Loading...
PC 09-03-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Doyle, Mahoney, Roberts, Chairperson Harris Austin Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 7-GPA-97 and 17-EA-97 City of Cupertino Various Consideration of an amendment to the land use element of the general plan related to goals and policies for urban design and building form and scale, including building heights and sethaeks. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 15, 1997 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 23, 1997 Staff oresentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, reviewed the issues relative to consideration of an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan related to goals and policies for urban design and building form and scale, including building heights and setbacks. He said it would be advantageous to have a decision on height, particularly involving the Vallen/Tandem area, and the question of having tiered heights from Stevens Creek Blvd. vs. the idea of allowing a mixture in that area. Another issue to address is the height of the buildings around the Crossroads Center. There was a brief discussion relative to Page 1-6 of the s afl report wherein it was clarified that Page 1-6 should be omitted, and that the basic design principles A, B, and C under Option 2 also apply to Option 1. Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 3, 1997 Ms. Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that she and Mr. Cannon presented issues and a recommendations document for each area reviewed as potentially requiring some changes in height or additions for design principles; the focus being on the major corridors, the Vallco area and the Town Center area. She referred to the overhead of the Current General Plan Maximum Building Heights, as depicted in the 1993 General Plan and said that for the corridors area, the recommendation was for an existing 30 to 45 foot maximum height limit for Stevens Creek Blvd. and part of DeAnza Boulevard. The recommendation is to include a similar designation along all major corridors in the city, such as commercial, office, light industrial corridors in order to continue to encourage the park- like environment, and maintain a consistent height restriction along those corridors. Referring to the exhibits, Ms. Ungo-McCormick said that the existing conditions relate specifically to the maximum height standards along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and No. DeAnza south of 1-280. Homestead Road and the remainder of DeAnza Boulevard/Saratoga Sunnyvale are covered by a blanket statement to maintain a low level, Iow rise character, maximum 2 to 3 stories; and it is suggested that in order to enhance the primary corridors in the city in a manner which is consistent with the desire to develop a parkurbia fact in the community, or continue to develop that it be made consistent and apply some design principles, some of which include the 1:1 slope setback requirement from the street. She indicated the changes in the recommendation from the current General Plan, Homestead going from 30 to 45; down Rainbow to Prospect to the south of the city. Chair Roberts asked why the 30 to 45 foot height is not applied to the east side of DeAnza Blvd., north of Bollinger. Ms. McCormick said there was no particular reason, but for consistency would probably want to mm it over. She said that all the Cupertino area on both sides of the street would be made 30 to 45 and develop some consistency throughout, along their corridors. Mr. Cowan said that Mr. Cannon had made an earlier observation of looking at the City's Heart of the City Plan, and creating an activity node at DeAnza College, Oaks, the Crossroads, and the Vallco area. He said the drawings showed an interesting concept of something more creative for the 10 Vallco properties. Relative to the Town Center recommendations, Ms. Ungo-McCormick said that it warranted discussion because it is a key intersection to the city and is important to come to terms with how the city wants to develop that intersection, which will have an implication on height requirements for it. She said there are a number of issues that come to play in the intersection; in addition to height, there are what types of uses will be permitted related to the potential transfer of square footage from retail to office to allow some developments to occur on the northeast comer. Mr. Larry Cannon, Cannon & Associates, used various overheads illustrating the Town Center area, and diseassed alternative Approaches A through E for the intersection of DeAnza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard as outlined in the staff report. He concluded that with the approaches shown there were two options available; leave it as is, because any of the options could occur within that and nothing more could be built other than one or two story buildingS. The other option is, if the preference is to make certain that it remains low in the area illustrated and restrict the height, is that the height limits can be lowered to discourage developers from continuing to try to find ways to increase the height there. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to comment. Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 3, 1997 Chair Hams commented that if Approach C was prc~erred, it would include the 86,000 square foot conversion of retail to office; which differs from the 250,000 square feet discussed at the last meeting, Pages 1-19 through 1-23. The Planning Commissioners commented on the approaches outlined on Pages 1-19 through 1-23. Com. Roberts said that he preferred Approach C, and liked the idea of the open space on the northeast comer. He said it would help to have something to counterbalance the big masses on the southeast comer; to tho extent it brings into the other issue, ho was willing to contemplate a transfer from retail to industrial/office to the extent required. He said it would serve a purpose to the community and he was willing to compromise. Com. Mahoney said that Approach C was suitable. He said that he walked the area recently and felt it would not likely be a pedestrian area that people would go to; therefore he was interested in what it looks like to the driver-by, and moving the buildings back will help. The hotel will help generate some pedestrian traffic, but he still felt that people would not come there. Com. Doyle said he preferred Approach D, not necessarily with the four sculptures at the comer; but fundamentally with the building on the northeast side to have the stepback approach below and bring it higher; not necessarily try to put in another artificial green spot that won't get much use or be an echo chamber to the building. Chair Harris said she preferred Approach C, and felt that transferring 86,000 square feet of retail was not unreasonable. She said she liked the fact that a large portion of the comer would be green under this plan; it would need to be coupled with some Public Works landscaping projects on the two opposite comers, funded by Public Works to effect the plan. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, pointed out that a mass on the northeast comer may not necessarily be an office building, that there were other redevelopment opportunities available, possibly a hotel development. He urged the Planning Commission to consider the idea. Ms. Ungo-McCormick clarified from what Mr. Jung said, that it wouldn't change the direction on the height issue. Referring to the exhibits, Ms. Ungo-McCormick illustrated the Vallen Park area, and stated that it had a staggered sand-piled building height effect. She said the concern, as previously discussed, is that it is basically pushing the taller buildings up against the freeway, which limits creativity. She suggested to avoid having taller buildings against the freeway, on the south side of the freeway, developing a range of potential heights and a requirement for a master planning for the area so that there is more opportunity for creative approaches to design. On the north side of 1-280, currently the designation does allow for 120 feet along the freeway. She said she did not see at this point a need for continuing that tall ora requirement; the area to the north is developed as the market bears, and they have been able to work within the 60 t~ maximum height requirement. She said as the north part of town becomes more residential in nature, you may want to consider something of lower height there. Ms. Ungo-McCormick discussed Option 1 for the comer usage. Option 1 is described in the staff report on Page 1-7, which is maintaining the existing General Plan of 60 feet for the northwest, east and southwest comers, plus adding the design principles. She said that to address Chair Harris' concerns about coming out with some specific design policies is to incorporate the approach C schematic into the General Plan text so that there is an actual design concept for that intersection. Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 3, 1997 Chair Harris said she felt they were not approving Option 1, leaving 60 feet at the intersections; but are approving the fact that one of the comers is designed for public space and will not have any development; one of the corners is going to be a gas station, therefore they did not want it to be 60 feet; one of the corners is already developed with large buildings and is probably not going to be redeveloped for a long time so is almost irrelevant to the discussion. She said there is only the one parcel they were discussing, and that was spceifieally the concept of having a large section of green space and then a stepping back to the 60 feet, but not 60 feet for the entire area. Mr. Cowan clarified the criteria for a landmark building: Location on a major street frontage, inclusion of cultural facilities such as art galleries, museums and performing art eenters; inclusion of ground level outdoor public gathering spaces, places that feature pedestrian amenities and public art; inclusion of uses that promote social gatherings and interactions such as restaurants, entertainment activities. He said that in order to qualify for a landmark building, it would have to fit three of the four criteria. Chair Harris suggested consideration of the three different intersections; Option 1 leaves them all at 60; option 2 puts them all at 30 to 45. Chair Harris asked for public input on the basic design principles for Town Center/Crossroads area. There was no one present who wished to provide input. There was a discussion about the basic design principles for Town Center/Crossroads area, which included maintaining the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope, establish building eateries and restaurants and some more activity oriented uses along the ground floor frontage facing Stevens Crcek/DeAnza; and construct a landmark at Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard. Com. Roberts said that there are towers which are 130 feet high in the area zoned for 60 to 75 feet and asked what explicit language could be incorporated to safeguard against that happening again. Mr. Cowan said that there were no previous height limitations there, and now there are height limitations and those are grandfathered, and there is some language to address that. The present General Plan specifies that you can have no higher than 60 to 75 feet. Mr. Cowan explained that there were two development agreements based on the government code section; Vallco Fashion Park and Hewlett Packard. He said that there was a 1993 zoning plan approved for the City Center which defined a series of heights and uses and then the zoning plan has been changed, it has evolved and the General Plan hasn't changed; it changed in 1993. He explained that when there is a development agreement, the actual contractual agreement, the General Plan is locked as long as both parties can approach the other for amendment; but the only development agreement is with those two areas previously mentioned. Chair Harris said that Com. Roberts' question was a reasonable one, because the General Plan is redone periodically. Mr. Cowan said that it was at the discretion of each subsequent Planning Commission and City Council. If there is a development agreement that is locked in for a specified time period, typically 15 or 20 years, then either party can approach the other and ask that be amended; otherwise absent that, it is in effect for the term of the agreement. The whole purpose is to lock in future Council decisions. Most areas are regulated by the General Plan; you can't lock in future Commissions and Councils Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 3, 1997 without the development agreement. What was agreed to in 1979 and 1983 and 1990 my have changed, Councils have changed. Following a discussion, the Planning Commissioners provided input on the basic design principles for Town Center/Crossroads area. Com. Doyle said that Approaches A and B were suitable; C - need to clarify the wording to ensure that it is an dement and not a building. Com. Mahoney agreed with Com. Doyle, but said to ensure that it could be just landscaping, stating that the landmark could be landscaping or specific design elements, however, not a building. Com. Roberts concurred with A, B, and C as amended. He said what he was looking for in Approach A was a similar provision about a 1:1 slope line drawn from the public recreation space on the comer, as is implicit in all of the approaches farther back in the staff report. (Under A, it should say this setback would be drawn from the curbline, as well as from the four seasons park). Mr. Cannon discussed Approach C and answered questions. He said that in the Heart of the City, you could build up to 36 feet closest to the street but could have elements up to 45 for features to allow breakup in the stepping. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input on Option 1 or 2 or combined option relative to changing the heights or keeping the same on the four comers. Mr. Deke Hunter, Hunter Properties, said that his preference would be for the alternative which has the current height restriction in the northeast comer at 60 feet. He added that given the criteria designed for a landmark, not necessarily saying it would be at 75, they may be in a position to meet that landmark criteria as it relates to the three or four items that you would have to accomplish. He said the 30 to 45 for them would be devastating in light of the fact that they would be in a position to do some landmark type things such as landscaping involving community oriented events, restaurants, retail, pedestrian focus at the intemhange. Mr. Hunter commented on the approaches: (A) Support leaving it the same; (B) If you want to give a real bonus to 75; and (C) Do not want this. Chair Harris said that a decision was necessary on the four comers in terms of height; they are currently all 60 with 60 to 75 on the Crossroads area. Com. Roberts said that there was Option 1 and Option 2; but he would like to see the four comers redevdoped with landmark character. He proposed on the southwest, northwest, and northeast corners, change to 30 and 45 feet with a provision for 60 feet if the building had landmark character. He said he felt there could be a better solution on the lines that Mr. Hunter is proposing for the northeast comer; and may find on the northwest and southwest comers eventually. He said he preferred Option 2 with Option I in the case of a landmark development having landmark character. Com. Mahoney, Com. Doyle and Chair Harris concurred with Com. Roberts' proposal. Mr. Cowan reiterated that a designated landmark had to meet three of the four criteria: (a) Location on a major street; (b) Inclusion of cultural facilities such as art galleries, museums, and performing arts centers; (c) Inclusion of ground level public outdoor gathering places that feature pedestrian amenities and public art; and (d) Inclusion of uses that promote social gathering and interaction such as restaurants or entertainment activities. Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 3, 1997 Referring to Option C, Chair Harris said that it was chosen because it had significant landscaping and a setback area. Using an example, Mr. Cowan asked if the developer around the gas station was unsuccessful in getfmg the gas station owner to participate, could the person behind get the 65 foot high buildings even if they were landmark quality? He said relative to the General Plan change, you should state that the ability to have higher developed form on the northeast comer is contingent upon the open space, if that is your intent. He said flint it was important, that iftbe General Plan decision is contingent upon that open space, it needs to be addressed. Ms. Ungo-McConnick said that one of the basic principles already discussed as part of the Town Center changes was the principle C in which you actually defined what in this case what landmark fee would be the inclusion of landscaping design elements. It is already covered without being too specific. Chair Harris said that she preferred Approach C which means public works developments on two intersections and private development on the other two. She said that the item was presented for discussion because the consultant previously specified that the city did not have enough specific plans to define its needs when it is time for development. She said the Planning Commission wants to put design guidelines in place, not in the General Plan for everything, but in specific plans not included throughout the city. Mr. Cowan said that the idea of these approaches was to illustrate how the various heights oould work and if you make the open space the criteria for the higher height. Ms. Ungo-McCormick said that the General Plan was broken into general policies and it has specific strategies that it recommends for implementation. The purpose of providing the approaches was primarily to decide how to develop the comer and translate into how the height standards are applied. She said that to get into the details of how that intersection is done, it can be done through some General Plan strategies or addition of basic principles for that intersection, so that whenever a project comes in, the principles have to be complied with, and it can be added as Principle D that intersections will be developed generally with landscaping along the perimeter. The reality is that the landscaping at the southwest comer is already being incorporated into the conditions of the project that is being presented because of the Heart of the City element. The Heart of the City element has a greenseape easement along Stevens Creek; part of it is included and a statement may need to be added. Mr. Cowan said that if it was important to approve the higher heights because of the p!aTa, you need to state so. Com. Roberts said that the public open space portion of the land, that element in the landmark criteria, should be substantial; it should be more than a hollow gesture and should be an attractive place for people to ex)me. He said he felt work could be done on that criteria and future Commissions and Councils will interpret as they see fit. Mr. Cannon said that implied in the basic Principle C, about sufficient space or easement, if at some point in the future it is decided to do some sort of monument on all four comers, in the process of reviewing and approving this, there should be an easement to fall hack on so that in five or ten years there are no big battles to fight. Planning Commission Minutes ? September 3, 1997 Chair Harris requested that staff include the concept of reserving a landmark easement in the packet for the next meeting. Chair Harris said that there was a development proposal for the northeast comer which was a single story property, and it was decided that it was not the right kind of use for a major intersection; and now there is a proposal diagonally across the street for single story similar use. She pointed out that if it is specified 60 if it is landmark, in the end it may force that to become a 60 foot landmark, which she felt was not the original intent. Mr. Cowan said that he would come up with suggested wording for Criteria C that deals with policy point about having a significant pla,a, to provide a greater assurance that there is going to be a significant plata to get the landmark status. Discussion ensued relative to establishing a formal design review process. Chair Harris said that the concept is that the General Plan speaks to reinfoming the park-like setting and that attention to setback issues will not ensure that new buildings will enforce the strong residential community image and that a comprehensive review of development proposals for visual issues needs to be done. Chair Harris said that the recommendation is for additional planning steps, train and design review. Mr. Cowan said it was from thc Gcncral Plan and proposed scvcral models. Hc said some communities have volunteer amhitects; however, he recommended a paid professional to either advice an architectural Board directly, or a subcommittee to review applications. He said for Stevens Creek Boulevard, the city retains Freedman, Tung and Bottomley to review applications on that street. He said he would prefer to have a paid amhitcctural adviser to advise thc Planning Commission on architectural matters. He said that General Plan statement addressing the issue would be augmented. Chair Hams said that the General Plan document requires either staff or a consultant to review the architectural matters. Com. Roberts said he was in favor of a paid architectural adviser; Com. Mahoney said he was not. Mr. Cannon referred to the overhead of the tall buildings development options. He said that the way the current General Plan is now with the 120 height limit straddling 280 on both sides; there are two options for the owner to develop: (1) in leaving the existing buildings in place, he is forced to put the tall buildings between the existing buildings and the freeway, or (2) redevelop the whole area and to put the taller buildings in another location. He referred to the Tandem Illustrative Entitlement Plan and noted that for every square foot of building, a square foot or more of parking is needed. He said the buildings under the current General Plan, unless removed, will be right up against the freeway, which results in Tandem's image becoming the image of Cupertino because most of the remaining freeway frontage has large trees and green character. He said that as previously suggested that if something is done that adjusted the height limit to a range through the whole area, you might be able to get some open space and create the activity center, which is addressed but not defined in the Heart of the City Plan; and a hotel site. It may get to be taller, but offset by some significant open space so that it relates to some degree back down to the open space discussed at the Crossroads/Town Center. It would allow more flexibility and allows a master plan to be prepared for the area and makes sonse to Tandem and how they need to operate, but in creating something that has some coherence from an urban design and from a planning standpoint. Mr. Cannon said that they had suggested that the heights be changed to this arrangement, and it implies that they take away the 120 foot height because it doesn't have much relationship to this sort of activity center discussed related to Stevens Creek and it is already built out, so that it becomes 60/75; and illustrated they are to be designatexl from 30 to 120 feet height, but that it really requires a master plan prior to any development agreement or prior Planning Commission Minutes ~ September 3, 1997 to any buildings being built over 45 feet. Other things that relate to that is the same setback slope line requirement along Stevens Creek, the 1:1 slope so that it is consistent with the Stevens Creek plan and a setback from the property line on both the freeway side and the Tantau street, which was derived bom an earlier diagram. If trees were used it would provide an image of greenness along the freeway and it would be consistent with the parkurbia idea, and the buildings would be sloped back more so that the condition would be more like the Apple building at DeAnza and 280. Chair Harris summarized the proposed basic design principles A through G on Pages 1-4 through 1-6 of the staff report. Com. Roberts recalled, relative to the 120 feet, that at the General Plan stage there was considerable discussion about it, and within the Planning Commission there was considerable resistance to the 120 feet, and the 120 feet was written in to accommodate a project which had been preapproved, the Jackpot building. Ms. Ungo-McCormick pointed out that there was an exclusion in the General Plan that specifically grandfathers that building. Com. Roberts said he opposed approval of 120 foot limit in that part of the city. Chair Harris added that additional issues were Nos. 1 and 2 on Page 1-4 of the staff report. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment on the Tandem/Vallco Park areas. Mr. John Healey, Tandem Computers, said that he agreed with Items A through E, Vallco Park Area 1. He said he concurred with the idea of reducing the 120 foot height limit north of the freeway; that is a Tandem property adjacent to Tantau. With regard to the area designated in a hatched line 30 to 120 SF, he said he concurred that there was more flexibility to produce a better design. He said it was unique to have large land areas in a single ownership, which is an opportunity for the city and the land owner to do something special. The best way to treat that area is with a master plan and he agreed with the recommendation that anything over 45 feet or anytime a development agreement would proceed to the point it was under consideration for review by the city, there should be a master plan developed. With regard to recommendation D, he expressed concern about starting to define that flexibility by establishing what amounts to setbacks from the two major corridors, 1-280 and Stevens Creek. He said he would be much happier to see the overall character 30 to 120 square feet with the suggestion that we come in for Planning Commission and Council review of a master plan. He said he was aware of what the critical issues are and he concurred that it would be an excellent idea for the city to retain a firm or individual who could provide consistency, become a trusted advisor, and could be sought out by applicants to get some idea about what the Council and Planning Commission was looking for so that the steps to redo are somewhat eliminated. Mr. Healey said that the process would work well in terms of reviewing the master plan. He suggested that the recommendation be established for the area at 30 to 120 square feet and not further restrict it in terms of Item D. Relative to Item F and G, Mr. Healey expressed concern about some of the language; he said they would prefer the subsurface parking under buildings and a portion of the parking structure screening parking structures. He said that the language is such that it requires a design solution where no portion of the parking structure is seen, which is almost impossible to do. He said he agreed with the idea of screening, but the language could be changed somewhat. In response to Chair Harris's question about the development proposal which was removed from the calendar, Mr. Healey said that Tandem was presently focused on the merger and have not had a chance to perfect the proposal. He said Tandem is concentrating its efforts on the General Plan Plann/ng Commission Minutes 9 ~leptember 3, 1997 Amendment and will reevaluate the implications and decisions made following Planning Commission and City Council review. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the mecting. Com. Mahoney said that most of the principles were suitable, except Item D relative to the 1-280 issue. He said that relative to the 1-280 part of D, he would not necessarily say it had to be 1.5:1; 1:1 is appropriate. He said he was not hang up about the appearance from the freeway, and was not willing to trade offother things for that. Com. Mahaney said he did not feel they had to screen it to block out all buildings. Relative to Item E (trees), he was not opposed to the trees. Com. Roberts said that in his mind there werea't any buildings over 60 feet, therefore Item C does not apply; and if there were no 120 foot buildings, Item D would not be so important. He said he did not feel they should be more restrictive them than they were with the Apple R&D, except for the allowance of taller buildings. He said he would prefer to start with 1 and 2, and resolve that, and then he would be less conjectural about what should happen to 3. He said that dependent on how 2 is resolved, his response to 3 would be different. Chair Harris pointed out that even though you don't approve of an item and it goes against your vote, you have the ability to structure how it would exist than if you did. Com. Doyle said he agreed with Com. Roberts' comments. He said he felt the entire area 60 to 75 being consistent with Apple and I-IP would be reasonable; relative to A, he said he did not feel the height along the frontage should be increased; B and C are suitable; eliminate D entirely and leave A and B as the ground rules; E, F and G are suitable. Chair Harris said she agreed with Corns. Doyle and Roberts. She said she saw the area as being 60 feet in height; was in favor of E; liked trees and would rather look at trees along the 280 frontage than massive structures. Relative to Items 1 and 2, Chair Harris asked if they wanted to eliminate the 120 foot permitted height zone and replace it with 60 foot or 60/75 if it is a landmark? She asked the Commissioners to comment on it separately; 60 for it all or 60/75. Do you want to redesignate the area 30 to 120; or do you want to keep it exactly the same with the 4 or 5 different designations it now has or do you want to propose something else? Com. Roberts said that he supported Item I to eliminate the 120 fee{ permitted height north of 1-280 and replace it with 60 to 75 foot designation; perhaps 60 feet would be suitable, and stated that if they achieve some public access and activity for the price of an additional story, it is worth it. He said he felt they could look at the screen; if there was some walkway along the screen, or publicly accessible space along the screen that would be attractive. Item 2: He said introducing another alternative was not simplifying things, but he favored what is shown under the current General Plan with the exception that the 120 feet be reduced to 60/75 which is consistent with what is across 1-280. He said he felt that that the people of Cupertino don't want the towers again; and if the 120 feet are left in the General Plan, it is as if it were an entitlement and it is hard to reject a proposal that goes up to 120 feet even though it has no particular merit. The 60/75 cross, the 45 feet along Stevens Creek and the 60/75 would be enlarged to encompass the 120; 60/75 along Wolfe; keep the 45 and change all the rest to 60/75; and then 75 would represent a special circumstance where there is a benefit to the eommunity. Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 3, 1997 Com. Mahoney said he agreed with Com. Roberts, but would go higher than the 75, but not all the way to 120. Com. Doyle said he would go with the 60/75 with the 45 foot buffer as illustrated on the overhead of the exhibit. Corns. Mahoney, Roberts and Chair Harris concurred relative to the 45 buffer. Chair Harris summarized that there was consensus on the 45 foot buffer as shown; the remainder to go to 60 with the potential for 75 for a specific landmark; 120 goes away and the language about increased height under A for a hotel does not apply; it is removed. B would apply 1.5; 2:1, for buildings up to 60 feet in height, &'awn from the Stevens Creek Blvd., Tantau or Homestead curblines; 1:1 for Wolfe Road; C would apply 2:1 for over 60, Stevens Creek, Tantau & Homestead; 1.51 for Wolfe Road over 60. D will be removed; E will become D and F & G will remain as E & F. A discussion ensued regarding the basic design principles for corridors. Chair Harris said they were attempts to deal with the issue in the General Plan about park-like settings which hasn't beca worked on in the past. She said it is a part of the consultants recommendation to have some community wide Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input on the corridor issue. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Doyle said that A is suitable, we are consistent in most areas; it will be difficult to do it; 1:1 setback is reasonable, would probably like to have it deeper but most of the area is thin narrow lots and you would have some difficulty. B, C, D and E are appropriate. Com. Roberts said he would like to consider the lesser slope line, the 1.5:1; would like to look at the feasibility in terms of the aspect that they mentioned, namely the depths of the property. He said that they should keep in mind that this is the current line and where it is, it will loom out much more, from the sidewalk especially, to the extent of wide landscaping between the curb and sidewalk. He concluded that the other items were appropriate. Later in the meeting following disenssion, Com. Roberts changed his preference from 1.5:1 to 1:1. Chair Harris said she liked the North DeAnza plan which has enormous setbacks, wonderful meandering paths, lawns and berms and pointed out that the proposal is a far cry from that. Com. Mahoney said that he concurred with Com. Doyle; Chair Harris concurred with Com. Roberts. Ms. Ungo-McCormick clarified that the properties along the south DeAnza particularly, and Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road are not very deep, and there is potential for redevelopment, which may push the buildings hack such that you end up with landscaping and parking. She said that you may preclude an option of a building with some presence coming closer to the street. Chair Harris said that the addition in corridors is to Item 1, 30 to 45 feet on both sides of DeAnza Blvd. will be added. Ms. Ungo-McCormick said that in terms of their other recommendations to be addressed at a separate meeting, their goal for including it was to eapsulize how they felt about the General Plan process, the design principles and the reduced heights in some areas. She said it sets the city's policies for development ora character to the city. Ms. Ungo-McCormick said that in order to accomplish that, you do have to have an improved process, and they were not necessarily recommending a specific Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 3, 1997 process at this time, just sumnmrizing how it can happen only if you have a process that allows you tO do that. Relative to Exhibit A on Page 1-27 of the staff report, Mr. Cowan explained that it may not be desirable to have 45 foot height if there were residential buildings behind. Following discussion, it was agreed to change reference to 45' height on Page 1-27 to read "30' - 45' deoendine on distance to residential". Page 1-29, add "with the addition of/60 for a landmark." Mr. Cowan requested clarification of allowing thc 60 landmark on the three intersections of thc Crossroads absent the public open space issue. He distributed proposed revised wording for consideration. He said that thc revised wording did not guarantee thc comer p!n~n but provides some leverage at a public hearing. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 17-EA-97 Com. Roberts Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application No. 7-GPA-97 as amended Com. Roberts Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-GPA-97 and 9-EA-97 City of Cupertino Various Consideration of an amendment to the land use element of the general plan to allow an interchange of square footage between commercial and office/industrial uses (Policy 2-3). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 15, 1997 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 23, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 5-GPA-97 and 9-EA-97 to the September 8, 1997 Planning Commission meeting Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Com. Austin Passed 3-1-0 Chair Hams suggested that the Planning Commissioners sent comments to staff prior to the meeting to expedite discussion. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None