Loading...
PC 07-28-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone 408 252-4505 PC-337 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEETING Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Johnson Chairman Koenitzer Staff Present: Planning "Director Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Attorney Foley City Engineer Whitten APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- July 23, 1980 Com. Koenitzer, page 5, par. 2 change name of school to Eadon. Page 10, par. 6, line 3, change to read, "...more meetings at Monta Vist High School alone...." MOTION: Com. Blaine, Approval. Second: Com. Claudy , July 26, 1980 Com. Claudy, page 4, par. 1, line 5, amend to read: "COM. CLAUDY stated that the fact that the sewer lines do not run uphill would have to be considered." Page 9, par. 3, line 4, "No doubt in the same circumstances and from the same vantage points as the aupience, he felt he would be saying the same things as the residents, and it worried him that he seemed to be voting against the maj ority." Page 9, par. 5, line 1, change to read: "COM CLAUDY stated that some- body had to go ahead to bite the bullet to start making motions." Page 2(14), par. 4, line 5, change spelling of La Forge to Forge. Page 20, par. 1, lines 4 & 5: "...that zoning could be done in the absen e of any plan to develop something." Page 1, par. 4, line 3, change: "The existing units of a facility on the south side of the freeway...." Page 12, (24), under New Business, par. 8, line 4: change to read: "Associate Planner Piasecki related that under Application 22-Z-80 and 8-T} -80, Lots 19 through 24 had not been prezoned by the City. He ex- hibited a map of the area and said that the property owners had requeste prezoning. He asked that the Planning Commission direct the City Staff to initiate the prezoning of all of those properties." MOTION: Com. Claudy, Approval. Second: Com. Blaine. PASSED ABSTAINED: Com. Adams (Absent from meeting.) July 14, 1980 Com. Adams, Approval as submitted. Second: PASSED 5-0 5-0 MOTION: PASSED: ABSTAINED: 5-0 Com. Blaine POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS w~ITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS PC-337 Page 2 MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM #1, Application 32-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (SCENIC BOULEVARD/ RIVIERA ROAD): PREZONING approximately 1.4 gross acres from Santa Clara County R1-l0 (one family residence, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino P (Planned Development with Residential l-5 dwelling units per gross acre intent) and approximately 2.6 acres from Santa Clara Rl-lO (One family residence, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino R1-l0 (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Scenic Boulevard and Palm Avenue.and easterly of Scenic Boulevard approximately 500 ft. northerly of Palm Avenue. First Hearing. City Council Hearing date -- August 18, 1980. (Prior to proceeding on Item #1, CHR. KOENITZER verified that Mr. Hansen (Attorney on Item #13 -- Unfinished Business -- had been notified that he was on the Agenda. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that he had so advised Mr. Hafisen by telephone earlier in the day.) CHR. KOENITZER briefly described the procedure of PREZONING and asked that issues of annexation not be brought up. On each item he said the Staff Report would be reviewed, and then the issue of prezoning would be addressed by the Commissioners after members of the public had been given their opportunity to make statements. On applications it was explained that a review of the application by Staff was followed by public statements on the applications, and then consideration by the Commissioners. It was explained that the prezoning issue meant that the City was deciding what zoning would be placed on the areas when and if they were annexed into Cupertino. Determination of whether or not to annex was not a concern of the Planning Commission. Annexation was solely a matter that was left to the direction of the City Council under current state laws; under which laws the City was required to zone or prezone all lands within its sphere of influence. The effort was to place a zoning that was compatible with the development already in the area. Assistant Planning Director Cowan exhibited a map of the area to be pre zoned under Item #1, 32-Z-80, which he pointed out was within the City's sphere of influence, and could be one· or the areas required to be annexed into Cupertino within a stipulated five-year period. (Requirements of LAFCO and MORGA prevail.) The idea of prezoning was to 1) enable the City to efficiently handle developments applied for by private individuals; 2) eliminate the necessity of developers having to start their appJications with zoning changes for given areas to be developed -- many times, in the City of Cupertino. a developer finds that annexation must be accomplished before he can proceed. Reviewing the entire town for conformity within the sphere of influence was more efficient and fair. The prezoning also enabled the City to utilize a Gity Services Zone, which would enable the City to have more control over the County pockets. MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-337 Pa¡;e 3 Application 32-Z-80, was explained as involved with ten (10) or twelve (12) individual properties within the City boundary; a series of lots located in the County (Rl-lO) zoning, to be brought into Cupertino Rl-lO Two lots fronted directly on Scenic Boulevard, other lots were on the upper plateau and the rest were on the flatter floodplain bank of Steven Creek. Because of access problems and because of less vegetation, the City was recommending Planned Development zoning, which would give the City more flexibility in homesite decisions. It was expected that the side slopes and the creekbed of Stevens Creek would be preserved in accordance with a recently approved project contiguous to the 32-Z-80 property. A detail map of the area was exhibited and Planned Developmen explained very briefly. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy SECOND: Com. Johnson YAUrn: 5~ COM. BLAINE asked Staff if it might be better not to show Reviera Road on the map -- conforming with the Conceptual Map -- Exhibit A2. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the purpose of the Conceptual Plan was to show the Circulation Plan for the City -- the base map being already available. He added that if they so wished, the Commissioners could direct Staff to eradicate Reviera Road. MOTION: SECOND: PASSED: Com. Adams. Recommend Granting Negative Declarati09 Com. Blaine 5-0 MOTION: SECOND: PASSED Com. Adams, Recommend Approval 32-Z-80 as per Staff Report. Com. Blaine 5-0 The Commissioners agreed that Staff should be directed to remove Reviera Road from the map. COM. BLAINE moved to approve the minutes with the above correction. SECOND: Com. Adams PASSED: 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Claudy ITEM 112, Application 33-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (WEST VALLEY INDUS- TRIAL PARK): PREZONING approximately .5+ gross acres from Santa Clara County A (Exclusive Agricultural) to City of Cupertino ML (Light Industrial) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The sub- ject property is located adjacent to and northerlv of McClellan Road approximately 700 ft. east of Bubb Road adjacent to the unimproved State Freeway 85 right of way. First Hearing. Œty Council hearing August 18, 1980. Planning Director Sisk explained that the property in question was the lone existing residential structure in an ML zone (light industrial zone). that the property was designated to be maintained residential for the present occupant's use. Thus, if the present occupant ceased to use the property as a residence, then the property would become a part of th surrounding light industrial zoning of the rest of the area. It was pointed out that the industrial park had a commitment to extend a street to the .5~ parcel at some future date. Mr. Jim Fair, 21683 Lomita Avenue, Monta Vista, asked if since the zonin was non-conforming, was the owner permitted to make improvements to the property. PC-337 Page 4 MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Director Sisk explained that improvements were permitted on the property as long as they did not exceed 25% of the value of the property in one year. The intent of the non-conforming use was to bring the property into conformance at the time of ownship change. In the event of annexation to the City of Cupertino, the appropriate zone would be ML (Light Industrial) in conformance with the surrounding property and the General Plan. Mr. William Antonieli asked questions to clarify the status of the rights of the present owners. He stated that the present occupant had had the property for 55 years and had lived in the residence for the past 25 years. He said he felt the zone designation was patently inequitable. He stated that there was some quëstion about the fact that the property would have access through the rear of the area. He said he thought that did not take effect until annexation took place. It was pointed out that the Freeway right-of-way would take off 35 feet from the property that in comparison with the rest of the industrial land, was a marginal piece of land at the most. Since the property owner had had to move his business at one time, to allow himself to continue to live in the property, and conform once, now he was being asked to reverse it. Mr. Antonieli said that in his wildest imagination he couldn't credit such a 360 degree change. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy SECOND: Com. Adams PASSED: 5-0 COM. CLAUDY stated that prezoning or rezoning, or even annexation, would in no way tell the owner that he could not continue to live in the house or maintain the character and reasonable use of the property. MOTION: SECOND: PASSED: MOTION: SECOND: PASSED: Com. Claudy, Recommend Granting Negative Declaration. Com. Adams 5-0 Com. Claudy, Approval 33-Z-80 Com. Adams 5-0 ITEM #3, ITEM #4 and ITEM #5, all three being Prezoning issues of similar and straight forward nature. were heard together in the interest of saving time. CHR. KOENITZER explained that the Staff Review would be given, the public would be asked to contribute co~ents and then the Commissioners would render a vote on each application. Assistant Planning Director Cowan identified the areas covered by the applications on maps posted on the board. Shadowhill Land (the 1st application 34-Z-80) he said had developed in low density, single-family detached character. One church needed approval as a PQ (Quasi-Public Use), and the rest of the area was being requested for zoning at Rl-6. He said that larger lot size could be allowed if the Commissioners wished. The Rl-6 was the most reasonable zone unless owners could get together to de- velop the area. The lots surrounding the area being discussed were said to be in the 6,000 sq. ft. range -- the general character of the area. MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-337 Page 5 ITEM U3, Application 34-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (STELLING ROAD/ RAINBOW DRIVE): PREZONING approximately 6 gross acres from Santa Clara County AI-lac (Agricultural/Residential, one acre minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission an ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the east side of Stelling Road approximately 150 ft. northerly of Shadow hill Lane. First Hearing. City Council hearing -- August 18, 1980. Item #4, Application 35-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (BOLLINGER ROAD/ STELLING ROAD): PREZONING approximately 8 gross acres from Santa Clara AI-lac (Agricultural/Residential, Single-family, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone way be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEH: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subjec property is located between the westerly most terminus of Bollinger Road and Stelling Road. First Hearing. City Council Hearing - August 18, '8 ITEM US, Application 36-Z-80 of CITY OF CU¥ERTiNU (STELLiNG ROAD): PRE ZONING approximately 28 gross acres from Santa Clara County A (Exclusive Agricultural) and AI-lac (Residential, one acre minimum lot size) zone t City of Cupertino Rl-6 (Residential, Single-family, 6,000 sq. ft minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may b~ deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The sub- ject property is located on the east and west side of Stelling Road northerly of the intersection with Orion Lane; in the northwest quadrant 0 of Stelling Road and Orogrande Place between Stelling Road and November Drive; and on the east side of Stelling Road opposite Carriage Circle and adjacent to Jollyman Park. First Hearing. City Council hearing August 18, 1980. The Commissioners discussed the character of the presently developed area, the location and possible extension of Bollinger Road (expected to be considered under the General Plan Circulation Element sometime during the next two months to two years), and other aspects of the Staff Report on Items #3 through #5, as set forth ié Staff Report dated July 25, 1980 by Associate Planner Piasecki, a copy of which was made available to the public. Ms. Lois Kirchoer, 11360 S. Stelling Road, Cupertino, owner of the 2nd parcel on the front within the red-marked area on the posted map, said that she had been before the Commissioners before. She said they had moved away from the City once -- to the County, and now the City was following them. sne stated that tne idea of crowding five homes on her lot was not attractive to her. Extension of Bollinger Road would divide her property, intersect two homes, and go through the church parking lot. Most of the people in the area did not want development with more people in more homes. CHR. KOENITZER said there was no desire on the part of the City to push for redevelopment of the area. He pointed out that if owners got to- gether at some future date to develop the area, it would be necessary to extend a street, or Bollinger Road, (or some access route into the area as part of the development). He said that Staff was anticipating the range of possibilities in future problems and the possible solution to the problems upon application for development. PC-337 Page 6 MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Kirchoer, 11360 S. Stelling Road, Cupertino, wished to go into one or so points. (1) Regarding previous Planning Commissions, he said that when he started building his own home, which took him five (5) years, there was a zoning. He said they were zoned appropriate for horses; and, he said that they had wished to maintain the rural atmos- phere. The areas around had been developed for 5 homes to the acre instead of 1 home per acre. He said they had had to live with the change. They had been to the County, and had been annexed to the City of San Jose. It was said that the street would not go through because of lack of parking places for cars. He said there were two churches in the neighborhood, only one of which had been approved with the provision that the parking lot be maintained to the rear of the church property. He said he was all for improving·' the lot of humanity, but the present zone change did not improve his lot at all. (Applause) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. C1audy SECOND: Com. Blaine PASSED: 5-0 Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised COM. BLAINE in response to her inquiry, that the homes were on an average of 6,700 sq. ft. lots. Across Stelling the¡lots were about 14,000 sq. ft. in size,; He ex- plained that what they were doing was setting minimuffi sizes for the lots in the event of subdivision taking place. COM. BLAINE said that one of her concerns had to do with the Rl-6 as a minimum lot size, which seemed to detract from an area in her opinion because of the areas annexed from San Jose having the smaller lot size for single-family detached homes. She asked the Commissioners if they would be willing to consider Rl-7.s minimum lot size for the area; this particular area being fortunate in having two churches with open space. A member of the audience asked for consideration of the width and length of the lots -- the present configuration of the lots being narrow and long. Commissioners Johnson, Adams, Claudy and Chr. Koenitzer agreed that they too would prefer to see the Rl-7.s zoning and Com. Adams added that he felt it would be a good compromise. Com. Claudy said he felt that they were going to see houses getting bigger and bigger on smaller and smaller lots. 110TION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com. Blaine, recommend Granting of·Kegative Declaration. Com. Johnson PASSED 5-0 SECOND: PASSED: Com. Blaine, Approval 3S-Z-80, zoning to be Rl-7.s, single- family, 7,500 sq. ft. lot size zoning. One acre PQ (Quasi- Public) Use for the churches in the area. Com. Claudy 5-0 On Item #5, Mr. Jerry Sullivan, 7630 Kirwin~Lane.,C~pertino, pointed to his home location on the posted map. He said they had been through San Jose planning or their attempts to plan -- and he outlined one or so incidents. The plans for Bollinger Road extension, proposed by the INSERT CORRECTION: PC-337, PAGE SA Ì'HN1ITES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLfu'JNING Ca.t-IISSION MEETING IT~I #5, Application 36-Z-80 only of CITY OF CUPERTINO (Stelling Road: PREZONING, etc. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report explaining the change from County A to City A, and locating Bollinger Road, which he indicated might be extended into the property should development occur. Policy on keeping animals, quasi-public zoning for church properties in the area was pointed out, and the large section of land for freeway right-of-way was identified. Mrs. Claire Prussnia (phonetic) 10909 South Stelling Road, traced the parameters of her property and dèscribed it as being 1.93 acres of land held under the Williamson Act. She asked for clarification of what woul happen to them if their land was taken. A 100-year-old tank house, built by John Stelling, and possible historical monument, was on the property. She invited anyone to visit her small farm and enjoy the fresh fruit and vegetables. Mr. Jack March, 7656 Elderly Court, Cupertino asked for clarification of the difference between Agricultural Code in the County vs. City of Cuper tino. Assistant Planning Director Cowan invit d Mr. March to call him at City Hall for information and explanations. He pointed out that restrictions on animal keeping would be imposed under resi- dential zoning. CHR. KOENITZER stated that the City's present plans, including the com- pletion of Route 85 Corridor, was brought up as being considered in the General Plan projection for the area (if not immediately, then sometime in the future). He reported that the State was indicating that maybe 85 Freeway was not really needed. This left the City in an awkward position on the Freeway, and on environmental impacts of the situation in terms of original conceptions. Part of the traffic problem is the implication, or fact, that the traffic problem just isn't there. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy, recommend Approval of Negative Declaration. Com. Blaine PASSED Com. Blaine, Close 'Public Hearing Com. Johnson PASSED 5-0 5-0 After discussion, it was agreed that the zoning designation should be re classified from Rl-6 to Rl-7.5 HOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Corn. Claudy, Approval 36-Z-80, change zoning from Rl-6 to Rl-7.5 as per Staff Report. COr.1. Johnson PASSED 5-0 Continue Minutes with Motion/Com. John- son on continuation of Items #9 through #15 to July 30, 1980, Wednesday Evening, Council Chambers, Cupertino. MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-337 Page 7 the City of San Jose, was described by Mr. Sullivan. He related that th streets in the area were congested because of being used as a bypass for congestion on other heavily traveled streets. Mr. Sullivan felt that the prezoning would be an open invitation for owners and developers to get together; thus, he said the whole neighborhood would be changed. It was stated that the people in the area judged more accurately the volumreof traffic using the streets than had the City of San Jose. The Commissioners discussed Rl-6 and Rl-7.5 zoning designations, the probability of Bollinger being extended through the area, and general traffic conditions; and an estimated time frame within which the streets in the area would be included in the General Plan Circulation Element were mentioned. Access and exitg to and from the Freeway corridor were discussed briefly. The Staff estimated fitting the street system into the circulation plans, depending upon the plans for the 85 corridor, would not be before the Planning Commission for at least 2-3 months on the inside and 2 years on the outside. COM. CLAUDY said he recognized the feelings of the property owners and understood their feeling that it would be nice if all the people who moved in had not moved in or would go away. He mentioned that develop- ment generally took; place because the.property owners got ~ogether with develop~rs to their advantage. CHR. KOENITZER noted that with Planned Development (residential), the General Plan would set forth the density of units in the way they would be designed when the application was filed. COM. JOHNSON asked if the City zoning was not the equivalent of what it was zoned in the County. Assistant Planning Director Cowan recited the sizes of various lots (from less than an acre to 42,000 sq. ft., which would give a very rural zoning or agricultural environment. Mr. Irwin Jack, 10760 S. Stelling Drive, Cupertino, said they had gone to the City and gone to the County and the traffic was still backed up bumper to bumper at peak hours. He said that they had to do what the City Council wished for the particular area. CHR. KOENITZER responded that there was no way of predicting what he or anyone else might do in the future. In the past, he said, it had only been in rare cases that condemnation had been used as a means of ex- tending streets or providing throughways on property. Generally, the method preferred by the City was reciprocal agreements and easements, immediate or future. The Commissioners pursued the future extension or streets (or a cul-de- sac) into the area should development occur. PurlLIC nEARIHG CLOSED: Corn. Blaine SECO~TD: Com. Claudy PASSED: 5-0 MOTION: SECOND : PASSED: Com. Blaine, Approve Granting Negative Declaration Com. Claudy 5-0 PC-337 Page 8 MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: Com. Blaine, Recommend Approval 36-Z-80, Prezoning Rl-7.5 as presented in Staff Report. SECOND: Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 MOTION* : SECOND: PASSED: Com. Johnson, to Continue Regular Planning Commission Meeting, PC-337, AGENDA ITEMS #9 through #15 to Wednesday evening, July 30, 1980. ITEM #13* was excluded from the above motion by virtue of having been continued so many times that it was decided to hear it during present meeting -- at the conclusion of Agenda Item #8. Com. Claudy 5-0 RECESS: 9:45 p.m. till 10:00 p.m. ITEM #6, Application 37-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (MARIANI PACKING PLANT): PREZONING approximately 27 gross acres from Santa Clara County ML-lac (Light Industrial, one acre minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino P (Planned Development with Residential, 20-35 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zone and T (Transportation) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the southeast corner of Home- stead Road and De Anza Boulevard. First Hearing. City Council hearing August 18, 1980. . * Mr. Richard G. Hansen, representing client on Item #13*, informed the Planning Commission members that if, as he understood, the Agenda was going to heard out on Wednesday, July 30, 1980, then he'd not be able to attend the meeting on that date. He said he and his client were ready to proceed in the hearing. CHR. KOENITZER pointed out that the Item l3 matter had been sent back to the Planning Commission not for a public hearing, but for a report back to the City Council confirming or rejecting a previous recommendation. He said they were charged with hearing pertinent new material on the issue. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to move Item #13 (UNFINISHED BUSINESS) onto the Agenda for the present meeting, July 28, 1980, the item to be considered immediately after the completion of Item #8 of the Agenda for the purpose of making a report back to City Council. ITEM #6: Planning Director Sisk stated that essentially all the infor- mation was included in the Staff Report. The reason for including the freeway segment in the Prezoning was that the Mariani Family expected to propose annexation of the property themselves. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine SECOND: Com. Claudy PASSED: 5-0 MOTION: SECOND: PASSED: Com. Blaine, recommend Granting a Negative Declaration Com. Claudy 5-0 MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-337 Page 9 SECOND: PASSED: Com. Blaine, Approval 37-2-80 as per Staff Report of July 25, 1980. Com. Adams MOTION: 5-0 ITEM #7, Application 39-2-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (MANN DRIVE/ADRIANA AVENUE): PRE20NING approximately 45.4 acres presently zoned Santa Clara County Rl-lO (One family residence, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size).and .25 acre presently zoned Santa Clara County OA (Administrative and Professional Office) zone to City of Cupertino Rl-10{Residential, Singl family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planniñg Commission and ENVIRONEMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property consists of thos unincorporated par- cels fronting Adriana Avenue from a point approximately 200 ft. northerl of Stevens Creek Boulevard to the northerly terminus of Adriana Avenue and those unincorporated properties fronting Mann Drive from a point approximately 175 ft. northerly of Stevens Creek Boulevard to a point approximately 130 ft. northerly of Dos Palos Court and including all un- incorporated parcels fronting Dos Palos Court, Meadowview Lane, Corte Madera Lane, Woodbury Drive, Monte Court, Gardenview Lane and Oakview Lane. First Hearing. City Council hearing August 18, 1980. Staff explained that the application was a request to bring one small 10 into conformance~ R1-l0, in conformance with the Old Monta Vista Plan to coincide with the commercial designation as distributed in the Plan. On lot was zoned for professional office, and Staff recommended a change to Rl-lO from OA. It was pointed out that one plan had been to abandon Adriana and provide a new street to form an intersection with Orange Avenue. The lot designated professional use in the County should be re- designated as residential in the City of Cupertino. Yhr area being dis- v· cussed was said to be in the area where the most time was spent on the Old Monta Vista Plan. The total of the acerage was less than 100 acres and therefore fell under the MORGA legislation. Ms. Pat Bluin, 10430 Mann Drive, Cupertino said that when she had re- ceived the notification of the changes, but she asked for an explanation once more, officially, She said she missed information regarding a sewe hookup. Her area was on septic tanks. Although she was aware that they were supposed to be tied up with the sewer, she felt the cost was too high a price to pay to come into Cupertino. She said she had been told that the problem wouldn't come up. Planning Director Sisk advised that Cupertino did not regulate the sewer in the City. Those on septic tanks now, could only be forced to change to sewers in the future if the neighborhood, as a group, went into an assessment district. If the tanks are pumped out and maintained, then there should not be problems. In the case of a completely failed septic tank, then the Health Department would be the agency enforcing the law on the books that could force a change to sewers. Doubling the size of house and number of occupants, then the City might try to get them on th sewer. He said there was not requirement that annexation required going onto the sewer system. It was stated that sidewalks were not forced ont a neighborhood. If sidewalks were wanted, then the community got to- gether and formed a request, an assessment district. PC-337 Page 10 MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A resident on Corte Madera Lane asked if the only reason behind Itßm #7 was convenience to the City. COM. BLAINE responded that part of the issue was efficiency in govern- ment -- one jurisdiction rather than two jurisdictions. She said they did have influence over the area whether it was in the City, County, or whatever; services, inter-agency matters and agreements. Some services that the county was finding it difficult to provide could be changed to benefit all residents concerned. She said that constraints were coming down. One thing that needed changing was the fact that the area was not getting sufficient street traffic enforcement. Presently the Highway Patrol is not coming and they should. She explained that there is supposed to be a divisiOn of speeding tickets. The resident said that it was evident that Com. Blain perceived more differences than the area residents did. Planning Director Sisk reminded them all that they were talking about matters more pertinent to annexation than to prezoning. He announced a special meeting for Thursday, July 31, 1980, with the police and fire department personnel at Monta Vista Elementary School. Mr. Sisk also explained that addi~g 25% improvements to one's home, either for main- tenance or addition, did not authorize the City to initiate the putting in of sidewalks. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Johnson SECOND: Com. Claudy PASSED: 5-0 MOTION: SECOND: PASSED: MOTION: Com. Johnson, recommended Granting of Negative Declaration Com. C1audy 5-0 SECOND: PASSED: Com. Johnson, commenting that the prezoning seemed to be a fairly straight-forward matter, asked for Approval of 39-Z-80. Com. Claudy 5-0 ITEM #8, Application 40-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD/ MONTA VISTA): PREZONING AND REZONING approximately 28 acres consisting of 21 acres from Santa Clara County CG (General Commercial) CN-h (Neigh- borhood Commercial), ML (Light Industrial); and City of Cupertino P (Planned Development with Commercial and Incidental Industrial and/or Residential intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. The subject properties are generally located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard beginning at a point approx- imately 600 ft. westerly of Mann Drive to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and southerly of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Orange Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. 4.15 acres from Santa Clara County F.-3 (one family residence, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size), R3-2.4 (low density multiple dwellings, 16 units per net acre), CN-h (Neighborhood Commercial) and City of Cupertino Rl-7.5 (Residential, Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to City of Cupertino P (Planned Development with residential 4.4-12 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. The subject property is located in the southwest quadrant of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Orange Avenue. MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-337 Page 11 2.0 acres from Santa Clara County CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and City of Cupertino ML (Light Industrial) to City of Cupertino Rl-6 (Resi- dential, Single-family, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone'.'or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. The subject property is located in the northeast quadrang of Pasadena Avenue and Lotnita Avenue. .85 acre from Santa Clara County ML (Light Industrial) to City of Cupertino þ~ (Light Industrial)zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. The subject property. is 10.... cated on the west side of Imperial Avenue approximately 100 ft. southerl pf Granada Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing. City Council Hearing -~ Ahguat l8, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that Application 40-Z-80 was somewhat unique in terms of applications for prezoning .and rezoning. The zoning boundary was traced (including areas A through D), which he said were consistent with the Old Monta Vista Plan -- a detailed plan worked out over a two-year period, approved by the City and County. The County jurisdictions were identified on the map. The City. juris- dictions were described as being the blank or white sections of the map. (For descriptions of Areas A through D, refer to Staff Report and map legend.) Applications recently apþtdved in the area would still be vali The new zoning would take precedence and it would be a part of the Old Monta Vista Plan; land uses regulated by policy. Staff felt that each parcel could be zoned individually; however, Planned Development with 4-l2 units/acre would coincide with the General Plan designation. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING: Com. Claudy SECOND: Com. Adams PASSED: 5-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com. Claudy, grant Negative Declaration. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. C1audy, Approve 40-Z-80, as per Exhibit A. "incidentaJ" before "residentiàl in area. Com. Blaine PASSED Insert word 5-0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS In accordance with Motion by Com. Johnson -- Second by Com. Claudy (See Page 8, par. 2, Passed 5-0, the Planning Commission called for ITEM #13 under UNFINISHED BUSINESS, as follows: ITL~ #13, Application 33-U-79 of GREGG C. BUNKER: USE PERMIT to operate photo driveup window facility in conjunction with retail sales of photo- graphic equipment and supplies and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environ- mental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaratio Said property is located on the northwest corner of Wildflower Way and Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road in a C-l (Commercial) zoning district. Con- tinued from Planning Commission Meeting of July 14, 1980. City Council .hearing -- August 18, 1980. :~ PC-337 Page 12 MINUTES JULY 2B, 19BO RECULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Planning Director Sisk said that he had nothing to add to the record that had been made so far. He called attention to the verbatim trans- cript of the previous meeting record. COM. CLADDY said it appeared to him, referring to Mr. Bunker's letter, that Mr. Bunker should have entered an application June 1, 1979 and in December of 1979. (A discussion followed with Assistant City Attorney Foley explaining the relevancy of the two dates.) CHR. KOENITZER asked for clarification to one question: He said that as he understood, it was San Jose Planning Commission policy on July 1, not to have driveup windows closer than 500 ft. That was a policy of their Planning Commission that w~s not an ordinance by the San Jose City Council until a later date in the year. Assistant City Council Foley called attention to a footnote which stated that Mr. Maggi of the Planning Department of the City of San Jose that the City Council of San Jose had directed that the 500 foot be inserted in the San Jose Ordinance. COM. BLAINE said she understood it was a policy -- a guideline -- for 500 feet in June and July. It was a concern as of July 1, 1979 to consider proximity of driveups to other driveups in San Jose. ~k. Richard G. Hansen, attorney for Mr. Bunker, said there may have been a policy -- à policy criteria. He stated that there is a vast difference tween policy criteria and ordinance. He said the one exception he took to Mr. Kilian's memo (a copy of which was in the Commissioner's packets for the meeting), was that on July 1, 1979, when the property was trans- ferred to the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino, in his estimation there was not even a policy criteria that required a 500 foot setback. He said that that requirement was adopted in September of 1979. He said he understood that the Planning Commission was to consider the dates of July 1st of 1979 and December 1979. If either date was found acceptable, then the application would be approved. He continued that if the basic criteria, ipso facto the 500 foot were in existence, then that was all that had to be considered. Since he had not attended the February meeting, he did not know what had been considered. It was his feeling that the Ccmmissioners had to relook at the application as though it were being seen for the first time -- viewing it through the eyes of the San Jose Planning Commission and asking if they would have approved the appli~ cation as of July 1st, 1979, or would they have denied the application. COM. BLAINE replied that they had had the application back and were asked to consider new information and then to report back to Cupertino City Council the result of their consideration of the new material. There was a complete file on the application, and with Mr. Kilian's memo, she felt that the new information had been entered unless Mr. Hansen knew of some additional information. Since Item #13 was not a public hearin~, but only a consideration for a report back to City Council, She explained that the action was not going to be approval or dis- approval, but just a report. which would state that new material causes a change of recommendation or no change of recommendation to the City' Council on Item #13. She concluded that since thcy had criteria to use from the City of San Jose as of July 1. 1979, they should use the criteria. Com. Blaine called attention to her statement at the meeting two weeks MINUTES JULY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-337 Page 13 previously that San Jose required landscaping and they wanted dedication for Highway 9. That is a trade-off quite frequently made. CHR. KOENITZER stated that from the report of findings of the City of San Jose, that it was essential or desirable, for the public convénience and welfare, that it would not impair the integrity and character of the Zoning District, where it would be located and would not impair the utility and value of the adjacent property or welfare of the neighbor- hood. He said that was similar to Cupertino Ordinance. There were four (4) points and the Commissioners had to find all four (4) points to pro- vide a report to the City Council that would approve the application. Each 'of the Commissioners considered the four (4) points and came to agreement. Planning Director Sisk said that Mr. Maggi of San Jose Planning Depart- ment advised Cupertino Planning Department that the 500 foot was inserte in the zoning ordinance. As a result of that information Mr. Bunker had been advised and was aware of the situation. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to Report to the City Council: "We cannot support in July for Criteria #3 or Criteria #4 of the San Jose Ordinance for a driveup window; THEREFORE, WE REAFFIRM OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION ON APPLICATION 33-U-79. SECOND: Com. C1audy VOTE: PASSED 5-0 Mr. Hansen asked if the matter went back to City Council and he was told that the Report from the Planning Commission would be forwarded for City Council consideration on August 18, 1980. NEW BUSINESS Continued, on Motion (Com. Johnson -- Page 8" Par. 2, to Wednesday July 30, 1980, 7:30 p.m. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT to 7:30 p.m., July 30, Cupertino. 1980, City Council Chambers, City of ATTEST: ,i2~~ APPROVED: t~';;;~ éhairman - .