PC 10-25-76
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone; 252-4505
PC-240
Page 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON
OCTOBER 25, 1976, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO,
CALIFORNIA
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
Chairman Adams called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. with the
Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Comm. present:
Comm. absent:
Blaine, Koenitzer, Gatto (7:37), Chairman Adams
IVoodward
Staff present:
Director of Planning and Development Sisk
Assistant Planning Director Cowan
Assistant City Attorney Kilian
Deputy Assistant City Attorney Foster
Director of Public IVorks Viskovich
APPROVAL OF. MINUTES: Since there were only three commissioners
present at this time, Chairman Adams suggested
this item be moved to end of agenda. It was so
moved by Comm. Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Blaine.
Motion carried, 3-0
POSTPONEHENTS: None
IVRlTTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Planning Director Sisk said he had just
received two letters involving an application on
tonight's agenda which he would introduce at the
time the application was heard.
Chairman Adams submitted a letter from a
Mr. Daniel Arthur, Drake Drive, Cupertino, expressing
the writer's views on closing of Mariani Avenue.
Staff to answer.
ORAL CO:1MUNICATIONS: None
PC-240
Page 2
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING CO~1ISSION MEETING
General Plan
Amendment
l-GPA-76
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
CITY OF CUPERTINO: . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
the land use element of the general plan.
1.
(l-GPA-76) to amend
First Hearing.
Chairman Adams noted the public hearing at the last meeting had begun a
review of several items under consideration for recommendation to the
City Council regarding zone changes to the general plan. The discussion
tonight,would start with Land Area 7, which had been omitted' from the
staff report of October 6, 1976.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan briefly reviewed decisions made at the
last meeting for Land Areas I, 2 and 3. He explained the general plan
can only be amended 3 times per year so requests will be heard in blocks.
Land Area 117
Mr. Cowan used a blown up transparency to locate site northerly of
Stevens Creek Boulevard and westerly of Stevens Creek, contiguous to
Varian Park. The applicant's request is for redesignation of the
property from residential 0-4.4 to Public Park.
The Assistant Planning Director referred to letters from residents of
the Oakdell Ranch subdivision opposing this proposal as they felt it
would be detrimental to their property. Staff feels the proposal is
very acceptable. The property is contiguous to Varian Park and
Stevens Creek and could provide a direct access to the neighborhood
park from Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Comm. Gatto asked what considerations had been taken into account for
homes across from the park. Mr. Cowan said there would be no éxtensive
use for end of park close to Clear Creek and Clear Wood Cts.
Comm. Koenitzer said he had reviewed plans òf the Parks and Recreation
Committee. He described a cliff along creek bed, noting a fence was
shown on the plan. He agreed the land was very beautiful and should
be left in natural state, but he could understand concer¡¡'li.of homeowners
of added access to their property.
It was ascertained a bridge to connect the park with the Oakdell Ranch sub-
division would be approximately 50 ft. Mr. Cowan said the creek bed itself
was, presently owned by the Santa Clara ¡'later District; he described the
possible plan for a trail system following Stevens Creek. He said the City
is looking at the possibility of redesigning the bridge, noting there would
be public hearings on the process and people in the area would be notified.
In answer to Comm. Blaine, Mrs. Dorothy Varian, lOll4 Crescent Road,
Cupertino, described the topography of the property. She pointed out a
65 ft. strip had not been included; it was her intention to include all
of the property. Mrs. Varian located road through her property, noting
it had been there since turn of century and she was required to keep it
open for the Flood Control District, the Fire Department and the City of
Cupertino.
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-240
Page 3
Mrs. Varian said there are many kids' going up and down that road
and she did not know how this could be stopped since the road had
to remain open. She was glad to hear about the fence as she had
rescued many youngsters from the cliff. She pointed out four points
of access to the creek. She spoke of the erosion which has been a
serious hazárd for years. She noted water has come as high as lO ft.
above structure line on Clearwood Ct.
Mrs. Varian clarified for Comm. Blaine that road giving access to
creek is on her property.
Public Works Director Viskovich explained the phase development planned
for this area. part of which will take place this year. He said there
would be fencing of this cliff. Future development has access coming
from Amelia Ct. which will have to be acquired. He noted the present
road could be used for park maintenance or emergency traffic but would
not be an access to park per se. The natural area will be kept
concentrated to the north. Timing for development will depend on
funding.
Mrs. Varian described a small parcel she has been renting from the
City of Cupertino to house her pumping equipment. She said she
appreciates the feelings of the people on other side of the creek but
reiterated there is no way she can block the road.
The meeting was opened to public comment.
Mr. Sal Viola, 22104 Clearwood Ct. Cupertino, pointed out his property
on the exhibited map. He pointed out the creek is only a trickle of
water and asked what provisions would be made to keep people from
crossing it onto his property. A fence would have to be 20 ft. high
because of slope. There are motorcycles no~ going up and down the
creek disturbing them.
In response to Mr. Viola, the Director of Planning clarified that the
trail was not a settled matter. Comm. Koenitzer noted that everyone
in the Creston area would be up in arms about a trail.
Comm. Blaine wondered if there was some way a fence could be erected
that would allow people to come in from Stevens Creek Boulevard but
not allow them to go on the private property. This was briefly
discussed.
Comm. Gatto said he appreciated the concerns of the residents backing
up to the creek who have enjoyed the creek for the past lS years.
There is a possibility that this space could become a usable part
of the park and he thought it would be inappropriate to close off
this possibility.
PC-240
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING CO~mISSION MEETING
Comm. Koenitzer noted the existing park land had been purchased before the
residences were built.
Comm. Blaine said she agreed with Comm. Gatto and felt that when the time
came for this property to become City property, the City could mitigate
the problems, She thought it was an excellent property for this purpose.
Comm. Koenitzer agreed, noting this land along the creek cannot be developed
and would always be available as an attractive nuisance.
Chairman Adams agreed, pointing out the 65 ft. strip of property should be
included.
Consensus was 4-0 that Land Area #7 be redesignated from residential 0-4.4
to Public Park with underlying use of 0-4.4 per acre.
Land Area 1/4
Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out the subject property is
located on Santa Clara Street mid-block between Alhambra Avenue and
Grand Avenue. The property owner's request is for redesignation from
residential to commercial to permit construction of a parking lot to
service the commercial property on Peninsula Avenue.
Exhibits of 1969 general plan, 1974 general plan, existing zoning and
proposed revision were displayed. Mr. Cowan gave a brief backgroWld
of the area. He noted there is an application for a private residence
next to property being considered. It was felt that if commercial zone
was given to this property, the other property ownerS would hold off
improving their property in the expectation their property could be
rezoned.
Assistant City Attorney Kilian answered Comm. Koenitzer that the property
would have to be pre-zoned since it is not in the City's jurisdiction at
the present time. The property cannot be developed in the County and
would have to be annexed to City and zoned according to the City's Judgment.
If it is pre-~oned, it will become that zone when it is annexed.
The hearing was then opened to the public for comment.
Mr. George L. Mangano, 10204 So. Portal Avenue, Cupertino, said his
properties were approximately l/5 and cl/6 of an acre. ' He sal.d when he
purchased it it was zoned commercial. He pointed out adjacent commercial
properties and inquired what impact this small amount he was asking for
would have on the area. He said there are many residential areas in
Cupertino that are next to commercial areas.
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 2S, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-24Q
Page S
Mr. Mangano said he had no intention 0 f having an exit onto Santa
Clara Avenue. There would be a buffer of 25 feet between his property
and the resident to the right. The cul-de-sac on Alhambra would have
no effect on ingress and egress of this property. The traffic would
not be increased to any great extent by the restaurant he was planning.
He read a statement expressing his belief that the down-zoning of his
property amounted to inverse condemnation.
Mr. Fred R. Ofner, 2l82l Alcazar Avenue, Manta Vista, referred to Mr.
Mangano's plan to build a restaurant. One of the things he missed in
Monta Vista was a local restaurant. There are already a lot of
commercial buildings on Peninsula and Santa Clara Avenues. He would
like to see a restaurant there to serve Industrial Park workers.
Mr. Mangano pointed out his building would be oriented to Peninsula
.Avenue and the parking would be in the back.
Mr. Wong of Sunnyvale said in his opinion the highest and best use of
land for this particular subject lot should be commercial zoning.
Assistant City Attorney advised the applicant this is not a zoning,
it is only a recommendation for amendment to the City Council. Comm.
Gatto pointed out this would not be a down-zoning in any event, nor
would it be an up-zoning.
/
Comm. Gatto pointed out that under commercial designation, there is
nothing to prevent property owner from selling off lots, the City
has no control to prevent building on back site and parking in front.
Mr. Mangano said he would be willing to accept commercial zoning for
Lot -1t9;
Comm. Gatto said in previous discussion it had been determined that
existing development was appropriate place to terminate commercial.
Unless there waS some technique to insure severe control, he would be
inclined to keep the present general plan designation of R4.4-7.7.
Mr. Kilian pointed out if the Planning Commission decision waS to keep
the present designation on property, the sole remedy for the applicant
was to petition City Council to initiate general plan amendment.
Comm. Blaine said she concurred with Comm. Gatto. She felt it would
be spot zoning to change zoning on Santa Clara Avenue.
Comm. Koenitzer agreed. Hr, Kilian answered Comm. Koenitzer that
Mr. Mangano's letter could be directed to City Council as a petition.
PC-240
Page 6
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chairman Adams said there was not much he could add, but he referred to
Comm. Gatto's point that there would be nothing to stop a building
from being put on 119 even though the applicant is not indicating such
at this time.
It was the 4-0 consensus of the commission that a general plan amendment
on this site not be generated.
Mr. Mangano ascertained that in order to develop the property, it would
have to come into the City. At which time he would lose the commercial
zoning and have to develop residential. He repeated his claim that this
amounted to inverse condemnation.
Land Area /15
The Assistant Planning Director noted the property involved consists of
approximately 5 acres, a portion of which is currently utilized by the
Brunswick Corporation and McDonald's Corporation, at Homestead Road and
Stelling Avenue. The property owner's request is to amend the General
Plan land use designation from a Recreation/Entertainment with incidental
commercial use to a designation that would permit a broader range of
connnercial uses.
It was noted the site is currently 64% developed, 54% with recreational
uses. The owner feels the City has not protected their potential market
because of other similar facilities in the area and that the land use is
highly restrictive.
Staff was recommending that the remaining 36% be allowed to develop under
general commercial with a planned development requirement.
Mr. Cowan answered Comm. Blaine there are no trip end restrictions.
Comm. Gatto was answered by Mr. Cowan and Mr. Kilian that in order to
develop commercial uses under Planned Development for this property, the
applicant would have to submit a revision to that zoning plan.
Comm. Gattò said he felt the applicant had a good case for requesting
a zoning change. The bulk of recreational zoning þas been realized.
To limit secondary uses would be a hardship. Comm. Gatto said he would
want to be assured the City would have control over what other uses did
come in, and the City could control under Planned Development designation.
Comm. Koenitzer said as long as the City retained control over the site,
he would agree. He pointed out that, in response to the City not protect-
ing the applicant's potential market, the tennis clubs, Wallbangers, etc.
had not been þuilt yet.
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-240
Page 7
Comm. Blaine asked about difference in traffic flow between commercial
with recreational intent and general commercial. She pointed out
there was no miniature golf course in Cupertino as an example of
other possibilities. Her feeling was not to throwaway the recreation
al intent at this point.
Mr. Sisk answered Comm. Blaine that if the change were approved, the
Planning Department and City Council would have to write a new
Planned Development ordinance for entire piece of property and they
could indicate what types of commercial uses could be used.
Chairman Adams concurred with Comms. Koenitzer and Gatto to
recommend a general commercial use. Comm. Blaine did not agree.
The consensus was 3-l to recommend that the land use designation
be changed from Recreation/Entertainment with incidental commercial
to general commercial with a planned development requirement.
Land Area 1/6
Assistant Plaririing Director Cowan, using exhibits, pointed out the
property on the southeast corner of Forest Street and Randy Lane.
The owner's request is to redesignate a single recorded parcel
from residential 0-4.4 to residential 4.4-7.7. The staff recommended
that the existing land use designation be retained inasmuch as the
redesignation of the property would necessitate a subsequent "spot"
zoning action.
Mr. Cowan peferred to a recent decision to construct a barricade on
Forest Avenue between Randy Lane and Vista Drive, which will tend to
re-enforce the duplex/single-family land use' boundary delineated by
Randy Lane.
The hearing was opened for comments from the audience.
Mr. Marvin Grimes, lOl74 Randy Lane, Cupertino, said he had duplexes
across the street from him and he had five letters plus his verbal
request not to have spot zoning in this location. The letters were
sub~tted to staff. Mr. Cowan ;oted that both letters received at
start of meeting were in opposition to this request.
Mr. Cecil Lowrey, l785 W, Campbell Avenue, Cupertino, said he did
not know anything about the letters. He said he was representing his
mother, who owned the property. He described the property, and the
surrounding area. Mr. Lowrey said his mother had been asked to
dedicate and imp;rove approximately 36% of her property. There are
no curbs or gutters. He pointed out the cul-de-sac would have to be
PC -2 40
Page 8
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
made on a curve. He felt there would be less traffic with a duplex.
Mr. Marty Hall, 21060 Homestead Road, Cupertino, developer, said he would
like to know from a planning standpoint what was objectionable about a
duplex here. A duplex is a residence for two families rather than one.
He had no axe to grind - he just couldn't understand their objections.
He believed a duplex was a good plan.
Mr. Kenneth Lowrey asked where barricade was going on Forest and why.
He said a barricade that would allow a fire truck to go through would
allow cars to go through.
Director of Public Works Viskovich explained the type of barrier being
considered. He explained the barrier would prevent commuter traffic
from using the street as a short cut.
Chainnan Adams advised this was a discussion of land use, not of the
street.
Comm. Koenitzer said he could not see extending duplexes over any further.
He felt there is a place for duplexes but he did not feel the need for
expanding duplex zoning for this area.
Comm. Blaine noted the City had tried to provide a variety of housing in
this area and this had been accomplished. A line has to be drawn somewhere
and this is a reasonable place.
Comm. Gatto agreed with Comms. Koenitzer and Blaine.
Mr. Lowrey asked who had given Camarada permission
His mother had never been notified of this intent.
pay for curbs and gutters.
to build duplexes.
He said they would
Chairman Adams said he would be in agreement to retaining present zoning.
He advised the applicant of his right to petition the City Council for
general_plan amendment.
The consensus was 4-0 to retain present zoning.
Public Hear-
ing closed
Comm. Gatto moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Comm. Blaine.
Motion carried, 4-0
Comm. Gatto moved to recommend to the City Council the following actions:
Land Area #l - Approve land use change as per staff recommendation.
Land Area #2 - Present land use designation to remain. Property
owners request denied.
MINUTES OF THE oerOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-240
Page 9
Land Area #3 - Approve a change from Agricultural/Recreational to
a residential land use with a density range of
0-4.4 dwelling units per acre subject to the follow-
ing policy statements:
,
,
1. The underlying permitted use of the property
shall remain Agricultural/Recreational.
2. The residential land use intensity and develop-
ment pattern shall reflect the natural character
of the Stevens Creek environment and adjacent
residential neighborhood.
Land Area #4 - Existing General Plan designation for the area to
be retained.
Land Area #5 - Land use designation be changed froin Recreation/
Entertainment with incidental commercial to general
commercial with a planned development requirement.
Land Area #6 - Land use designation for the subject property remain
Land Area #7 - Request for redesignation from residential 0-4.4
to Public Park be granted with the understanding
that the underlying use of the property be residen-
tial 0-4.4.
Seconded by Comm. Blaine.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comm. Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams
None
Comm. Woodward
l-GPA-76
Forwarded
City Counc
Motion carried, 4-0
Mr. Cowan advised the recommended Land Use Element Amendment would be
forwarded to the Environmental Review Committee and then to the City
Council.
At 9:25 p.m. a recess was taken with the meeting reconvening at 9:37 p.
2.
Application 24-Z-76 of MAY INVESTMENT CO.: REZONING approxi-
mately 0.4 acres from R3 (Residential, multiple) to RIC
(Residential, single-family, cluster development) zone provid-
ing for a total of four dwelling units, or whatever zone may
be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said
property is located easterly of and adjacent to Terry Way at
its southerly terminus. First Hearing.
24-Z-76
May Invesl
ment Camp,
PC-240
Page 10
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Using an exhibit, Mr. Cowan located property involved. All properties to
the west are zoned for single-family dwellings and all property to the
north are apartments. There are commercial uses to the south and east.
Mr. Cowan advised the applicant's architect was unable to be present.
He noted the applicant's request to have this item heard with the
tentàtive map applications. Staff recommended this item be heard on a
conceptual basis to allow the residents and the Commission to respond
to the concept as presented.
The Assistant Planning Director referred to site plan submitted by the
applicant. The applicant's proposal is in essence for a scaled down
single family dwelling on each of four lots. He did not propose to
incorporate a homeowners association into the project. Mr. Cowan had
spoken briefly with the City Attorney who would be giving an opinion
as to whether one was necessary.
Mr. Cowan referred to an alternate site layout, noting staff would
like to explore the possibility of changing the units as shown which
would prevent visual intrusion from commercial building.
Mr. Cowan referred to two drawings of proposed architectural elevations.
Chairman Adams advised the audience the application would be discussed
on a conceptual basis.
It was ascertained the access to apartments to the north was from the
rear.
Mr. Ronald Millard, 20608 Shelly Drive, Cupertino, said there waS an
alley that went behind the apartments. There are carports to the back.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Mr. Monte Metcalf, 20606 Paradise, Cupertino, said he was glåd something
was going in. He agreed with developer's attempt to rezone because there
would be fewer people. He was concerned that there would be a lot of
parking in front of his house. People going into Ralph's block his
dri veway nm:",.
Mr. Marty Hall, 21060
will create parking.
blocking driveways.
Homestead Road, Cupertino, said whatever is built
If cars are towed away, people will soon quit
Mr. Hall said they are planning to put lattice in to block view from
Downey Savings.
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING CO!1MISSION MEETING
PC-240
Page 11
Corom. Gatto had a few general comments on the basic plan. He thought
the proposed cluster approach was a better solution. It allows lower
density Which lessens problems and makes transition from apartments
to R-l across the street. He had reservations about the plan as
proposed. These are very thin long lots with minimum distance
between the buildings. The buildings are not; attractive living tIDits.
There must be other combinations that can be used on these lots that
would do away with the 6 or 7 foot corridor along the homes.
Comm. Blaine concurred. She was concerned about the plan.
for clusters is to have larger areas of open space for use
residents. She was concerned about small family lots and
difficulty in approving anything which looked like this.
One rea...;u~
of the
would have
Comm. Gatto clarified he was not opposed to four independent properties
Trying to push open space would be inappropriate. His comments were
toward the way the open space was allotted to each lot.
Comm. Koenitzer agreed with zoning to lower density. From the front
this desi~ looks like garage doors in concrete. He agreed a better
layout should be achieved to provide a better looking project with
less concrete in the front.
Chairman Adams agreed with zone because of reduced tIDits, and he also
felt a better desi~ could be submitted.
Mr. Hall said when you have a piece of property 130 ft. x l30 ft. he
did not know of any other way to get cluster homes in there. He said
the planners and developers must look to what the American public wants.
Here they would have a patio larger than in Cupertino Village which was
sold out before they were built. He said they would come back with
the tentative map and a better idea of what the buildings would look
like. .
It was ascertained the zoning and tentative map would be heard concur-
rently.
Comm. Gatto moved to continue Application 24-Z-76 to November 22, 1976.
Seconded by Comm. Blaine.
24-Z-76
con't to
').1/22/76
Motion carried, 4-0
Mr. E. J. Farrell,206l6 Paradise Drive, Cupertino, said the planners
have built themselves into this trap and this is the best project to
get away from the "city dump" as this lot is called. This has been a
headache to people who live around it. It is not the perfect proposal
but it is something to get them out of this trap.
PC-240
Page 12
24-TM-76
E. Alvarez
&Son
Public Hear
ing closed
24-TM-76
approved wi
conditions
.
MINUTES OF. THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3.
Application 24-TM-76 of E. ALVAREZ & SON CONSTRUCTION: TENTATIVE
MAP to subdivide approximately 2 acres into four single-family
lots. Said property is located adjacent to and southerly of
McClellan Rd. between Westacres Dr. and Bonny Dr. First Hearing.
Assistant Planning Director referred to staff report of October 21, 1976
which covered most of major discussion points. The proposal was to
divide approximately 1.6 acres into S single-family lots with a minimum
lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. The lot was located on exhibited map.
Mr. Cowan noted an attempt will be made to retain existing trees on site
with the exception of two which would be in the center of the road.
There is an existing structure on the lot which will be removed.
The hearing was opened to comments from the audience. There were none.
Comm. Gatto moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer.
Motion carried, 4-0
Comm. Blaine said she thought the proposed plan was a good answer to
traffic problems that could arise.
Comm. Koenitzer commented he would not like to see requests for variances
coming in on this.
Comm. Blaine was answered that the existing retaining wall on south
side of property was for a 3 ft. difference in grade at the corner.
In answer to Comm. Gatto, Director of Public'Works said staff would look
into retaining three pine trees on public right of way by modifying side-
walk.
Comm. Koenitzer recommended approval of 24-TM~76 to the City Council with
14 standard conditions and the following:
IS. That the approval is based upon Exhibit A lst Revision as may
be modified by additional conditions contained herein.
l6. That the existing structures located on Parcel 1 shall be
removed or relocated prior to recordation of the final map.
Seconded by Comm. Gatto.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman AdamS:
None
Woodward
Motion carried, 4-0
Chairman Adams announced this would be before the City Council on November l, 1976
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-240
Page 13
4.
Application 21-U-76 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: USE PERMIT to allow
construction of City Corporation Yard containing approximately
37,956 sq. ft. with ancillary storage yard facility. Said
property is located at 10555 Mary Ave. First Hearing.
21-U-76
City of
Cupe rtinc
Planning Director Sisk referred to copy of staff report and EIR. He
reviewed location of property and adjacent areas. He described the
proposed development, using site plan exhibited on board.
Mr. Sisk announced the EIR consultant was present if the Commissioners
had any questions.
Comm. Blaine was told that three units of the condominium development
to the south faced the yard.
Comm. Koenitzer questioned why the vehicle parking was on south side
next to apartments. Mr." Sisk described intent of vehicle placement.
The Director of Public' Works said the only activity in the evening
would be for police vehicles. There are only lO vehicles and there
would not be a large amount of activity and not on a routine basis.
Servicing of Vehicles would take place in northerly section.
Comm. Blaine asked about transfer station. The Director of Public
Works explained this would be used as refuse place for the City's
crews. The full dumpsters would be exchanged for empties.
Chairman Adams was answered there was no plan for including police
substation. The activity would be for maintenance only.
The hearing was then opened to the public.
Ms. O'Patti Brisco said she would like to see some photos of adjacent
property in relationship to this corporation yard. Looking down on
the corporation yard is not attractive sight. They would not do the
area any benefit unless a screen could be put over the top. She had
always thought it would have been good to use old wineries as a
corporation yard so it could be enclosed. She felt the corporation
yard was out of place in this area. It does not do the City justice.
Mr. Viskovich said this was a valid point and they are planting trees
which they hope will accomplish this intent.
Comm. Koenitzer moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Comm.
Blaine.
Public He
ing close
Motion carried, 4-0
PC-240
Page 14
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Comm. Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of 2l-U-76 to the City Council
with the l4 standard conditions, and the following:
IS. That approval is based upon Exhibit A of application 2l-U-76,
as may be amended by additional conditions contained therein.
16. Air compressors, lawn mowers and small gasoline fueled eqUip-
ment shall be confined to the central area between maintenance
shops and the transfer station while testing or servicing such
equipment.
l7. The Master Site Plan shall be revised to reflect a minimum
landscape setback distance of 20 feet from the east property
line of the site fronting on Mary Avenue. Each end of the
landscape set 'back area between the two curb cuts serving
the employee parking lot shall extend westward a distance
appropriate to screen parked vehicles in this locale. Said
distance shall be established as per review by the Architectural
and Site Approval Committee.
18. The grade level of the employee parking area shall be set
approximately 3 feet lower than the existing grade level of
the sidewalk on the west side of Mary Avenue.
19. The Architectural and Site Approval Committee shall review the
urban design techniques outlined in the draft EIR with specific
attention to, the use of landscaping materials and masonry walls
as tools to minimize audio and visual impacts into adjoining
properties from the Corporation Yard site.
Seconded by Gomm. Blaine.
Cõmm. Gatto suggested giving H-Gontrol more direction on one item. He
said the ~quipment parking adjacent to condominiums is a most sensitive
area and H-Control should pay particular attention as to how this area
is screened.
Chairman Adams noted same was true of the storage area
side. He suggested this could be moved to east side.
should be cut off from the south.
ent ry on south
The visual line
Comm. Koenitzer reported that H-Control had expressed concern about
Monterey. Pines having been trimmed so high which reduced screening greatly.
Comm. Gatto moved to amend condition No. 19 to include that ASAC should
pay particular attention to equipment parking and open storage section.
Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer.
MINIITES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VOTE ON AMENDMENT
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams
None
Woodward
Motion carried, 4-0
VOTE ON MOTION
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams
None
Woodward
Motion carried, 4-0
It was noted this would be before the City Council on November 15, 1976
5.
Application 20-U-76 of TACO CHARLEY, INC.: USE PERMIT to
allow construction of take-out restaurant in a general
commercial zone. Said property is located adjacent to and
southerly of Homestead Road between Noranda Drive and
Stelling Road. First Hearing.
The Assistant Planning Director referred to exhibited site plan to
point out location of proposed application and the adjacent property.
He pointed out that any building on such a small parcel would require
careful review of site design and arcgitectural coordination with
surrounding uses to ensure it did not look like a free standing
structure. He noted that from a land use point of view the application
is valid.
TWo alternatives for location on site were displayed. Mr. Cowan said
the applicant had felt alternate B to be more acceptable. Parking as
shown on either alternative A or B is adequate assuming 9-10 employees,
56 seats and typical ratio found in fast food operations.
Ms. Mariana Eckel, l650 Bond, San Mateo, representing Taco Charley, Inc.
said she had just received a copy of these alternate proposals that
afternoon. A check had shown there is not enough room for that kind
of parking and to allow for required back up driveways, as shown on
alternate B. On Alternate A they did not want that type of layout.
Their service door is to the rear and under that proposal there would
be no way of servicing. Also the side would be facing the major
thoroughfare. A wider planting area in front would limit parking.
------.-~-
PC-240
Page 15
Amendment
passed
21-U-76
approved "
conditions
20-U-76
Taco Chad
Inc.
PC-240
Page l6
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 2S, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Ms. Eckels displayed another alternative that might work but did not
provide for driveway through for access to future developments. This
would provide 22 parking spaces. She said there are about 8-10 maximum
employees of which at least 3 or 4 would not be driving to work. It
would give ample egress and ingress for all vehicles, including trucks
to service the rear door. Also it would allow for the 29 feet of
lands caping.
Alternative B was discussed. Mr. Cowan said the restaurant could be
shifted toward Homestead Road so the concept could work. Ms. Eckels
said they liked the plan if there was room.
It was noted that H-Control would be having input on the layout, so
the Commission could recommend land use and leave the rest to H-Control.
Comm. Koenitzer proposed condition No. lS could read: Approval is
based upon the placing of building to the front of the lot with a
minimum set back of 25 ft. This would ensure parking to the back.
He suggested a minimum of 22 parking spaces. Staff and H-Control
to work out feasibility of layout.
The hearing was opened to comments from the audience.
Mr. Melvin Hatchings, 10614 John Way, Cupertino, said he owned a triplex
at 1702 Noranda Drive, Cupertino. He was opposed to this because when he
went to mow lawn at triplex, it was loaded with trash and bottles from
7-11 store, etc. The bedrooms of the triplexes are on the second level.
He questioned if lights would intrude. This would affect serenity of
residents of the triplex. He said Homestead was already a heavily
trafficed street and he hoped no accidents would occur from this
additional business.
Public Hear
ing closed
There being no further comments, Comm. Gatto,moved to close Public Hearings.
Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer.
Motion carried, 4-0
Comm. Koenitzer said with regard to proposed land use itself, he
sometimes wondered about another fast food store in town, particularly
since Carl's Jr and McDonald's were so close. This would be a different
type but would be standing essentially out on its own. He said he had
mixed feelings.
Chairman Adams agreed the Commission did not have a true picture as to
whether this could be integrated with adjoining development.
Comm. Gatto said he thought it was not the most desirable use but it
was an acceptable use.
..
MINlITES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-240
Page 17
Director of Planning Sisk referred to condition No. 16 which allowed
for this type of facility to be planned in conjunction with other
types of activities.
The Assistant City Attorney answered Comm. Blaine that the use permit
could not be den:ied because it was a use one disagreed with or that
there were too many in City, if it is a valid use. He read conditions
that should be found before granting use permit.
After further discussion, Comm. Koenitzer moved to recommend approval
of 20-U-76 to the City Council with the 14 standard conditions and
15 . That the approval is based upon a 25 ft. minimum setb ael<
of the building from the northerly property line. Tne
building shall be to the front of the property and there
shall be a minimum of 22 parking spaces provided.
16. That the owner shall sign a statement agreeing to partici-
pate in reciprocal driveway easements with the surrounding
parcels. Said statement shall further agree to modify the
on-site traffic circulation to coordinate with the circula-
tion systems of the adjoining properties. at such time as
they are installed. The agreement shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Attorney and shall be
approved and submitted to the Building Department prior
to issuance of building permits.
17. That the Architectural and Site Approval Committee shall
review the proposed site layout for traffic flow, pedes-
trian access and trash collection and shall review the
building architecture to ensure that it resembles the
architectural style of the "Adamo" building located
adjacent to and southerly of this site.
18. That this approval is for a maximum seating capacity of
56 seats. Any outdoor patio seating shall be included
within the 56 seat maximum.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Blaine, Gatto,
None
Co1DDÌ. ¡'¡õocÌ"ward
Koenitzer, Chairman Adams
20-U-76
Approved 1
condition,
Seconded by Chairman Adams.
Motion carried, 4-0
PC-240
Page 18
2-U-75
Modification
of Use Permit
Public Hear-
in,gs closed
2-U-75
Approved
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
6.
Application 2-U-75 - MODIFICATION OF USE PERMIT: Request to
amend Condition 22(£1) of Planning Cornm. Resolution No. 1393,
as approved by the City Council on January 9, 1976. Said
property is located adjacent to and easterly of Stevens
Canyon Road approximately 200 ft. southerly of Riverside Drive.
First Hearing.
The Planning Director reviewed briefly background of the application.
Staff concurs that due to discussions of the barn as potentially having
historical significance it is unreasonable to expect that all closing
of escrows be withheld until the discussions have been completed and
the improvements installed. Mr. Herman has indicated a willingness to
put up the necessary cornman area, landscaping and recreation facility
bonds.
The Director of Public Works answered Comm. Gatto there would be a
one year time requirement from the time of the agreement.
Comm. Koenitzer moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Comm. Gatto.
Motion carried, 4-0
Mr. Herman answered Comm. Blaine that
the tennis courts have been started.
thing that can be done, including the
he had posted entire amount but
They are going ahead with every-
landscaping.
Cornm. Gatto moved to recommend approval of Application 2-U-75 for
modification to use permit. Seconded by Comm. Blaine.
Motion carried, 4-0
Chairman Adams announced this would be heard by the City Council on
November 1, 1976.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7. City Council referral of R3 Ordinance Amendment to Planning
Commission for a report regarding various changes.
The Planning Director referred to page 4, Section 6.23, noting a
different definition for single-family had been asked for, by the
City Council.
:
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-240
Page 19
Assistant City Attorney Kilian said he had contacted other cities in
this County and all have different definitions. He offered a compos it
definition which the Commission discussed at length, arriving at the
following consensus.
"One or more persons related to each other by blood, marriage,
legal adoption or foster children, together with necessary domesti
employees plus not more than four unrelated persons living
together as a single housekeeping unit with a single kitchen."
On page 5, Section 7.l(e), remove "small" from second line.
On page 8, Section 10.6, strike the last word "adjoining" in the
fourth line.
The Commission had no further changes to sugiest, so Comm. Blaine
moved to recommend the enactment of subject Ordinance based on the
draft dated October 25, 1976. Seconded by Comm. Gatto.
R3 Ordinanc
recommendec
for enactm,
Motion carried, 4-0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of October 11, 1976
Page 4, between last two paragraphs, insert: Consensus waS 5-0 to
accept staff recommendation for Land Area #1.
Page 5, between paragraphs 2 and 3, insert: Consensus was 5-0 to
accept staff recommendation for Land Area #2.
Page 7, paragraph 3, first line change to 2 -Z-75 .
Page 7, paragraph 4, delete and
Gatto said it waS inappropriate
which were partially completed,
reconsidering the entire plan.
any manner, the conceptual plan
substitute.
replace with the following: Comm.
to arbitrarily change overall plans
such as 2-Z-74 and 38-Z-74, without
Since 2-Z-75 waS not realized in
for Highway 9 could be used as a
Page 7, paragraph 6 should read: Comm. Gatto wanted to remove only
the reference to 2-Z-75 and to retain existing approvals on 2-Z-74
and 38-Z-74. The balance of the Commission were in favor of this
approach.
On page 10, after first motion carried, insert the following: The
Planning Commission indicated a desire to keep the lawn as suggested
by H-Control and had been previously approved in conceptual plan.
Landscaping could be greater but only 35 ft. would be countable.
Page l5, first paragraph should read: Comm. Gatto wanted the record
to show that he felt the R3 Ordinance presently under consideration
and its reason for consideration, constituted an extraordinary
PC-240
Page 20
Minutes of
10/11/76
approved as
corrected
Ordinance
referred ,back
to City
Council
Second meet-
ing in Dec.
deleted
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
circumstance in this case.
On page 12, paragraph 5, should read: Moved by Comm. Koenitzer, seconded...
Page 13, paragraph 5, line 5 should read: and Condition 19 reqUiring
the dedication of access roads to McClellan Road to the City.
Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer, to accept the
Minutes of October ll, 1976 as corrected.
Motion carried, 4-0
NEW BUSINESS:
8. Discussion of ordinance for the abatement of public nuisances
resulting from unsafe or dangerous buildings.
Comm. Blaine asked why this was
concern of Councilman O'Keefe.
in this jurisdiction were on De
being discussed. Mr. Sisk related
He said the majority of such structures
Anza Boulevard.
effect this would have
property taxes on building
who are forced to move
She felt the Cupertino
agencies should be
said hearings would be
Comm. Blaine said she would want to know the
on homeowners, renters, low income families,
if repaired, liability of City toward people
because their home has been condemned, etc.
Community Services and other social service
notified about such an ordinance. Mr. Sisk
set and everyone notified.
Comm. Koenitzer noted there was no definition of Board of Appeals.
Mr. Kilian said the City Council would be the Board of Appeals and
Comm. Koenitzer said he felt this should be' spelled out in the
Ordinance.
Comm. Blaine moved to refer back to City Council asking for more
direction as to whether they wanted an ordinance addressing
abandoned buildings or a comprehensive housing and dangerous
building code. Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer.
Motion carried, 3-l
No: Gatto
9. Discussion regarding rescheduling or deletion of second meeting
date for December.
After a brief discussion, Comm. Gatto moved to delete second meeting in
December. Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer
Motion carried, 4-0
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 25. 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
The Director of Planning referred to a letter from Will Lester dated
October 13, 1976, asking for an amendment to the General Plan for a
9~ acre parcel in Vallco Park. He explained Mr. Lester's request
had not been received in time to be included in tonight's group.
Specific closing dates will be set for next year. He noted the City
has ability to schedule one more hearing on amendments this year.
Comm. Gatto suggested ,cl1en applications came in, if their chances
for change were nil, time not be expended in processing them. If
they had merit, then a hearing could be set.
With regard to Mr. Lester's request, Comm. Blaine said she would need
more information before making a judgment as to its merit.
Comm. Koenitzer moved to ask City Council to initiate Public Hearing
to hear requests for General Plan amendment. Seconded by Carom.Blaine.
Motion carried, 4-0
REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR
10. Annual Review of Urban Service Area
Director of Planning Sisk located present urban service area on
map and advised that staff was not suggesting any change at this time.
Moved by Carom. Blaine, seconded by Carom. Koenitzer, not to request
any change.
Motion carried, 4-0
Comm. Gatto offered the suggestion that unless an application was
complete and had been reviewed by staff, it should not be heard.
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:32 a.m. the meeting was adjourned to the next regular meeting
on November 8, 1976 at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVED:
(,r:- ----
, ,
~
/
/
'->
Jr. ,/airman
Wm. E.
er, City C erk
PC-240
Page 21
City Counci
to initiate
Gene ral PIa
amendment
hearings
No change i
Urban Servi
Area
Adj ournment