PC 07-09-84® n r� J• Tr "T riLJ; F n
•T_IY Off' CUP iLTI:,O, 'j_A1 Or. C�1LIr0.I., I
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca.95014
Telephone: (408) 252-4505
iiIIL'TES OF TIIE REGULAR iIiEETIPdG OF THE PLANP1IiTG
COMMISSIOr'J TIELD ON JULY 9, 1984 IN THE COUNCIL
CH1ri;ERS, CiTY MALL, CUPEFTINO, CALIFORNIA.
L
Chairperson Elaine called the ineeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers, City Ball.
SALUTE `1'O THE I?LAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Co:nmissioner Adams
Commissioner Claudy
Commissioner Koenitzer
Commissioner Szabo
Chairperson Elaine
Staff Present: Director of Planning; and Development Sisl
Assistant Planning; Director Conran
Assistant City Engineer Whitten
® City Attorney Kilian
APPROVAL OF � 1INUTES
Minutes of Regular i`leetinr of May 14, 1984 - It was moved by
Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously
to approve the I<iinutes as submitted.
MLinutes of Regular Meeting; of June 11, 198.4 - It was moved by
Com. Koenitzer,.seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously
to approve the 'l-linutes as submitted.
POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS - lNone
WRI`1'T N COMMUNICA`I'ION'S
Letters from Mr. and IMrs. Edward Martin and Mr. ,iillia:n
Williams concerning; an agenda item.
CO:"?,E)E •;T CALENDAR
It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Claudy and
passed unanimously to place Item 4 on the Consent Calendar.
4. Application 5-U-82 of Paul McAllister (P. Prieri- ,'iilson) -
R,enuest for Extension of Use Permit.
It :;as moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Cori. r:oenitzer and
passed unanimously to approve the Extension.
FC-443
Page 1
PC=443 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARIi'G
1. Applications 5-Z-84 and 4-TM-84
REZONING approximately 1.7 gross
(Residential Single-family, 10,(
size) zone to R1-7.5 (Residentii
sq. ft. minirnum lot size) zone
deemed appropriate by the Planni
SUBDIVISION MAP to subdivide apil
into six parcels rangin; in sizi
22,500 sq. ft. and ENVIRONMENTAL
mental Review Committee recommer
Negative Declaration. The subjE
on the southwest corner of Fore:
Avenue. First Hearing. Tentat:
date - August 6, 1984.
Assistant Planning Director Conran
consistent with the General Plan.
to raise, lie said, was, the use of
street, especially with regard to
the application should be continue
provide a public street. Despite
stating thatthe density was too hi
he said. He mentioned that Mr. Ca
retaining the existing well.
of PETER CAP+"iARDA:
acres from R1-10
)00 sq. ft. minimum lot
L1 Single-family 7,500
>r whatever zone may be
_ng Commission; TENTATIVE
)roximately 1.7 acres
from 8,100 sq. ft. to
REVIEW: The Environ-
ids the granting of a
act property is located
,t Avenue and :North" Blaney
.ve City Council hearing
eported that the zoning; was
The only issue Staff wished
private rather than a public
arkinC. Staff therefore felt
to allow the Applicant to
he two letters received
h, the density was very low,
arda felt strongly about
A discussion ensued between the Commission and Assistant City
Engineer Whitten regarding the reasons the. City wanted the well.
The Commission discussed whether the street could be relocated
and how the driveway for the flag lots should be configured.
.•lilliam Egan, 10188 1,7yer Place, asked if there was an existing
shed shown on the aerial view.
Corn. Blaine confirmed that there was. A couple of sheds and a
house were to be removed, she said'
1r. Egan wondered whether a telephone pole in his backyard, up
against the fence by the well, would be affected.
Coin. Blaine could not see that it 'would be at all. She established
with "vir. 1viarvin Kirkeby, 7246 Sharon Drive, representing the
Applicant, that the house on lot 6 was 10 ft. from the eastern
boundary.
C-om. Koenitzer was concerned aboutl'the overall development,
which he did not feel was consistent with good design.
The Commission discussed the fact that at 45 ft., the easement
was almost enough for a public right of way, and whether land
from; lot 3 could be added, one lot eliminated, or a public street
put down the side of lot 6.
I ,
U
® The Applicant's Representative stated that the confirrurations PC-443
for all of -these would be impractical. Ike further felt the Page 3
number of off=street parking, spaces recommended were
excessive, though he agreed with the Commission that there
should be no parking on the street, because it was too narrow
He observed that the turnaround area provided was the best
for the situation and was one of the Fire District's standard .
Com. Adams asked the Applicant's Representative if he would
object to a continuance.
The Applicant's representative said he would not, but did not
want to be compromised into providing wider than. normal
streets. This had happened to their projects in the past,
he said.
There was a discussion on the installation of 50 ft. streets
in the.past. No problems were recalled, but parkin; was
tight, it was recalled.
The Applicant's Representative suEUested that as the Applican
lived in the house on lot 6, maybe a compromise could be made
there, in the parking strip, etc.
The Commission asked Assistant City Eno-ineer Whitten whether
anything else could be done about the well.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten said that the City needed to
have control of the well and how much water was pumped.
The Applicant's Representative pointed out that the well sery
another propety also, and that.their original intent had not
been to include the well site in the subdivision.
Coin. Blaine summarized the concerns of the Commission being t
the type of road and the well, and suggested a continuance so
that the Applicant could provide a public street, with the
City held to keeping the street at the proposed width.
The Commission further discussed street width, desiUn of lots
and the turnaround bulb.
It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Adams and
passed unanimously to close the Public Hearing on the zoning.
It was inoved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and
passed unanimously to grant a Negative Declaration.
It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Adams and
passed unanimously to recommend approval of Application
5-z-84 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the
Hearing.
It .•ras moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and
passed u.nani;nously to continue Application 4-`f i-84 to the
i-leetinS of July 23rd.
Co:. Blaine further clarified the Commission's concerns as
beinF, the road, sizeof lots, layout, number of lots,well and
size of turnaround.
'C-4'43
'age 4
2. Applications ll-U-84 and 5-TT,1-8
(TERRY ElR01111) : USE PERMIT to c
tial single-family dwelling uni
MAP to subdivide approximately
ranging in size from 2,150 sq.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE;r': The subj
the northwes.t corner of Orange
in a P (Planned Development wit
dwelling units per gross acre i
First Hearin-.. Tentative City
July 16, 1984.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan
project met the requirements of the
was consistent with development in
high density, but with a single-fam
there was plenty of street parking
of MO NTA VISTA PROPERTIES
nstruct 12 detached resider-
s; TEI4TATIVE SUBDIVISIOi•.
ne acne into 12 parcels
t. to 3,380 sq. ft. and
ct property is located on
venue and Granada Avenue
residential, 4.4-12
tent) zoning district.
ouncil hearing.date -
ve the Staff Report. The
General Plan, he said, and
he neighborhood; it was
ly flavor. He pointed out
n Orange and Granada.
Corns. Blaine and Adams wanted to kn6w more about the homes with
single car garages.
Mr. Terry Brown established which these were and how the parking
was arranged.
Com. Adams observed that the parking looked "tight" and a
discussion ensued on the issue.
Ann Anger, Monta Vista resident, felt that development in
Monta Vista was getting worse all the time. Here, there was
no open space, and she felt there should be a larFrer setback
for two -storey dwellings. Also, the traffic and parkin; situation
was bad. The development had started out well, she felt, but
now was going down -hill, and she hoped this would be denied.
Jim Hemphill, Southwood Properties_,!said that the response from
consumers had been very good. In t�e first phase of six homes,
four had already been sold. The development was well within
zoning requirements and was of goodlquality, he stated.
Scott Haley, 21790 Stevens Creel; Boulevard, wanted to know if
there were plans for the property on'the corner of Stevens Creek
and Orange, and was told by Staff that there were presently none.
Carter LaI_e; 10101 Orange Avenue, as concerned with the r.,arkin
on the public streets and wanted to know if Orange or Granada
would be widened. If the project did not conflict with plans
for the area, he could not object,lhe said.
Assistant City En;ineer l,,'hitten stated that Orange Avenue: was
a standard width of 40 feet. curb t curb and that Granada was
to be 40 feet curb to curb and 60 eet right of wa;y in the Ponta
Vista Plan. Fresently, it varied, but there was a lot of parking
area off the pave;aent .
Terry Brown noted that there was no opposition to the project
from neir-hbors. lie pointed out that he was givin up 5 feet
more than required on Oran.-e-on the recommendation of Staff. If
lie had this 5 feet, it could be used to alleviate the problems with
lots 5 and 8, he said.
E
Cori. Adams granted to know if other layouts for the site had
been considered.
Mr. Brown said that they had looked at several and had worked
with Staff on this. Asked by Com. Szabo about common wall
construction, he said he had been guided away from this by
Staff, and observed that common walls did not have such an
appeal to buyers.
Ann Anger thought that townhouses with open space would be
better. She wanted to see higher standards in Monta Vista.
Com. koenitzer was leaninE towards continuance on three points
the General Plan had recently deleted the 2,500 sq. ft. lots
of 1917, yet some here were less; too many of the dwellings
were two -storey; the driveway for lot 4 was too close to the
corner of Orange and Granada. His suggestion was to delete
lot 4 and use it to enlarge the other lots, keeping two -
storey development to 50% of the project.
Corns. Claudy and Szabo reiterated the concern with lot size,
and felt that single family homes should be on 5,000 sq. ft.
lots, minimum.
Com. Blaine reminded the Commission that on the west side of
this were similar houses already approved.
Com. Szabo felt that inconsistency here would be justified.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reminded the Commission that
the 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size zoning was for single-
family, not for planned unit development.
Corn, Blaine summarized the Commission's feelings, that if
this was to be the density, then townhouses with open space
would be required, and that P zoning was not to be used for
detached homes.
The Commission gave guidance to ilr. Brown on what would be
acceptable, and asked if he would like a continuance or a
decision.
Mr. Brown thought that as three owners were involved, and as
the Application was in accordance with the Monta Vista Plan,
he would prefer to go to the Council.
It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com.-Koenitzer and
passed unanimously to close the Public HearinL.
It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Con,. foenitzer and
passed unanimously to recommend the granting of a Plegative
Declaration.
® There was discus: ;ion between the Commission and Staff on what
g.7ould be an appropriate f indinr-. The Coi-mission wanted
Council to know that they wanted to see townhouses, rather
than 5,000 sq. ft. lots. When Planning Director Sisk
su` vested tie f indin;r that single family detached should not
be on anythin7 less than 5,000 sq. ft. lots, Corn. Blaine
thouE,ht that in some areas of to ,,n they could be, but not here
PC-443
Page 5
PC-443
Page 6
It was moved by Coin. Claudy, second(
passed unanimously to recommend den:
based on the discussion findings an(
d by Com. Koenitzer and
al of Application' ll-U-84
subconclusions of the Hearing.
It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and
passed unanimously to recommend denial of Application 5-T:n-84,
in that the Use Permit had not beenl,approved.
3. Appli.cation 11-U-82 (Revised) o
USE PERMIT to include modificat
elements, exterior materials an
a ramp, lift, and "area of refu
evacuation are proposed for del
The project was previously asse
required. The subject property
150 ft. south of Stevens Creek
of Stelling Road in a P (Planne
First Iiearing. Tentative City
July 16, 1984.
Planning Director Sisk explained th
way between buildings 1 and 2 was b
be vertical,rather than horizontal,
area at the second storey level wou
Fire District had made a rule that
had to be able to self -evacuate, an
evacuation plan to this effect, he
COM MUN,ITY HOUSING DEVELOPERS:
on of certain architectural
floor plans. In addition,
e" intended for emergency
t ion . • ENVIROPII4ENTAL REVILb; :
sed, hence, no action is
s located approximately
oulevard and 300 ft. east
Development) zoning district.
ouncil nearing date -
t basically a proposed walk-
ing eliminated, siding would
and the ramp, lift and refuge
d be eliminated. The Central
enants on the second floor
there was an emergency
xplained.
Com. Koenitzer i-aas concerned that so much was being cut out in
this handicapped -project and wanted explanations for all changes,
including the interior ones.
Coin. Szabo established with Planning Director Sisk that there
was a problem with cost, as previously.
Linda Smith, Director of Community Iousin� Developers, confirmed this.
Corr. Blaine wondered how people in wheelchairs would get up and
down the stairs. 1'
s. Smith clarified that the elevator would still be there, and
he second floor was to be limited to tenants who could descend
he stairs by themselves in an emergency.
oin. Blaine was. concerned about the City's.liability.
ity Attorney Kilian said that though the developer ;.o.u-ld have
he major liability, the City would have some, and the Commission
hould make a decision on whether t e approach was reasonably
rudent, he advised.
om. Adams asked if Community iIousiiag Developers had looked at
ny other alternatives for escape devices.
4s. Smith confirmed that various alternatives had been explored,
Dut that Central Dire District wantL-d something people could
o themselves. 1;bile ramps had been a possibility, they had
,peen ruled out because of lack of space. She noted that all
uildings ,iere sprinklered. She described the sidin charges
<:(, �- e'L ;;I'
11
•
Betsy Yost, architect, clarified that the siding; material
would give a smoother appearance laid vertically.
Coin. Blaine went over a list of changes with the architect,
who spoke to her concerns.
The Commission discussed all changes that had been made to
reduce cost with the architect. It was pointed out that the
reason for Isoing through everything, even the interior
changes, was to ensure durability, ease of maintenance and
a quality project.
Com. Szabo established with the architect that the changes
had ben.n negotiated with the contractor and all was now
within budget.
Ms. Yost added that they were within budget with the C.H.F.H,
who were still reviewing, the changes. They wanted to keep a
rainp if possible, but if they could not obtain more funds they
would approve it as it was.
Edith Saroglia, 10067 Bianchi Way, stated that it seemed not
to be a good project, after all the changes. She was a little
disgusted with it, and hoped it would not devalue her property.
P,lark Muller, 20186 Forest Avenue, had reservations about not
providing ramps because of cost or space. He wished it to be
considered that anyone on the second floor with any sort of a
physical problem would have difficulty getting down in an
emergency situation.
It was moved by Corr. Szabo, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and
passed unanimously to close the Public hearing.
Com. Adams had no objections.
Com. Szabo felt they were in good faith trying to cut corners)
where they could.
Corn. Claudy was only concerned with deleting the ramp, lift
and refuge area, but as the chronically handicapped had alread
been eliminated from living on the second floor, he felt this
would be all right. However, he would abstain for the same
reason as last time, that he felt the project was going
downhill.
Com. Koenitzer said he was close to voting against for the
same reason, but decided he would abstain.
Com. Blaine said that because it was an apartnient co;nplex to
provide basic housing, and also handicapped housing specialtie
did add to the cost, she would still vote for it.
® It .�ias moved by Coro. Szabo, seconded by Corn. Ada;ns and passed,
with Coms. Clauav and Koenitzer abctainin^, to recom;nend
approval of the revision of Application 11-U-82 per Staff P,epo
'C-443
'age 7
t.
'C. 443 IUIIFII%IISIIED BUSI:IE J'S - hone
'age 8
''V" EU,SIIIESIS
L'Y V�.JU
Application 9-U-84 of South Bay
Deferment of southerly curb ci
attached letter).
Construction and Development:
t consolidation (see
'lanninE Director Sisk described the situation and said he had
;hosen to brinf; this minor char-e to the Planning Commission for
;heir agreement or otherwise. Asked if there was a letter from
;he Coach house Shopping Center, he said there.was not,but that
associate Planner Piasecki had talked with them.
,om. Koenitzer felt that it would bd preferable to have
3upportin; evidence in writing that ti'i Coach House Shopping
,enter was not interested in participating in a driveway at this
;ime. �.
'he Commission agreed that the Coacvj House Shopping; Center
;hould be given a week or two to send a letter, and that it was
iot necessary to bring the matter back to the Commission.
Et was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by. Com. Koenitzer and
gassed unanimously that if the Planiing Director ascertained
;hat the Coach House Shopping Center was not interested in a
nutual driveway at this time, then a deferred agreement be
entered into.
3EPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
;om. Koenitzer reported on a Planning Commission Forum where
Sen. Tom'Legan had spoken on SB 2117, a plan to finance higho;ays
'37, 101 and 85 only. He ,vent on t describe the plan and the
nethod of funding.
;om. Elaine advised that therewould! be another meetinG in
WE-ust in Milpitas,and she would let the Commission know the
;ime and place. i'
She reported that she had attended.lthe two BIIIR*Subcommittee
,teetings, whereproblens and C05t5 had been discussed in a
;eneral fashion. The consensus at the last meeting had been
;hat there should be some way of spreadincl, the cost beyond the
-esidential developer.
,o,i;. Szabo observed that :;tore three- bedroom BMR*units might be
i good idea.
,om. Blaine undertook to bring the
i'EFORT 0F PLA.1-ING DIRECTOR
'lannin,- Director Sisk, upon being
.n update on the situation at StevE
,cm:;iission wondered whether new cor
idea up at the next meeting.
asked by the Comr.-,ission, gave
ns Creek and Foothill. The
sttuction there might
0
*ENiR - below market rate housing
alleviate floodin„ problems at til.e nursin; home. It Was
advised that the situation Mould remain the sane in si:nila.
circumstances, that some measures had been taken by the City,
but there was a lii,iit to what the City could do in these
situations, and owners had to take some responsibility.
The ;Meeting was adjourned at 10.20 p.m. to Wednesday, July
18th at 7:30 p.m. for Public Hearing re�;arding Application
7-U-69 - Stevens Creek Ranch Stables.
ATTEST:
/s/ Dorothy Cornelius
Dorothy Cornelius
City Cleric
APPROVED:
/s/ Sharon Blaine
Sharon Blaine
Chairperson
PC-443
Page 9