DRCsub 03-22-00
CITY OF CUPERTINO, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308
Design Review Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2000
Committee Members Present: Andrea Harris, Jerry Stevens
Staff Present: Ciddy Wordell
Others Present: Anne and Philippe Dor, Frank Ruiz, Richard Northcutt
Comm. Harris called the meeting to order.
Minutes:
Minutes of the February 23, 2000, regular Design Review Sub-Committee meeting. Approved.
Minutes of the March 8, 2000, regular Design Review Sub-Committee meeting. Approved
Oral Communications
None
Written Communications
None
PostponementlRemoval from Calendar
Comm. Stevens made a motion to continue item number 3, 5-ASA-00, Big Guy, Inc., Lot 2-16,
Tract 9054 Oak Valley, to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 2000. Comm. Harris
seconded. Request for continuance was granted.
Old Business
2.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
15-EXC-99
Anne Dor
22525 Balboa Road
Fence exception for an electronic security gate in accordance with Chapter 16.28 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, stated that the focus ofthe report for this meeting is a
relocation of the gate and a more precise design, and second the status of the driveway and the
road with its history. One of the conditions for the Dors to get approval to develop their plot was
to acquire title to Balboa Road and then to offer it to the City of Cupertino. The city could accept
or decline the offer. The Dors have taken title to Balboa Road, which was done through their
attorney and the county. Once the road became the Dors' private property, several conditions
were applied as to what was to happen when future development occurred.
The meeting developed into a discussion about shared access of the gate and the road sharing
agreement. In the course of the discussion many unkown factors about future scenarios of shared
access to the gate and the cost of the road sharing agreement came into play. Comm. Stevens
pointed out that this meeting was not about future cost of the road sharing agreement, but about
deciding whether and where to have the electronic gate. With that the question arose whether to
go with the original staff report to put the gate closer to the Dors' house, or to locate it near
Stevens Canyon Road. Comm. Stevens explained that the gate represented a safety issue for the
motorist in regard to turn-around safety. If the gate would be placed up the hill it would be
difficult for the motorist to turn around. If the gate would be placed close to Stevens Canyon
Road with space to turn around, safety for the motorist would be assured.
One affected neighbor, Frank Ruiz, appeared at the meeting and another neighbor, Ellis Murray,
sent a letter of concern. The letter requested that the gate be adjacent to the Dor's homesite, as
recommended by staff, and not at the foot of the roadway. If it were to be at the foot of the
roadway, they wanted it to open during the day for deliveries and other service needs. Frank
Ruiz was not sure he would need the road and didn't want to sign an agreement to pay for
development costs if he wound up not needing it. His issue was that he would need access to
make that determination.
Comm. Harris preferred to have a non-electronic gate by Stevens Canyon Road and to have an
electronic gate close to the Dors' property. She was concerned about too many unknown future
scenarios in sharing the gate.
Comm. Stevens recommended referring this application to the Planning Commission
Meeting of April 10, 2000 for the full Commission's review of the project. Comm. Harris
seconded.
Comm. Harris adjourned the meeting at 6:50 PM.
G/agendas/hearings/drs3-22-00min