PC 01-12-87•
CITY OF aJP.ER1'mO I srATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 TorJ:\a Avenue CUpertino, CA. 95014
(408) 252-4505
MINUl'ES OF 'IHE REX;tJL'\R MEEI'ING OF 'IHE PI.ANNING a::M1ISSION
HEID ON JANUARY 12 I 1987 Meet.in; Held in the COUnci.l Qla.rrJ::)ers of OJpert.iJ10 City Hall
SAWl'E 'IO '!HE FI.AG;
ROIL CAIL:
Camnissianers Present: Clla.iJ::man Szabo Vice Chai.nnan Mackenzie Q=mnjssioner Adams Ccmmissioner Sorensen
7:30 P.M.
Staff Pre.sent: Robert cowan, Director of Planni.rq & Develqment Steve Piasecki, Assistant Pl.ann.i.rq Di.rector Glenn Grigg, Traffic Ergineer
Peggy M. Cocker, Attorney
can. Mackenzie asked that an Paga ·1, third paragraph, the word "l?arki.rig''
be deleted to read '"llle Public Heari.rq was then opened. 11
MJI'ION: Com. Adams, to awrove the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December a, 1986, as corrected.
SECOND: eom. Mackenzie
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
cam. Adams asked that on Page 7, secorrl paragraph, t.hircl sent:en::e ba corrected to read, 11 ••• arxi that the three sites be tied together in a
phase1 plan.11
M:Jl'ION: cam.. Mackenzie, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Adjourned. Meeting of December ll, 1986, as submitb:rl..
SECOND: cam. Adams
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
M:JI'ION: cam. Sorensen, to approve the :r-r..imltes of the Regular AdjOl..U:Tled Heeting of December 16, 1986, as submitted.
SECOND: can. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 ·
-1-
. \
PI.ANNING CXl1MISSION' MINUr.ES P.egular Meetin;J of Janua:cy 12, 1987
PAGE 2
I:c -510
ITEM l. Application No(s) Applicant:
Property ~= Location:
Parcel Area (Acres) :
UPle Cqtp.\ter Q..112erti.no :union SchQQl Disyict
USE PERMIT ( 18-U-85 Amen:1£d)
To q:erate a child care center with a :maximum of 150 students usin;J exi.stin;J school facilities, 3 naw portable buildings, arxi additional parkin;.
FIRST HFARm:; roNr.llltJED
~ DEI'ERM.INATION: Negative Declaration ***PI.ANNmG o:.MMISSION ACTION FlNAL UNLESS APPFAI.ED*** (o::lh"I'Ilf'JED ~ 'lliE MEETING OF DECEMBER B, 1986)
Ms. Mary Herm.9i1IlaYer, 10450 No. Portal, CUpertino, questioned why the .AR>licant was allowe1 to postpone this second Maring arx1 noted the
Az::'plicant was unprepared for the first hea.rin;I also. She stat.eel that 9
members of the community were inconvenienced by this postponement.
1<1l'ICN: Can. Mac:keil.tie ·lllOVed to continue ITEM l to· Janum.y 26, 1987.
SEO:!ID: cam. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0
WRITI'EN cnM.JNICATIONS
-None
ORAL cn:lMIJNICATIONS
-Hone
•
' PI.ANNING cn!MISSION MINtJI'F.S
Regular Meeting of Janua.ry 12, 1987
PAGE 3
R:: -510
RJBLIC HEAR!NGS:
ITEM 2.
Application No ( s) Al,:plicant:
Property owne=:
Location:
Parcel Area (Acres) :
ia-'!M-86 am 21-r..:r..-a6
~xi Pauline Besler North side of Rainbcw L)Xive, appro~ 350
fj:;, east of Weynputh Drive 2.0 g:t'\?S§ 2.6 net
TENl'ATIVE MAP (18-'IM-86)
To subdivide 2 parcels into 10 :parcels with lot sizes ran;:JiIXJ frcm 6,200 sq. ft. to 22, 000 sq. ft.
FIRST Hl!.ARING
~ DE'I'm1INATION: Negative Declaration
TENrATIVE CI'I'Y <XXJNCIL HF.ARING DATE: Januacy 20, 1987
Staff Presentation: Mr. cowan presented site maps of the propoeed subdivision of two parcels of property into nine parcels. As stated. in
the staff Report, there is concem regardirq the design of the subdivision due to lack of integration with the exist~ neighbortl.ocd an:l possible side y-cl.rd setback conflicts with adjacent rear yattls. 'Ihe .Awlicant ·has
been asked to present a revised design; this has not been presented to the Plannin:;J Deparboont as yet. Staff presented a suggested design revision; no special noise mitigation me.. ures were deemed ne.ce.ssa.ry.
Applicant's Presentation:_ Mr. Mru:v KirkeJ-,y, Civil Eng.ineer, presented photo;Jrafh'> of the area, poi.ntin:;r out existin:J trees on the prope..'t"ty. He noted the similarity of the proposed subdivision to existing subdivisions on Jollyman ct. an:l on F1~val Dr. an:l stat.ad that the cut:rent application does not represent an unusual situation in CUpertino,
'!he Applicant presented a Plot Plan for review by the ~ion and
stated that there W"d.S virtually no priv-d.cy invasion of adjacent
proi:erties. He discussed advant.ages an:l disadvantages of various configurations of subdividin:J the property. In ~nse to Cam. Adams qup..stian, Mr. Kirkeby stated that Staff's proposal eliminated. th.a buildin:;J
of one house.
Mr. Charles Masters,·· J\Pplicant, added that in the project they plan to develop the lots ard build the houses as they have done in other projects in the City. On Int 8, an adapted s~le sto:r:y house plan, without seconi story wirdor...rr;, has been selected; he stated he would enter· into a formal agreeIOOnt to this effect with respect to this I..ot. In response to C.am.
Adams' question, Mr. CcMan stated that Staff was conc:erned that the developnent of the 11 Dlvis11 prcperty to the east would n:Jt. be hirx:lered ey
developne.nt of the Masters site.
PI.ANNING CXM<ISSION MINU1'ES
Regular Meeting of Janu..uy 12, 1987
PAGE 4
PC -510
ITfM 2 {Cont'd)
'Iha PUblic Hearirq was then open.
--1• '•···
Mr. Roger Peters, 7852 Belknap or., Q..lpertino, faVOl"Eld. tho propoeed. staff plan for wt a.
Mr. R.J. Mann, ll.98 Elmstead Dr., c.ipert.ino, noted his conce.rns:
- 3 ft. differential between his property an::1 the proposed deve.10£l00nt,
askirq that a re~ wall be installed to ~t erosion of his property -Privacy impact on his propP..rty :Eran the Wilclir~ of a house an tat 6 -Clla.rqe in the ccunplexion of the area with the l:W.ldin;J of a proposed
2600 sq.ft. house.
In ~ to cam. Mackenzie• s question, ha stated that ha preferred the AWJ.icant 1 s proposal over the Staff proposal for davelcpue.nt · of the
P~·
Mr. !J:lu Girads, 7864 . Belknap, OJ'pertino, questiorlEd whether a reta.i.n.inq
wall wcrud be installe::l on Lots 4 ard 5 and noted a oonoem regarding-the differential .between the properties. He favored staff ~ for
devel.q:mmnt of the property. Mr. Kirkeby 1 Civil ~inee.r. respoOOed to .. technical questions raised by the speakers. W
wr:tON: can. Adams JWVed to close the Public Hearing. SEO:lND: can. Sorensen
VOI'E: Passe:i 4-0
can. Adams oc:anme.rded Staff on the design pxesented am highly recx:mnended that the Applicant review realignment of the Lots on tl'lG north side of the
proposed development. He asked that Lot 8, in particular, ref'lect staff suggest:' .. ons. can. Mackenzie concurred and requested oooiparative design plans be presented. for review by the camm.i.ssion; a::m. SOrensen concurred,
an::1 nota:i her concern regartlir:q possible 1."elllCIVal of trees. air. Szabo
also cxmcurred with the al::x..""Ve.
M:11'IOO: can. h.lams n¥JVe:i the reopen the Public Hearing.
SECOND: can. Sorensen VOI'E: Passed
Mr. Kirkeby, Civil Erqineer, reviewed plac.e.mE>.nt of existing trees.
4-0
cam. Mackenzie restated his request for presentation of comparative dezign plans for review by the Commission; cam. hiaros asked that the Applicant
address concerns regarding the prop:ised lots facing the oorth neighborhood
an:l noted the d.ispar<;ty of p.;!.tt.ing a 2600 sq. ft. ho..lSe in th.a e.xi.atin:] neighborhood.
ID.r!CN: c.an. Mams lOCIVe:l to Continua Application 18-'IM-86 and 37-EA-86 to January 26, 19B7, Plann.i.Iig c.ammission Meat.irq.
SECOND: can. Sorensen
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
•
. \
PLJOO-IDKi o::l1MISSIOO MINUrES Regular Meet.irq Of Ja.nuacy 12, 1987
PAGE 5
PC -510
ITEM 3
AWlication No(s) Applicant:
Prq:ierty CMner: Location:
Parcel Area (Acres) :
Michael Cllesh,ae;tret.al. West Side of Stellioo Roag, app~l,.,.y __
150 ft. south of OM Meadow eourt .Q6 net
~-
TENrAl'IVE MAP (20-'IM-86)
To subdivide l parcel into 4 paroels with lot sizes ra.n:Jin:.J fran 6 1 500 sq. ft. to 11,500 sq. ft.
FIRST HF.ARmG
ENVIRONMEN'J:AL ~ctl: Negative Declaration
***PLANNING a::M1ISSION ACI'ION FiliAL UNLESS A.."OFE'.AI.ED***
~tation: Mr. Piasecki presented exhibits showinj the prcperty
in question. He noted staff concerns reqal:tl:i.n;;J the use of private driveway e.asei:oonts in this situation an:i reviewed these corr-...erns as stated
in the Staff Report. He stated that private driveway easeme....11ts e.hoold be restricted to large Planned Developments, hillside developrients or be of p.lblic bE>.nefit and noted significant differences Pe.tween this Application
a.rd the recently approved Qill.dress Parcel Map. Staff :recxJinrne.nd.ed denial of this Application.
Applicant's FresentatiQDi Mr. Bill H.eissr Civil Engineer, .called attention to a letter fran Kelly Gordon Development Corp. and e>dtlbits already sul:mitted. Ha stated that the Applicants foonc:J. many advantages to a private driveway easement~ this alterr0.tive seemed to them to provide a logical am usable l:uilc:tin; envelope a.rd was a better plan for the comnumity, noting less i:ropexvious coverage and irore lan:lscaping in this alternative. He cited projects already awroved by the cit;y in which private driveway easements were used. , Concerns raised by the Staff can be
addressed satisfactorily.
Mr. Brian Kelly, Applicant, reviewed alteJ..'11atives ani noted. that the .50
ft. buildin:J envelope was oornpatible with other davelopoonts in the area;
the alternative p.rop:ise.i by ~taff created et 100ra difficult product to market. He cited the Haver arxi Jollymen School Site devel.cpne.nts ard noted t.hat these projects were an asset to the canmunity. He presented exhibits to deJoonstrate that prececlen.:e would not be set in awrv'Vi!'q tlU.s Application. In response to Com. Adams' question, he stated that the exhibib we.re presented to s..'1ow that private driveway easements were workable. 'Ibe O:::mnissioner concurred rut questioned whether the COnunissian should allow such easements in the at"'*-'! in question. Tn.e Applicants are not seek.in';J a Planna:i Development in this Application.
'Iha Public Hear irq W-ctS then opened.
PIANNING o:::MUSSICN MINCJrES Regular Meet..in; of .1anua.ry 12, 1987
PAGE 6 FC -510
rrm 3 (Cont'd)
Mr. Joe McD::mald, 1305 so. Stellin} Rd., eupertino, raised a number of concerns ani queations; in re.si;:x:in.se, Hr. Kelly stated tl'lat: lot 1 wa.ild not front on stellirq Rd. ro & E would ptQbably relocate the utility pole in question
A t:wo-story hcuse wa.ild be built on lot l Fenc:cs not in good repair TNOUJ.d be replaced. Private streets generally do not have sidewalks ani a.re oot lighted
Mr o Mike WeaJ.ey I 7728 Dawn Meadow ct• I OJpe.rtino I atlXro' that trees alon;J' the property line1be preserved aEJ a natural ban-ier; ha asked regarding a fence recently installed. Mr. Kelly stated t.hat the trees in qµestion tNOUld be presei.J:Ved ani the fence in question would not be renx:ivEd. ,
In response to O'lr. Szabo's c:amoont, Staff discussed the use cmi w:1.dth of "half streets" am oornpared half streets arid private ~. Mr. Piasecki stated that om of the o:n::erns of the Gtn.ft was the dilemma.of yield an:1 size of b.rlld.in':J envelopes t~ use of rEduced street sections when no apparent poblic p.L."'}X)Se was being sei:ved. Mr. Cowan noted c:xincern for adequate fire protection on prl vat.a streets an! rieviowoo recent ]\Wlications tha.t t.ad similar oonoems.
can. .Adams noted his reservations ~ th.a request. for a private ea.seu¥mt in this Application and was .".':ot favorable to the ~ configuration. He a.sl:eel whether the .Applicant was will will:l.rg to rec.::inslder the Application. can. Macloonzie ~and noted that the
proposed .fire turn a.round was unworkable. eom. Sorensen was favorable to use of the half street widt.11 with a cul de sac located on adjacent property; she expressed oancern :r.egCU"din;:,J park:l.m on ·ctle proposed private street.
In response to Cllr. Szabo's question, Mr. Heiss stated that the Applicants
wore favorable to the half street, namely a 35 ft. right-of-way 'Which
woold allow for a 44 ft. building envelope depth. '1his would be an acceptable a::mprcmise for th~. Applicants. A temporary emergercy turn around would be provided by the Applicants; at a later date the remain.i.m
Clll da sac wculd be }:,uilt.
1'DJ.'IQ'l': can. Adams JW!led to a:mtinue Application 20-'IM-86 am 40-EA-86 to
Januacy 26, 1987, Meeting of t.he Planning COmmission. SECOND: can. SOrerJSen
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
MJI'ION: cam. Ma.ckenzie to Continue ITEl1S 6, e, arrl. 9 to o·anua:cy 26, 1987,
Meet.in:] of the Plannirq Cbmmissi.on.
SECOND: cam. sorensen
VOl'E: Passed 4-0
Break 9:23 -9:35 P.M .
. 0
PL\NNrnG a:MMISSION m:Nl7I'ES Regular Mee.tirq of January 12, 1987
PAGE 7 FC -510
ITEM 4
Applica'd.on No(s) Applicant: Property owner: I.ocation:
Parcel Area (Acres) :
USE PER1I'l' (30-U-86)
30:-U-66 AND 28-El\-86
'. ' r • ." ~ ... ; ... -
To convert the existing seivice bays for a gasoline station to a convenience market with 24 hour operation and pack.uge liquor sales,
an:i cxmtinue dispensing of m::rt:or fuels, also on a 24 hour basis.
FIRST HEARING ENVm::lNMENI'AL DETERMINATION: Negative Doc le.ration
'l'ENTATIVE CITY CXXJNCIL HFARrnG lWI'E: Janual:y 20, 1987
Staff Pre.sentat;i,Qru, Mr. CcJ..Jan presented ~ site mar-arxi stated that the Application was in conflict with the City's ge-..neral policy of not locatixq
high activity centers in residential areas. He cited the Staff Report on oonoerns of tl."a.ffic and noise brpact. staff recommended denial of this Application.
APPlicant 1 s Presentation: Mr. Hugh cunn.in;Jham, Real Estate Representative, addressed concerns raised in the Staff Report, naIOOl.y: m:d.ification of rear piiU".els would be ~luous . relocation of the trash enclosures was accepcable to the Applicants area beginnin::J at park.in:J space 7 be gated an:l closed to the public; Applicants were agreeable and proposed use of a locked gate to minimize contact between tha business an:i adjacent c.nnmunity. loitering: the station does not attract loite....-s through public~ or video games litter: a plan was presented for regular cleanin:J of the station ard cleaning of the adjacent area within a one block radius noise: he acknowledqed occasional lood a.rd p:i::olon::sec:l noise ar.d n::Jt:ed
the masonry separation which lCMered noise 10 descibles. He stated
such situations are police problems, oot merdlant problems
beer an::i wine sales: 15% of sales will be beer am wine with a total
sales value of 25% To be competitive, the Applicant requested liqtl.Or
sales.
24 hrur operation: the Applicant was willin3' to negotiate th.is request. 'Ibey asked to open at 6 A.M.
He m.munarized t.hat noise was the primary issue arxi questioned hCM compatible such an operation was with adjacent residential; the Applicants offe.re:l to exten:l the masonry wall, benefitin::J adjacent residential.
Others are concerned with noise after 10 P.M.; he suggested that sensitivity to noise nay be greater at this time of night.
PLANNING c.nMISSION MlNtJ1'ES Regular Meet.in; of January 12, 1987
PAGE 6 PC -510
I'ln1 4 (Cont'd)
.. ' . :: ~.:~ . ..!q
Mr. o.mn:i.n;ham stated that withoUt .beer arx1 wine salf'.s, thll:i station would
:be at a oaupetitive d.isa.dvant;age to other convenience or liquor stores.
Ha cit.Ed studies which shcwOO that the ni.mt>er of licenses issued did not
oorrespond to an increase in arrests or aocidents Clue to drunk drivin:;J ~·
ARO) does not need 15 day E\hut down penalty for a violation of sellin:J liquor to nrlJ1ors nor do they need these sales to make a profit. He noted
the tra.ini.rq pi"Ograln arxi starxiru:d operat.irq procedures in the staticms; in over 500 sto.'res, a pe.nnit to sell liquor has never been lost. '1bis station will be a neighborhood store; the community is protooted by a
large franchise who has the funds to !::".:J..l.d and maintain t:..~ operation.
Mr. Jaspir Walia, station owner, enpliasized the cleanliness of the AM PM
Markets; he oanmltte::l himself to maintain these st:a.OOatds.
'lll.e Pci:>lic Hearing was then opened.
Mr. Ken Hoffman, 22648 Silver oak Way, OJpertino, noted that teenaqers use an ~jacent vacant lot for d:d.nk:in.J beer1 noise ar:d. litte.r al:t'eady exist.
Arx:rt:har 24 hour opeia.tion would provide llX>re alcohol; clustering of convenience atxl liquor stares provides teenagers -with easy access to
liquor. He was favorable to the AROJ station and suggested that the oatm.mity ~d be better served with a oil an:l lube sel:Vice. He noted traffic corgestion that already exists.
Ms. sally Zilenki, 22577 Royal oak Way, Olpertino, c:x::amnented an p.lblic saf.ety concerns; she noted that trucks 'i«'Alld be a traffic hazam.
Mr. T .J. Forsyth, 22556 Silver oa..'\t Way, C\lpertino, commented on the noise of cars, radios, an:i employees during the past year o:i..' a 24 hour operation; trash arxi traffic prcl::>lems have increased in the neighbomocd.
He cpposed the sale of liquor an:i noted that there is already a convenience store an:l liquor store within approx:i.mately 600 ft. of the
p:rq;x:>Sed operation. ARCO has not maintained the property in good repair.
Mr. Tony Muzzicato, 22586 Silver oak Way, CUpertino, noteCI. ~ noise, litter, potential for cr.iloo and i:.ossible devaluation of property.
Mr. Joe Flocd, 10389 Denison Ave., CUpertino, concurred with the above and presented a signed petition from neighbors.
Ms. Jenny Yee., 22616 Silver oak Way, CUpertino, questione:l whether ARCO
had been sellirq beer an:i wine in the past sine.a she fou.."Xi cans an::'l bottles littered on .her-lawn; she opposed the apJ?lication for l:aer and
wine sales due to the potential truancy, noise am loiterin:; ~'ea.SeS with the openirq of an AM :EM Market at this location. -
Mr. I.any I.ui, 22616 Silver oak Way, CUpertino, SUPl=Qrted the Staff Report
arrl opposed the Ap:plication urder c.onsideration. •
PI.ANNING cn1MISSIOO MINt.1IES
Regular Meetin;J of Jaru.iary 12, 1937
PAGE 9
PC -510
ITEM 4 (Cont'd)
Mr. r:::tmald o. Gu.c;tatson, owner of the~ at 22556 Silver oak way,
stated that he has had difficulties with the ARO:> station. He felt that
tbs operation of a 24 hour oonvenience store was an infringement of residents rights. He asked. the CccDnission to deny th.is ]\R:>licatiai.
MJI'IOO': can. MacK:enzie moved to close thsi f\lblic Hear~. sro::tm: Qn. Sotensell
VOl'.E: Passed 4-0
can. sorensen questioned the placement of this AI¥X> station, mtirq "that this is primarily a residential neighhoxhood. Sho ooncu.rred with c.amments
made by haneowners and q;po.sed a 24 hour operation and th& awlicatioo for
beer am wine sales. can. Mackenzie concurred and noted ~t hs was influenced in his q;:position to this Application frau residents who spoke at this Hearin;J. Can. Adams noted th.a residential character of ·this a:rea
and supported o:mnents made by other Ccmnissionera. au:. Szabo noted that
the O:Jmmissian seaood to be urianimous o I '
MJI'ION: can. Mackenzie moved to grant a Negative Declaratic:n
SEO:NO: can. Sorensen
WI'E: Passed 4-0
M:>TION: can. Mackenzie. m:JVed to deny Application 30-0-86 an:l 28-FA-86, Find.irqs as state::l 1 irodify~ 2., delet.irq the ~; "late night".
SECOND: cam. Sorensen
VOI'E: Passed 4· ~
IT™ 5
Application No(s} Applicant:
Property OWner: Location:
Parcel Area (Acres) :
REZONING (9-Z-86)
21=1J:M-86, 9-Z-86 41-EA-86
Eg.nan cathQlic Bishop of San Jose Northwest art! soutnwest comers of Foothill_ B;>uleyap;;l an:l Salem Aveni le 5.6 gross
A_,7 net
Fran FQ (c;.'uasi-Public) to Rl-7.5 (Residential, Single-family 7,500 sq.'
ft. minilnum lot size} and Rl-10 (Residential, Sirqle-family 10,000 sq.
ft. minimum lot size) intent.
TEN1'.ATIVE MAP ( 21-'IM-86)
'l'O sul:divide 2 parcels into 20 parcels with lot sizes lcm'J.irq fran 7,500 sq. ft. to 14,000 sq. ~.
FIRST I-IF.ARING
El'NIRONMENTAL OEI'EFMINATION: Negative I::eclaration
'I'Elfl'ATIVE CITY' a:;uNCIL HEARmG mTE: Fe.brum:y 2 I 1987
' r
. PIANNING CXl1MISSICN MINUrES Regular Meetirq of January 12, 1987
PAGE 10 FC -510
ITEM 5 (COnt 1 d)
> • !• ; ~ '1 r • .. ·~-~ ..
au-. Szalx> stated he \oXJU.ld abstain from voti.rg on th.is ·Item due to a
~tial conflict of intere.."Jt.
S:taff Presen!.;:atj.on; Mr. Piasecki calloo attention to the set..~ion entitled "Advertisement" in the Staff Report. He noted. that the ar.ea in question canes uOOe.r the :residential h.illsid.9 sul:ldansity designation, 'Foothill Modified Formula; the Application ls .:>.t ~level of the fonm.Ua. He reviewed "Traff.le" an:l "Privacy" sections of the Staff. Report ar.d stated that Staff did oot favor the iillposition of privacy mitigation maasures
where R-1 zon:i.n; abuts with another R-1 zonin;J district. ~er, to mitigate noise of Foothill Blvd. Staff rec:cmnerdecl the installation of a
mason:r.y wall and reoordation of an easeroont. He noted that min:lm.:tm street stan::lard had oot been ioot.
In response to can. Sorensen's quest.ion, Mr. Grigg reviewed traffic p1ann.i.DJ for the area in question.
~t's Pre.sentatiom Mr. l);)r1 Lapidus, represent.irq the Al;:plicant, stated there were three issues of concern: COndition 16, Traffic Signal Particip:i.tion; t.he .AWlicants were agreeable to such a corrlition but requested a cost est.i:m2tte. CoOOition 14, I.and.scape Maintenance; request for a cost estimate.
Prqposed wieth of the cul de sacs.
Applicants use:i the same width as proposed for the BAS Hclloos Project an:l were satisfied that as proposed an aesthetically pleas.in:] an:t useable cul de sac was provided; in addition, on-site parkllXJ was sumtantial. · He asked the Commission to approve the design submitted.
~ Public Hearirq was then opened.
Mr. Harry Fish, 10190 Byerly ct., CUpertino, noted concerns regan:U.ng: Privacy l.npact; due to a 5 ft, differential between propertJ.es and the possibility that two-sto:r:y homes will be built. He asked that a limitation be placed, allavirq only single story h.aoos on lots a, 9 an:l 10. .
stonn drainage; he asked. that permanent concrete drainage 1::e provided alon::J the western side of the development with outfall to Salem Ave.
Mr. Richard Barnard, 22544 Poppy Dr., CUpartino, stated that his main concerns were privacy arrl grad.i.rq of the property. ·
Mr. Robert Kolek, 10209 Byerly ct., cupe·ctino, presented a written statement for the reco:r.d am. a m:xilfie:i zoni.iiq map for review. He stated that structural density in the proposed deVelopoont was oot carpatible
with existim residential, beirq approximately 40% g.t'eate.r than in the BAS A
I and II devel~t. He suggested a revision of the zi:;;n_i..nt:f requirement '11' to allow 15 homes in the R-1.10 zoning arrl 5 homes in the R-1. 75. He
noted traffic problems on Foothill Blvd., potential problems with the p..nnpin;J station a.rd stonn water :run:>ff.
' PI.ANNlNG o:l1M.ISSION MINtJl'ES
Regular Meet.llq of January 12, 1987
PAGE ll FC -510
ITEM 5 (Cont'd)
Ms. carol van Zee, 22635 salem Jwe., eupert.ir"D, noted her concerns:
... ~· ' , '
.-Density of the ;;iro;posed deve.lopnent; she asked for infoma.tion on the
ha1les to be built. stonn drainage to adequately han:ile arrJ :increased run off
Height of the proposed ~
Mr. Greg Gibbs, 22560 ~ Or., OJpertino, concurred. with cxmments made by other residents of the area. ·
Mr. Iapidus responded to cone.ems raised by residents statil-g that:
'Ihroughout the city b.o-stoi:y hemes exist next to sirqle story hatias, Ian:lscapa screenirq can be used to mitigate privacy impacts.
J\R>licants would camplete sane of the larrlscapin1 required.
Secon:i sto:cy w.in:Iows are designed for light arrl air only. Architectural features a:L"e are used on all sides of the hoose. I.an:iscapin; already present between units would be prese.tVEd. Gradin;J ard slopin;J will be used., in place of retaining walls, to maintain dl.-ainage f'. · 'M. Views will be obscured thr.ou:Jh dsvelopnent of this property Elimination of one lot from the :5ll:"0ject ~d not significant.ly chan:]e
the envi.ronrrent, trafZic generation or property values cf residents •.
Mr. sam J. Zullo, Project Erqineer, respon:led to questions raised.
rega:t'dirq drainage facilities, retaini.n3' W3lls, size of lots, access to lots, removal of dirt fran t.he site.
IDI'ION: cam. Mackenzie lOCJV'ed to close the l?ublic I-Iearin;J.
SECOND: cam. Adams var.:: Passed 4-0
Cam. Mackenzie noted that this .AWlication conforms t.o the General Plan;
he urrlel:'Stood the o:>.rieerns of neighbors. com • .Adw~l an:i can. Sorensen
cx:m::urred.
MJl'ION: cam. Mackenzie :moveJ to grant a Negative Declaration.
SEOOND: cam. Adams
VOI'E: Passed, Olr. Szabo abstain:i.n;r 3-0-l
MJI'ION: can. Mackenzie rraved to ~nd approval of Application 9-Z-86, per Staff Report ard. fin::iin;Js of this Hear.IDj.
SEO:)NJ): Com. Mams
VOTE: Passed, Olr. Szabo abstainin:J 3-0-l
.;:.
PUtNNING CG1MISSION MINtJ.I'ES Regular Meeting of Ja."l\la.t'y 12, 1987
PAGE 12
~ -510
rmt 5 (Cont'd)
,r"
M:YrION: can. Mac:K.enzia iooveCl to reccanmani approval of .Application 21-TM-86, subject to the t:indings of the staff Report and subconclusions of this Hearin:J with con:litions l-7; O::oiltion B,
adi that the "Applicant shall record awropriat:e drainage easements as requirea cy the City Erqinear." Cbrditions 9-16; O:niltions under Section IV: to be ren.:anberecl beginnin;J with number 17; con:lition 17, nx:xtified to requ:ire standard city size
street.~ and a lot line aaju.sbnent as neoassacy. can. Adruns
Passed, Olr. Szal:x:> abstain.i.n:J 3-0-l
rI'.EM 7.
Application No(s) Applicant:
Property OWner: Location:
Pa.reel Area (Ac.res) :
USE l'm{IT (36-0-86)
38-U-86 and 42-EA.-86
o.eo gross
To expand. ccamnercial uses at an exh.-ting cammercial/office cent.er.
FIRST HEARING
ENVll<ClNMENTAL DEI'ERMilOOION: Negative Decla:t.Cltion
'.I'ENrATIVE CITY ~JNCIL HEARlNG f¥\TE: January 20, 1987
Staff PrE>..sentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the history o~ this Application; Staff has dete.cmined that cammercial use is workable on ~
II if: l) A lot line adjustment is usOO. to add parkfn; spaces ard restrip.i.rq is C01Tq?leted
2) No additional food sexvice use is proposed
Applie<..nt' s Presentation: Mr. J:leke Hunter stated that he was in agreiemen.t with Staff requests; he asked that the Use limitation on Blase I be reconsidered. He presented a rep.::n:t from Bartan-Aschman, and proposed
that the designation for COlllltv-'...rcial Use in Riase II be allowed, penn.it~ a parkl.n;J daficiency of 2.7 stalls.
In response to 01r. Szabo's question, Staff suggested where spill over parkin;J might occur. In response to can. Mackenzie's question, Mr. ecwan stated that based on surveys completed three to four years ago, the current park:in;J staroard of 1:200 is excessive.
'lhe Public Hearin:] was then openErl. '!here we:re no speakers.
PUNNING cnMLSSICN MINUIES Re;JUlar :Meetin:r of January 12, 1987
PAGE 13
.R: -510
IT.El1 7 (COnt'd)
M1I'ICN: eau. Adams moved to close the .Public Hearirq.
SEroND: can. SOrensen wre: Passed
. .~
\'~.
4-0
can. Mackenzie questionod the AWlicant Is request to ratllCJV'Q the Use restriction. He oot.ed his concern rega%din.J t.lw paxkirq deficit in this' Application.
IDrICN: can. Sore.nse.n llCVed to grant a Negative Declaration. sro:tm: can. Adams
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
mrroo: can. SOre.nsen :u:oved to reoanmend approval of Application 38-U-86, subject to the fin:::l:irgs Of the Staff Repclrt arx:i tho sulx::onc:lusions of this Heari.n;", with the addltion of Find.:ln:I e.),
'"llle site is peonittoo additional Wilding .:.nte.nsity credit for redsvelopnent activity as provided in the I.and Use Element Policy
6A. 7" thus allowin:f a .26 FAR, Condition l; COndition 2.A, deletirq Office Use canponent; Conditions 3-5.
SECOND: cau. Adams
VQI'E: Passed 4-0
Mr. Piasecki oonfirmed for the record that the deletion of the 1300 sq.ft. noted in Con:tition 2.A. w-!s also deleted throUghcut the Rac:;olution. :
REroRl' OF 'rn:E PI1INNmG a:M1ISSION
can. Sorensen stated that she un:Jersta.nds that antique dealers participating in the Vallco Village shows have bean in.'3tructed. to park away from the Shopp.ing Center parkirq areas.
REroRl' OF 'lliE P!.ANNlNG DIRECI'OR Written Report submitted.
ADJOORNMENT: Having concluded its business, the Planniiq O::imniss.ion
adjourne.:l at 11:49 P.M. to the next Regular Meetirxj of January 26,· "1986 at. 7:30 P.M.
City clerk
Approved by the Planning Commission
At the Reqular Meeting of
Ge( tweu}) c}~~
Nicholas Szabo, Chai..rrnan
,.., ''-: .
....
I 1986: