am puzzled %ay the arguments that "we don' t
want a service station on our block" . While I am in. agreement with the •
ladies on this one, I wish they would drive down and, look at the most
recent stations and the way they are being kept up. I believe they look
better than most supermarket lots . I think it might .help if some of the
people who feel this way would look into this and see if they really
feel that a service station properly controlled, is a • less desirable
thing than a good many other commercial tr.ing.s that would probably end
up on a corner like this .
Commissioner Leonard: The Williams family have had that, corner for
a number of years and it is a comparatively small. portion. Assuming
we reject the service station, we are more or less pushed to reflect
what is an appropriate use.•
-4-
Mr. Stump: As far as the surplus property goes, .the Murdock
Building in San Jose is built on a smaller portion. We would be willing
to drop the surplus property from the present rezoning request: Our
schedule is tight . Chairman Snyder said that this isn' t the case .
The =problem is that the Council has extended the philosophy that service
stations are at a saturation point .
• 'Commissioner Leonard: I am receptive to getting 'Stelling Rd.
widened, but if we used this as an argument for getting improvements,
it would take 50 stations to get a mile widened.
Mrs. Larson asked if there wasn't some other kind of business
lipthat might put ' in the needed improvements . The Commission po3nfted out
that a church, as mentioned, wouldn' t have that kind of money.
Commissioner Small: There is a widening point and improvement
involved. If. we deny, how long until the corner gets opened up.
92 homes will be. Under construction in .another week. The •
favor is to open up the corner for dedication and improvement. The
noise and lights shouldn' t bother the residents of Pepper Tree.
Mrs. Watkins: We aren't concerned with it bothering us . We
are concerned with the gas stations in Cupertino. Is it going to
become a city of gas stations.
Commissioner Frolich expressed his thanks to, both Mrs. Watkins
and Mrs. Larson for coming tc the Commission and expressing their
viewpoints. He added that it is very seldom that anyone offers any
opinions unless they have a complaint .
RECESS: 10: 15
RECONVENE: 10: 20
A discussion followed on widening Stelling Rd. from McClellan
to Stevens Creek Rd. , and while the Humble Station might help one side
of the intersection, there would still be a single lane on the other
side, so that only 50% more traffic might go through.
It was moved by Commissioner Leonard that the hearing be closed.
Seconded by Commissioner Small.
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard,
Small, Snyder
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Rampy
Motion carried 6-0
It was moved by Commissioner Leonard and seconded by Commissioner
Fitzgerald ' that Application 75-Z-63 & 22-U-63 be denied •
'.
AYES: Commissioners: Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Snyder
NAYS: Commissioners: Adamo
ABSTAIN: Commissioner: - Small
ABSENT: Commissioner: Rampy
•
•
Motion carried 4-1-1
D. DUC & ELLIOT BUILDERS: Application 74-Z-63 to rezone 17.9
. acres from R-1:B-2 to R-i; adjoining Phar Lap Drive, on the
east bank of Stevens Creek. Second hearing.
•
•
It was decided by the Commission to consider both the application
® and the tentative map at the same time.
Mr. Larry S.shot. , 1003 W. El Camino Real, Sunnyvale, appeared
for the applicant.
The City Clerk read letters from the following:
1. Division of Highways: • No problems •
2.- ' County Health Department. The well on Lot 54 whould be capped.
3. P.G.&E. Utilities should be • supplied by street poles.
4. Sanitary District: No objections.
5 . ' ' Flood Control: Call received by the engineer: '
a) Land between channel ;center' line a.nd .existing easterly
top of bank should 'be .edicated to Flood Control District
b) Ac.dditional. 15 ft : easement: for erosion.
c Drainage . plans
. d) Fencing to easement line rather than to top of bank
The Commission didn't see the necc ssity of the poles in. r•:)nt,
and felt the PG&E and the developer could work together to ge poles .
.
in the rear of the lots. Commissioner Small commented that tr_._ :tract
on Hollenbeck Rd, with underground iin_es cost $600 per lot to have this
done. -He asked about the possibility of this here.
Mr. Duc told the Commission that h; e had investigated this
recently, ' and that competition didn' t allow him to tack. on the $boo
to the •purchase price at that time. Hefelt sure there wasn' t a.:s
much of a problem as indicated in getting most of the poles in the
rear.
The City Engineer said that the tentative snap is very good. On
lots 54 and 55, there has been shown a 10 ft . walkway. Resolution 575
shows this has Veen vacated. The builder said there was no problem
to them wherever it is eventually located.
The developer was requested to contact; the school district to
see where they want the walkway. .
Mr. Blake, Creston, would like to point out that it is Mandatory
for the children to have a walkway. At ,this time of the year, eGpeciall;'
it is impossible to get across the creed without one.
Chairman Snyder told Mr. Blake that this is what had just teen
discussed.
The City Attorney said he didn' t think the school wants to get
into dropping the kids on public streets, therefore vacated t i::: easement.
It was. moved by Commissioner Sma.11l, that the second hearing be •
closed. Seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald.
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, -
Small, Snyder
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Rampy
Motion carried 6-0
It was moved by Commissioner Frolich that Application 74-Z 63
be granted, subject to the 12 standard conditions, plus the additional
condition that the. well on Lot 54 be capped to the satisfaction of they
City Engineer, that the utility lines beirelocated on the rear lot
line as much as possible, that the applicant contact the school district
and determine the need and location, if there is a need, for the ease
ment, that the Flood Control . requirements be met as outlined to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Seconded by Commissioner Small.
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard,
Small, Snyder
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
Motion carried 6-0.
•
• It was moved by Commissioner Small 'and ' seconded by Commissioner
Frolich that the tentative map for 59 lots south of Phar Lap Drive be
approved as - submitted. •
•
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard,
Small, Snyder
NAYS: . Commissioners: • None .
ABSENT: Commissioners: Rampy
Motion carried 6-0
F. ALPHA LAND CO. : Application 28--V-63. for a Variance to
Ordinance 220. to allow side yaids of 20' where ordinance
requires 31 ' ; Rodrigues Avenue '& Terry- Way. •
Mr. Philip Ingber: representing Alpha Land Company told 'the
Commission that the company developed and built six 4-plexes, fronting
-6 •
-
on Terry Way. The property .was..not sub-divided, • hu_it is in meets and : .
bounds. They are anxious to get the property in condition to sell,
and have discussed with the Real Estate Commissioner in San Francisco. •
They have been advised to divide the six parcels into three._ The City
Engineer pointed out that applying on this basis, the side yard require-
ments are not met.:' All requirements were met during construction.
Combined, there is a 11' shortage. The ends are 2,0' 10", and sides
lO2' We don' t want to sell these as four-plexes. We would like to. meet
all requirements, both of State and our own code . •
Commissioner Leonard: We had a lot of activity on common green.
multiple . Members of the Commission were concerned about the Rossi-
® bility of going into composite :bhings, •but the buildings didn' t come
out as good as planned. This seems like the same type of thin; ' ,.
To go into a lot of variance procedure, so the builder can dump the
thing piecemeal, it :seems like a test to see if they can get a,T y
it. Then we would-see• a lot of this. Hardship or no, we should ay2aw
the line now.
•
Commissioner Frolich: On the front of these things, I under-
stand there is some confusion where your property ends and where your.
40' dedication to the city ends. Isn't there a strip that runs down
the center of the street. Would you be interested in improving it?'
Mr. Ingbert We would sell it to the developers of the Chow
property. They would have bought it had they realized it was there •
anyway.
Commissioner Frolich: Then your answer is NO.
- Mr. Ingber We don't have any plans at the present time to
dedicate it to the City of Cupertino. We are working on a deal with-
the developer of the Chow property. This property was developed under
• R-3. We met all those requirements . We are not cutting down on any-
thing. We are merely asking to subdivide the parcel.
•
Commissioner Leonard: If these were proposed together, this woul°
have been illegal.
Mr. Ingber: Yes, but .we were not aware if we sold these as
four-unit buildings, that the new owner would not be able to rebuild
the building. We discussed this with the real estate broker. I
think, if taken individually, where we do meet the side yard setbacks
there is not an overbuilding on the property. We followed the
ordinance. ,
Commissioner Frolich: We are in the process of revising our R-3
ordinance just to avoid this type of thing from. ha.ppenng. We are
changing lot requirements, and to put into the ordinance a lot •defini-
tion. Under those terms, this could not have been built. You
wouldn't have been anywhere near the density that you have now. 'We
weren' t aware that this was coming up.
Mr. Ingbei. : We developed under your ordinance at that time.
Now we are asking a variance. Our feeling is that if we met the require
ments necessary to be able to sell the buildings, the only way is to
divide into B unit buildings. Therefore, we come up against the side
yard problem.
Commissioner Leonard: It seems to me that the applicants were
anxious to beat the density requirements of Cupertino. They selected •
a loophole and treated it as one parcel and got a few more units.
I don't see that they should escape the consequences.
Chairman Snyder: You worried about developing, and now you are
trying to sell it?
Mr. Ingbeg: We were not aware of this at the time we built .
We didn't look for loopholes in the ordinance . We are asking you to
alleviate a hardship by getting a variance of 11 ft. and subdividing
into three parcels.
Commissioner Frolich thought this should have been gone into
at length in the H Control Minutes. At this point he voiced a request
that a secretary be provided at the H Control meetings.
It was moved by Commissioner Frolich, and seconded by Commissioner
j_
Adam() that the hearing be continued to February 25, and that some
evidence be produced that an arrangementl' can be worked out between
Alpha Land and the builder to the west so that the street can be put
in.
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich,
Small,: *der
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Rampy
Motion carried 5-0
City Engineer: There is a 4. to 2 strip of land. I und.e:.:° ta nd
this is "no man' s land" .
Mr. Ingber : We understand the propert7 belongs to us. Mr..
O' Connell from Mason Bros. is also going,kn that assumption.
A report is requested from the Building Inspector on this matter.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
II
A. WILSEY, HAM & BLAIR: General Plan Program
(To be presented February 13, 1963 8: 00)
It was moved by Commissioner Frolich, and seconded by Commissin,c:r
Small that the meeting be adjourned to Wednesday, February lye, '3 at
8: 00 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: 11; 35
II
A Pt ROVED:
/S/� Charles K. Snyder
Chairman
ATTEST:
Lawrence K. Martin, City Clerk
II
411
II
—8—