Loading...
CC 07-22-61 <;) F1 !J ð40 ti'''' 1'. O. BOX 597 AL 2-4505 , , 'I~'' ¡;~ ("''''I ".,...j 1,,,,,."\,,,,, C I T Y 0 F CUP E R TIN 0 CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL - July 22. 1961. (Adjourned from July 17. 1961) Place: Time: 10321 So, Saratoga--Sunnyvale Road 9:00 A.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Councilmen Present: Benetti, Jewett, Pelosi, Saich and Lazaneo Councilmen Absent: None Staff Present: I Ordinance No. 182: City Manager and City Clerk Moved by Councilman Pelosi that Ordinance 182, an Ordinance approving the annexation of certain contiguous uninhabited terri- tory designated Stevens Creelc - 11 to the City of Cupertino be read by title only, full reading to be waived by unanimous consent. Seconded by Councilman Saich. AYES: Councilmen: NAYS: Councilmen: ABSENT: Councilmen: MOTION CARRIED: Benetti, Jewett, Pelosi, Saich and Lazaneo None None 5-0 Ordinance No. 182 read by title only, Moved by Councilman Benetti that Ordinance 182 be enacted. Seconded by Councilman Saich. AYES: Councilmen: NAYS: Councilmen:. ABSENT: Councilmen: MOTION CARRIED: Benetti, Jewett, Pelosi, Saich and Lazaneo None None 5-0 II Ketell Construction Co.: Approval of tentative n~p. Councilman Saich absented himself from the hearing. Donald Barr represented the applicant. The map was posted on the bulletin board, With reference to the Planning Commission reoommendation, the applicant stated that he prefers to use the 20-foot easement to the play area. The neighborhood plan, No.4, was posted for comparison with the street plan on the Ketell map. Councilman Benetti referred to the number of Highway 9 crossings between Stevens Creek Boule- vard and Homestead Road. He said it is important not to construct too many crossings or malce too many intersections .'Ii th Highway 9 due to traffic considerations. It was agreed that Forest is not to cross Highway 9. also that more than two crossings between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Road appears inadvisable. He raised the question of street access to the Giuffrida property at the northeast corner of the Ketell map. Councilman Jewett aslced about the status of the stub street marked as Anton Avenue which would, when extended, provide street access to the Giuffrida parcel and prevent it from being land- loclced. The applicant stated that the Giuffrida prol~rty would, of course. enjoy ingress from Highway 9 and also from the stub street owned by Ketell. However. the timetable for the construction of Anton Avenue is uncertain at this time since it is being handled as a second development by the builder, i.e., lots, ~¡, 25, 26, 27. 28 and 29 as shown on the tentative map. These six lots are zoned commercial not R-3-H and apparently will be used for motel area and commercial building(s). 377 DCi'lald Barr explained that the U-sl1aped street called Parle Drive was designed so as to provide the proper architectural and site appearance and give the best yield to the building. Council- man Benetti agreed that the U-shaped street would appear to provide better ingress and egress from the standpoint of police and fire protection. Mr. Barr asked that the 10-foot path to the proposed school site be maintained by the City after construction and dedication by Ketell. He said that his request for City maintenance of this easement is the only point of difference between the map submitted July 17 and the recommendation of the Planning Commission on July 10. Discussion arose concerning the lilcelihood of a school actually. being constructed on the site in question, due to changing patterns of surrounding uses. Councilman Jewett said he would insist that the easement be constructed as shown at the time of the project development. If it should be omitted due to the possibility that the school may not occupy the site, it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to secure construction of the easement to the school by the builder at some future date after the rest of the project is completed, The Mayor said that at the present moment the school is definitely planning to put a school on the parcel in question. He advised the City Manager to contact the school district for a letter of intention. Councilman Jewett reiterated that the builder might not return and put in the path months or years after the apartments are built at such time as the school is definitely scheduled for construction. Councilman Benetti aslŒd the reasons for the easement between lots 13 and 14. Mr. Barr answered that the garages will be at the rear of those lots and the zoœ designated 1;20 foot driveway easements (private)" is supposed to provide access to the garages for those two lots. He added that he has submitted with the July 17 map and letter of transmittal, a preliminary draft of the deed restrictions for approval by the City Attorney. Councilman Benetti questioned the applicant further concern- ing the actual physical appearance of the driveway easements. A plot plan of the property was posted to further the discussion of the application. Discussion arose about the possibility of fenc- ing these driveways. The Mayor said that as he understands the renderings, the applicant is lceeping parldnG facilities to the rear where they are not visible from the street, at the same time providing more space and landscaping in those areas visible from the street. He maintained that the driveways are private property and that the word easement is probably being used incorrectly in this case. It vms generally agreed that these driveways should not be called easements since they are not being dedicated for public use. COlu1cilman Jewett asked the applicant if he is counting the driveway on the west side of the subdivision as part of the lots along which it fronts. The lots are marked as 1091 x 143' in- cluding the driveways, However, the Mayor said that the Council should act on the tentative map as approved by the Planning Commission. The lots sizes and number of units have been approved by the Planning Commission. He added that the map must still be examined by the City Engineer in submission of a final map and by the Building Department in the granting of building permits. Councilman Benetti said that he thought Qouncilman Jewett's complaint is in order since the driveway may be included in the set-baclcs . The point was made that setbacks are not part of the tentative map as are lot sizes and nlliTIber of units, The app~~cant stated that the project will be built with no mare than 20 units to the acre based on the gross acreage. -2- 378 t('~ Councilman Pelosi inquired about the status of the private driveway on the west end of the subdivision if the adjoining owner decides to proceed with R-3 uses and wishes to place another private driveway directly abutting the Ketell property. Who has the right to use this and what about access if Parle Avenue is extended to the west wi tl1 Gutter, curb, and sidewalle? r~lL~ C'·~ !=~fIII ~';-?~ On this point, Councilman Benetti again questioned the drive- way midway between the north-south portions of Parle Avenue, saying that they could provide means of eluding police. Councilman Pelosi inquired about maneuverability in these driveways. The applicant stated that the Width of the driveway is sufficient to turn a car rather than compelling the users to bacle in or out. COUl1cilman Jewett said that he is very much in favor of pro- viding access to the apartments and garages by means of private driveways situated at the rear of the units, Councilman Pelosi aslced about access to the R-3-H portion of the Giuffrj_da property. The map malees it loole as though the only access may be from Anton Avenue. Councilman Benetti agreed that the factors in favor of the driveways offset the unfavorable aspects, but he still maintained that private driveways cm, be a police problem. George Bronner, spealeing for the applicant, said that police departments will contend that the fewer fences and barricades the better, from a law enforcement standpoint. This point was made with respect to the construction of fences within these driveways. The Mayor contended that he could not see the validity of bloclÜng off the driveways. Councilman Pelosi said that he is in favor of the map, pro- viding the subdivider constructs a barrier to the driveways if it is believed necessary in the future. Mr. Barr said that their plans are not altogether definite but he may file the final map on the R-3-H section first and then build Anton Avenue when the C-I-H district is constructed, On this basis, he would include all streets except Anton Avenue and the improvements adjoining lots 28 and 29 on Highway 9 at the time of the R-3-H construction. Councilman Pelosi said he would insist that Highway 9 be improved at the time that the R-3-H section is built. Mr. Barr agreed that this could be required by the City Council when the final map is filed, He added that the street at the west end of the Gemco pl~perty will go through Stevens Creek Boulevard at the time of initial construction. He explained that financing considerations allow them clear sailing on the R-3-H zone. Commercial property may be temporarily held in abey- ance, but that certainly the curb returns for Anton Avenue would be installed along with the R-3-H district, He was èIDcertain as to the immediate intentions on Anton Avenue but agreed that Anton Avenue might be constructed at the present time along with 145' of improvements on Highway 9 which, he said, Would benefit only south bound traffic at this time. The r~yor suggested the possibility of posting a bond to assure the Highway 9 im~ovements, For the record, Donald Barr stated that the developer will positively improve Highway 9 as part of the R-3-H project in order to avoid any stalemate on his application, Moved by Councilman Jewett that the City approve the tentative map of Ketell Construction Co., dated July 17, 1961, suBject to complete improvements and dedication on Highway 9, standard improve- ments on Park Avenue, the installation of curb returns on Anton Avenue, and further providing that barricades be constructed in the -3- 319 areas dividing Park Drive if deemed necessary to the City. Seconded by Councilman Benetti. AYES: Councilmen: NAYS: Councilmen: ABSENT: Councllmen: MOTION CARRIED: Benetti, Jewett, Pelosi and Lazaneo None Saich 4-0 The matter of setoacks was deemed not a part of the tentative map application. III Resolution 470: Resolution 470 was read. Councilman Jewett asked about other weed nuisances within the City, specifically adjacent to Mayfair Market, The City Manager answered that weeds at Mayfair Market are not a sufficient accumulation to warrant weed abatement action at this time. Councilman Jewett also said that Calabazas and Regnart Creeks are a source of weeds and also a dumping grounds. The County Flood Control regulation was mentioned, wherein a $250,00 fine is provided for illegal dumping within any flood control easement, With regard to agricultural lands, Ordinance 53 specifically exempts such property. The City Manager was authorized to contact the owners of property adjoining City Hall, however, with a view to clearing some of the weeds and other combustible trash. Moved by Councilman Jewett that Resolution 470 be adopted, declaring certaln prlvate property within the City to be a public nuisance under the provisions of Ordinance 53, giving notice thereof, and setting hearing date thereon, Seconded by Councilman Pelosi. AYES: Councilmen: NAYS: Councilmen: ABSENT: Councilmen: MOTION CARRIED: Benetti, Jewett, Pelosi, Saich and Lazaneo None None 5-0 IV Miscellaneous: Councilman Benetti introduced the street pattern in the Paganini application with particular reference to the southern part of the property, The Mayor said that the revised application contains zoning for 500 feet only, Councilman Pelosi agreed that the depth of zoning is important. COlli1cilman Benetti said that in the absence of further dis- cussion, he could not vote in favor of the application, He referred to the pertinent ordinance which provides that the City may require plans and elevations at its discretion. He said that the possible land-locking of adjacent property has been discussed just this morning, The Mayor said that the Council still has one month to decide if it votes for the preparatlon of an ordin&1ce. No vote is taken until the second reading which would be approximately a month's time, Councilman Jewett said that he was opposed on the matter of depth, that he can't see the application at the moment. The Mayor repeated that Councilmen can decide according to their own views when the ordinance is on the table for a vote, The City Manager stated that zoning application and a tentative map application which would contain street pattern are different matters and can very well be considered separately. Councilman Benetti still said that the rear of the property is very questionable, ~- 380 t~ Councilman Pelosi observed that at the time of the Planning Commission decision, almost all concerned were agreed on the d~pth of zoning, namely 500 feet. He said that commercial depths should be more than 400 reet and it might be reasible to set a minimum of 500 feet. , ' ¡,1'Im:,~ ,....''".~ '-- ., ~"'·i. ~""'J '~.;'\.": -' Councilman Saich noted that there are no buildings on much existing cQmmercial land within the City limits and that rezoning more property for C-I-H the City may be going too far ahead, Councilman Jewett agreed with Councilman Pelosi that the City might feasibly establish a 500-foot minimum for cOlnmercial zoning on Stevens Creek Road and by the same token deny any application for a lesser depth, The Mayor called a study session for July 24, 1961, The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 A.M, APPROVED: /a/ Nick J, Lazaneo Mayor, City of Cupertino A~~E~,T: ,t~U Ci ty Clerk / / I (I ¡: .::f'-. '-\..,. '~J.J-- c~ '---, -5-