The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 01-26-87.. CI'IY OF a.JPERI'INO I STATE 01'"' CAL.IFO:KNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cllpertino, C'A. 95014 -(408) 252-4505 ,. , ..... ,.-, , I·' ;t ~., ' MINUrEs OF 'IHE REGUI.AR MEl:."'TJl..'G OF 'lllE PI.ANNING a::t1MISsION HEID ON JANUARY 26, 1987 Meetin:J Held in the Interim Cot.looil Chambers, 10500 N. De Anza Blvd. SAI.IJI'E 'IO 'IHE FLAG; 7:30 P.M. ROU. CAIL: Commissioners Present: Cllairman Mackenzie Vice Chairwcm:m Sorensen a:tnmissionar Adams Cc.mni..~ioner Claudy Cctmn..issioner Szabo Staff Present: Rd::>ert Cowan, Director Of Planning & 06velopuent. Stave Piasecki, Assistant. Plarmirig · D~'tor Glenn Grigg, Traffic Engineer Peggy M. Cocker, Attomey EI.ECT.ION OF OFFICERS M::Yl'ION: Can. Claudy :rwved 'i:.b elect can. MaCkenzie as Cllainiian SECOND: Cam. Sorensen M:J'I'ION: cam. Maras IWVed to close nauinations SECOND: Con. Claudy VOI'E: Passed VOI'E: Passed, Can. Mackenzie abstaining Chainnan Mackenzie then ass\.lll'ed the duties of O'.iairman. 5-0 4-0-1 MCTION: Com. Adams JOCWed to nani:nate can. Sorensen a.:; Vice Chairwoman. SEOOND: Corn. Claudy IDI'ION: Corn. Szabo Ilk:l'Ved to close the nominations. SECX>ND: Com. Claudy VOI'E: Passed VOI'E: Passed, Cam. Sorensen ab.staining - l - 5-0 4-0-l PIANlfWG CXM1ISSIOO MINUTES Regular Meeting of .Januai.y 26, 1987 PAGE 2 PC -511 au-. Me.c.ke.nzie opened naninations for an appointment to the Envirornnental Review caamittea. M.:YI'ION: can. Szabo nominated Chr. M.acJcenzie for the appointment. SEOJND: can. Cla00y Chr. Mackenzie declined th(3 naninat.ion. Consensus reach.ad by the canmission to defer this n:tni..'11ation to a later date. APPFDW\L OF MmlJI'ES IDI'ION: can. Sorensen, to ~ the Ml.nut.es of the Regular Meeting of January 12, 1987, as subnitted. ~= can. Adc4Jlls vom: Passed, can. Claudy abstaining 4-0-l ' ,·- WIUTI'EN cx:MM.UNICATictlS -Chr. Maclcenzie ackncMledged writ.ten ocmmu:nications receivro. ORAL o:MMIJNICATIONS -None FUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 1 Application No(s) Applicant: Property awner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): QJpertirio Union SchooLDistrict"-=-------West side of Portal. Avenue al;:r?SS from @tLerst Drive at llJ253 Portal Av~e (Nan Allan School Site) e • PI.ANNrnG CXM1ISSION MINTJI'ES Regular Meet.in;J of January 26, 1987 PAGE 3 fC -511 ITEl1 1 (Cont'd) USE PERMIT To operate a child care cen~..r with a maxilm.nn of 150 students us.in:J existirq school facilities, 3 new portable buildirgs, ard additional parking. FIRST HEARING CONTINUED ~ DETERMINATICN: Negative Declaration ***~ o::M1ISSION ACfiON FINAL UNlESS APPEALED**"' (O'.:lN'I'rnUED Fro-I 'lHE MEF.l'nKT OF JANUARY 12, 1987) (l)r. Mackenzie ackncwledged cx:ai.m;mts received about holding the Public Hearinq on this awlication in the Apple caupany Hea.dqU.arters. He assu:rEd the public that hearfrq of· this awlication and t.he terporary use of the meetinq facility have no connection, arrl that the camnission would proceed with this unierstanilng. ~ W....sgntation; Mr. Cowan presented a site plan showirq traffic' patterns which may result from the prcposed day care facility at Nan Allen sChool. He stated that traffic generation was the major issue in this application; other issues we.re ai"Chitectural t:reabnent of the site ard tenpora.ty structures. He noted 'the dilemma, namely: · -Need for day care facilities in the oamrunity -Preservation of neighborhoods, specifically prohibiting extrar.eous autanabile traffic in residential areas Staff recaramendad approval with the Condition establishing a traff:Lc generation perfonnance starrlard. In response to Cll.r. Mackenzie, Mr. eowi.m conf1nned that trips we.re oatp.It:.ed on the same basis as that used for the Small world Pre-School. Ms. Ie...i:;lie Andrews, Benefits Manager for Apple Ccanputer c.arpany, read a prepared statement fran Apple Q:q:uter Canpany; she stated that an arch.i. tectura1 presentation 'i«:lllld foll CM. In response to cam. Claudy' s co:nce:rn that the Applicant did not seem willi.1'¥'] to cx:mipromises on relievi.1'¥'] t.l.""affic impact, with the exception of a request of enployees rot to use residential streets, Ms. Andrews responded that Apple could see no W'Orkable method guaranteein:J that the impact would not be as t:r.affic studies irxlicai;e. cam. Claudy summarized Apple's position: that benefit to employees was sufficient that a segment of the community, namely neighborhocx:i residents, WOJJ.d have to en:lure the inconvenience. Sh£l resporrled that she would not J;ilrase the statement as such, but concurred that the .beoofits we.re sufficient to pursue the Application . . In response to Com. l\f.lnms' question, Ms. ~ respon::led that Apple did not anticipate f.·urther re<JU,ests for &ly care. Apple would prefer to locate a clay care center on-site, but could not do so at the present time. She was unable to predict future needs; she stated that A};.ple already knows they llave roc>re that 150 employees needing se:tvices. Apple has not made a comrni tment that all day care needs will be met; h~'>Ver, at same future date Apple would wish to accornm:idate additional children. PI.ANNIN; a:MMISSION MINl1I'ES Regular Maet.irq of January 26, 1987 PAGE 4 R:: -511 rrrn i (a:>nt 'd) :· ·, ' :° ~ ·::·tJJ~.I'-'i. II .· ~ilf}'.J.-~ '.1 . ...:f .. • i. Ms. Andrews confinned that Apple doo.s not presently use van pools, ·oor has the a::opany l~ at the feasibility of so doirq. She revi~ the caapany's se.arch for over a year to locate this facility, and noted tllat Apple had considered a facility on WOlfe ru., as well as the Collins and Wilson school sites. 'Iha proposed location seemed appropriate since H: already had hoosed a day care center, albeit a small one. She noted the difficulties that wc:W.d be encountered at other sites: traffic impact problems, prohibitive costs of renovation ard neighbo:rhood pn:>test •. At sane point, the in::ionvenience has to be accepted. In response to a:mi. Sorensen's question, Ms. Arx:lnlwr.t stated that the adult to infant ratio wculd be l: 4 ani space requirements ~d be met. Mr. Greq Palman, C\:lpertino Union School District, stated that ~were no portables on the Collins School site; he reviewed p.rcqrams currently offered on that Elite a.rd. stated that there we.re no ]:X)rtables not already in use in the District. · Mr. John r:uvivier, Architect, pre.sented a site plan and noted tt«> issu.eS: -General site layout with proposed m:xiular units ' -I.ardsc.ape ilnprovements to incorporate the new facility with the existin:] site · He noted that a portion of the neighborhood already irci.udes oammarcial developnent and presented suggest.ea. traffic circulation patterns whi.Ch wcUI.d irx:;rea.se parldn;J by 18 stalls. In response to can. Sorensen 1 s request, he pointed out the ema.rgency access road. Mr. Jim Horner, Atchitectf presented a larrlscapirq plan. cam. Adams c::onuoon:ied the plan subttltted; in response to questions, Mr. Horner d.e:rr¥::>nstrated the placement of 6 ft. ferx::::irq, sh.rubbeJ:y and ~ Mr. Jim Schmidt, Director of Human Resources for Apple Computer ·Inc., stated that access to Portal Ave. would be controlled. ~roximately 450 employees will be relocated in CUpertino City center; accordin;ly, the Stevens Creek Blvd. access ~d be more convenient to t..lw$e employees. AWle agreed to a progl.'"aI!I monitoring traffic access to the project, and will bear the coats involved. If City requirement.s cannot be met, Apple would reduce the number of child..~ in the center; Apple is firmly committed to the concept of the child care center, am Portal Ave. i.s the way to access this site. In response to r.am. Adams' canunent regru:d:!.n:J the "Nan Allan School City Use Permit Application, Number of Special Pl.rrpose Vehicles," Mr. Schmidt stat.Erl that the report was prepared before b.lsing was evaluated; for the reasons already discus~ Eti"'rlr in addition, the question of obtaining insurance, use of bus.irg was not considered feasible. In response to Com. Sorensen's question, Mr. Pal.man stated that the school district cannot aoc:onuoodate busi.-.g children to day care centers due to liability insurance :require:rr1:?11ts. He noted that the District no longer buses for City Parks rurl Recreations activitie·s. • PI.ANN"DK; a::t1MISSION MINUTES Regular Meetirg of January 26, 1987 PJliGE 5 PC -511 r:rm l (Cont'd) In response to additional questions by cam. Adams ar.d Claudy, Mr. Pa.lman stated that the Collins SChool site could not aocommodate aey portable units nor was the renovation of the gym arrl shCMer area for use 1!'.S the day care center feasible. IAle to the cost of :renovation, the Dls-'aict doe& not have arry long te.nn plans for the Coll'ins School site.· Attomey Cocksr insert.ed an addition to the legal ~inion issueP. earlier, oonfiJ:min;:J that tiie prq:iosed use at the Nan Allan Sc.hool site is. pennissible umer the BA Zanin;J Ordinance ard the General. Plan. Oir. .f.Iar...Jcenzie ac.Jmowledged letters frcm: -Ms. Marge Best, 10371 Prune Tree, CUpertino, in favor of the Application -Mr. Norman Fraser, 10435 No. Portal Ave., CUpertino -Mr. an:l Mrs. E.D. Martin, 10325 Plum Tree In., CUpertino -M. Wright, 20156 Merritt Dr., CUpertino, all of Whan opposed t.he Afplication. 'lhe Publlc Hearing was then opened. Mr. Richard I<enr1eth Stevens, 10410 Norwich Ave., CUpertino, noted problems in the site plan presented, naroely: -Traffic ro.rt:.es cannot be lE:qislated by corporate ww.agement. -'1he estimated 328 trips per day th.rc\lgh the Merritt Dr./Vista or., ann. · -'Ihe prc:posed 3600 sq. ft. of J::W.lding area. -lack of population ~c at:u:lies to predict future need of child care facilities. · -'1he probable use of. chain link fencing rather than reclV4'00d fencing. Mr. Stevens ~ested the following alternatives~ -Use of a closed campus, controllirg inboond an::l outboum traffic -Restriction of day care houl"S to typical school hours. -Traffic controls such as a no left turn island ~ fron the site arrl a no right turn entry fran the north em. -Provision of a solid waste manage.nvant plan. -Use of coopeia.tive day care facilities. Mr. Lyle Topham, 10154 N. Portal Ave., CUpertino, pointed out the inq;:>act on the safety of neighborhocxi children by the proposed application. He Objected to proposed traffic patterns, a.rd asked Awle to firx:l a safer location for this center. In response to can. Ma.ms question, he suggeste:l that there was a car wery 15-30 secorrls on this street at commuter hours. Ms. Panela Hershey, 19698 Whe.aton Dr., CUpertino, concurrei with the above traffic estimate. She asked that neighborhood children usir.g Portal Ave. or Blaney Ave be protected'. ' · PIJ\NN:rnG o:t-1MISSION .MINtJT'ES Regular Meetirq of January 26, 1987 PAGE 6 PC -511 ITEM l (Cont'd) Ml.~. Gcdfrey M.lngal, 10.286 N. Portal Ave., CUpertino, stated that this was an issue of 'twho cares" and who pays. He suggested that Apple wished. to make the CClTlpal'1y attractive to high quality env;>loyees and minimize the cost in every conceivable way. While he supported day care am corporate involvement, the issue here was magnitwe and the disruption of a Mighborhood. He reviewe:i Resolutions 2616, ani noted the .increase in traffic an:3 uoe of portable buildin;Js in a pennanent fashion as inoansistencies. He asked that the Nan Allan site be u.9':!d as it exists; the neighbor.:4 would have no objection to such use. Mr. C0wan noted that the traffic analysis did include operation Of the proposed day car center. Mr. Alfred Sauter, 10300 N. ~ Ave., Olpe.rtino, noted items not already addressed: -Times and use of delivery services to the proposed day care center. -'Unacceptable hours of ope.rat.ion which will impact the neighborhood through noise, pollution, car light-3 a.rd parki.n:;J areas. · -Use of portable buil~s which often are infested with insects or small animals. · He presented a peti:tJ,on conta.f.nim,180 signatures ~ram irdivic!uals opposed to this Application · Mr. Robert. Peterson, Apple Catp.rt:e.r employee, noted that the proposed Application would enhance the neighborhood by: -Bring:i.n;J a consistent presence in the neighborhood -Introducing security presence of Apple facilities -Traffic patterns would be frail th.a south, usin;J Wolfe Rd. am st.evens Creek Blvd. -Usirg staggered work schedules by AWle employees. In response to com. M.ams' question, he stated that it was hard for him to imagine his son, at three years of age, being bussed. Ms. Rebecca Howard, 10428 s. Fcx:rt:hill Blvd., Olpertino, stated that she was also an Apple eup.loyee. She was not in favor of a cooperative venture with other day care centers in the area; she only found two license:.~ centers that had an Erglish speaking staff. She o::mcur.red that Ap;>le w:::W.d provide security for the neighborhood in qi.iestion an::i was favor~le t..:; bus~ her child when he turns three years of age. Mr. Al Ren:les, 10408 Denison Avt:J.., CUpe...li:ino, stated that he was a long time resident of the city an1 asked. the plans of the City for Ft>:ttal Ave./ Stevens Creek Blvd arrl De Anza Blvd./stevens Creek Blvd. He asked that the facilities in question not be enlarged :but rather used as existing facilities. Cllr. Mackenzie resporoed to the speakers comme.nts, calling attention to 9 the public nature of heari.n;Js an:i the General Plan of the City. P!ANNING o:MMISSION 1'UNtJI'ES Regular Meeting of Januru:y 26, 1987 PAGE 7 PC -Sll ITEM 1 (Cont'd) 1'4'.r. Ted JOOnston, 20140 Merritt Dr. I o.Ir,ertino, assured the canmissioo that traffic was a problem. He ooncurred with suggestions made to open the back em. of Collins School and using the proposed site as originally interded. Mr. Glenn Bal:ber, Director of Real Estate for AJ;ple Computer and Clpel:+-ino resident, noted that his haoo was adjacent to a school site and he favom.:l the use of schools for educational :p.lrposes when }:XlSSible. He concurred that traffic was a tough prcblem for a neighborhood; where to locate carpany headquarters is an is.crue which niust be -weighed.. Offerirg day care services to employees was one of many issues to be weighed in locati.rq and maintain headquarters. He :respor:da::l to state:mants made, saying that the prcposed plan for the Nan Allen School \olOU.l~ cx:ost .~le $680, ooo in addition to q;>eJ:.ational expenses and a staff of 40. .AWle :·tishes to be a good co2:p0rata citizen of OJpertino. ·. In response to can. szaoo's question, he stated that this was an innovative day care program; makin:.;J the investment in fi»:!d facilitiAS in advance of the pilot program has financial ramifications that wcW.d more tl.&1 double the cast of the program. If successful, Awle would consider i.n\:>le:ment necessary pennanent axchit..ectural modifications :r:equired. Ms. Oll::'is Van Hoy, Apple employee and CUpertino resident, commended Apple for the proposed day care facility. She noted that she was familiar with traffic problems but supportErl the day care center. In response to can. Ma.ms' ccrcane.nt, she stated that she would consider busing her child wt had not decided on it at this time. Mr. Jereme G. sowul, 201as Merritt or., CUr,>ertino, asked if anyot1e had ever seen a child hit by a car? He stated that this aocident has ha~ at the intersectic..n on which he l:i.ves. He noted the traffic delays in CUpertino an:l commented on the amount of traffic fran Awle. Ms. Debbi Perez, Apple employee, not:.a:i oonce:i:.n on the followin:;J issues: -Busirq: She would not favor busing her dauqhter when she reaches 3 years of age due to difficu'l.ty.of transferting the child with the required car seat; in addition, she qusstioned ma.nagin:r a number of children in a bus in:] situation. -Traffic: She noted that as parents thentselves, Apple employees would be safety conscious when driv~ in :residential areas. -Traffic Pattern: She felt that Apt.ile enployees will abide by traffic · regulations if tha threat of not usirq the Center were ilrq;x:>sed. Mr. Sam Liao, 10293 Denison Ave., Clpertino, stated ha bought his hoose due to desireabilit.y of the neighborhood. He did not know about the plans of Apple Computer for this resid&itial area; if known, he wo..i.ld rot have bought the house. 'I.he neighborhood WC1J.ld not receive any benefit fran the Center. PlANNING a:tM!SSION MINUTES Regular Meet.i.n;:f of January 26, 1987 PAGE 8 PC -511 ITEM 1 (cont'd) Ms. Jean McKee questioned whether Ar::ple errployees would follow traffic requirements and statecl that if necessary she would t:aka vacation time to natl.tor the situation. Mr. 'lbanas A. Rohwer, 10142 N. Portal Ave., CUpartino, stated that he was familiar with the p:rOOle:ms of obtaining g>.xxi child care: ~:t:, he questioned the inconsistencias of the proposed plan, namely: -32-36 parkirq spaces not planned for -50% incre..asa:l parking needs durin:J shift charqes at Apple. He summarized that either there was a trernerrlous lack of plar.nin;J on the site or there wa.s a serious attempt to mislead the COmmi..c;sion an:i the people of a.tpert.ino ion the inpact of this Center. · Mr. Jim Martin, 10325 Plum Tree In., eupert:ino, reviewed P.-affic patterns dur~ the o::mumJ.te hours and cited incidents of traffic congestion ar.it parking CNerflCM. Ms. PatricM Ml.lrJ,;Jal, 10286 N. Portal Ave., OJpertino, stated that she bra.ight her hoose in Novembe:r after callin;J the School District on three separate ocx:aslons asJd.n;J for the plans for the Nan Allen SChool. 'Ihey were assured that there were no plans for the future of this site. She questioned the honesty of the School District in this situation. KJI'ION: cau. Szabo IWVed t:.o close the Public Hearin;J. SECX:\ND: ean. sorensen \101'.E: Passed 5-0 c.am. Szabo noted the conflict between the needs of Apple employees and CUpert.ino residents on this issue am noted. that he recognized the significant traffic concerns in the city; howwer, he noted experience with the daily impact of day care problems on employf*'.s an:i commen:led Apple for initiatirXJ action to solve this problem. He stated that he was favoruble to the proposed day care center but 'Wttlld take any action necessru:y to mitigate the impact of traffic on the canmunity. He sugge."lt..ed consideration of requirin:f cross walk guards, limited turn lanes from the slte, restriction of hours of ~tion, addition of parki.rg stalls, an:J. reconsideration of traffic flow patterns for this area. cam. Sorensen noted that the City had caused part of the traffic problems in this area; she suggested a review of the area for traffic flow patterns arrl concurred that crossing guards were necessary. 'Ihe pl'.'0f06€d plan may be workable with staggered. work schGdules of Apple ernployees. She noted the desperate need for child care services; she was favorable to the Applicatio..1 with traffic mitigation • . \ {' <~ ... .. ·--B RI F RWPM PU\NNIU::; CXl>!MISSION MINUl:'ES Regular l>!eetirq of January 26, 1987 PAGE 9 PC -~ll ITEM l (Cont'd) cam. Adams camoonded Apple for the oanprehensiveness of tha statement presented; h~er, it appears that Apple does rPt have a desire to reach additional solutions amenable to the neighborhocx:l and employees. !J.be c.cmtissioner noted hia conoe.m, statin; that he favored using this site as a day care center. He ~d not support the Application since J.\Wle had not shown that they can solve the wc:cess traffic problem, which, he believed, can be solved. cam. Claudy revier.Y'ed the factors of consideration, namaly: -Resolution 2616: that the impact shall not be greater then use as a school. 'lllis prote(."ts hane buyers. 'l'raffic had already been in:::reased on this site avex so.; i he would not agree to further incr.ease traffic inpact. He noted the lack 1.,f adequate parking. HC'WeVer, neither the use nor the design is inai:propriate. Cllr. Mackenzie concur.rad that the proposed use would increase th.a intensity and noted that traffic was the problem. '!be int.ere.st in provid:l.n;J child care services was exhibited by the use permit approved for the site already, which allowed a significant inc:ceaoo in traffic to aooamxoodate the facility. He noted that Apple with all its resouroes had not cx::me up with solutions; he "WOU.ld not vote in favor of the proposal as submitte:l. !t was noted that there a.lready exists an approval for a day care center on site for 84 children aiU 8 employees. Mr. cowan called attention to the Staff reccanme:rdation under the headin:,:J "'T'raffic Gene.ration Plan. " earn. lldams aske:i to reopen the rublic Hear1r~ and continue this application; 'Ihe applicants stated that they did not wish a oontinuance of their Application. consensus reached by t.he Commission to approve the Application with COndition~9, Traffic Gene;ration Plan to he resul:xn.itted.. M:1I'ION: cam. Claudy :r:oved to grant a Negative Declaration S:Ero.ID: COm. Soren.sen VOI.'E: Passed 5--0 Com. Adams asked that Coniltion 9, Traffic Generdtion Plan. be read into the record; cam. Szabo read conditlon 9. MJI'ION: cam. Szabo iroved approval of Application 18-U-85 as aioorrled, specifically to include Con:iltion 9. SE(X)ND: Sorensen VOI'E: PassOO 5-0 JIDI'ION: Com. Claudy moved that Agen:la Items 6-9 be Continued to an Adjourned Plann.in;J COnmti.ssion ME>etin:] on January 28, 1987. SE<X>ND: can. Sorensen VOI'E: Passed 5-0 j. " \ t; Fil\NNING a::M1ISSION Millt1l'l:s Regular Meeting of January 26, 1987 PAGE 10 PC -511 ~ ... ~ ... f ~ ',, ~ '• ' .. : ...... M)l'ION: Can. Claudy m::ived that Items 3-5 be Continued to the Plannin;J C::anmission Meet.in:j of February 9, 1987. SECJND: Carn. Sorensen VOI'E: Passed 5-0 Bl.-eak: 10:47-10:58 P.M. cam. Adams absent fran the remain:ier of the F\Jblic Meeting. ITEM 2 ~lication No(s) .AWlicant: Property OWner: Iocation: Parcel Area (Acres) : 18-'!M-86 arrl 37-FJ\-86 ~Masters Reinhold and Payline Beslg North side of Ra~ Prive, app:wximately, 35Q ft. east of W~tt.h Drive T.EN1'ATIVE MAP 'l'o subdivide 2 pa:r."Cels into 10 pa.reels with lot sizes rargin;J fra:u 6,200 sq. ft. to 22, ooo sq. ft. FrnST HFARING roNl'lliUED ENVIRONMENrAL DETERMINATIOO: Negative Declaration TENI'ATIVE CITY' CD:.JNCIL HEARING Dl\TE: February 2, 19a7 (OONI'DIDED Flm 'I.HE 1-IEETING OF JANUARY 12, 1987) Staff Pre<Jel'ltatiom Mr. Fiasecki reviewed the history of the llpplication arrl presented e)(h.ibits showing alternative si.te plans. wlicant's ~tion;_ Mr. Mai:vin Kirkeby, Civil Engineer, discussed the alternative site plans presented. Mr. Piasecki ~ted that there is no assurance urrler zonin:; t.hat either plan presented :would be irrplemented. Mr. Kirkeby stated that tl1e Applicant was willing to accept a condition of a single story hcuse on lDt 6. Mr. Roger Peterson, 7852 Belknap Dr., Cupertino 1 favored the plan which had single story he.uses for the develcpnent; he favored the original plan presented. He stated th.3.t he unde.rstood that plans presented might not be bnplerrented. Mr. R.J. Mann, 1193 Elmsfor.d Dr., CUpertino, c:ornroonded the Applicant on his cooperation with the neighl:x:>rs; his primary conce..rn was the difference in height of his propP..rty with the p:ropo:;ied development, the possibility of a retainir.g waJ 1, am privacy irrpacts that may occur. He stated t:hat the Awlicant had given hlm verbal assurance that he will build the retainil"B wall am place a fence. A one story house on the adjacent property wc:W.d assure 'Che Mann's of their pr~vacy; thus he favored the original plan prllsented. 'Ihe ' 01ai:...'"l'Oan restated Mr. Piasecki' s canment above; the speaker stated that he urrlerstoo-~. the situation. PI..ANNm:; C01MISSION MINUl'FS Regular Meetin:J of J'a.nuaey 26, 1987 PllGE 11 PC -511 l"J:'EM 2 (Cont Id) . ·; :.:\}"1 _-! Ms. Mary Girodo, 7864 Belknap Dr., eupertino, stated that she was cg:osed to both plans presented as they ~d directly impact the character and integrity of the existirq neighborhcx:xl; of the two plans, she favored the original plan since there would be no windows on one Aide of the house. In response to comments made, Mr. Piasecki reviewed side yard ard rear yard setback requii.·ements. Mr. Charles Masters, Applicant, stated that ha inten:led to carply with any representations made to neighbors; lw inten:is to b.lild the houses himself arrl if necessary, he WOJJ.d enter into private agreements :before the city CcM'lcil Meetin,J. He noted the difficulty of developirq this prope:t1:y, He asked that the western portion of I.at 6 be defined as the front yard. MJrION: a:m. Szabo lWVed to close the Public Hearing. SECnND: can. Claudy VOl'E: Passed 4-0 can. Sorensen favored. the original plan presented; cam. Claudy ooncur.rad am noted that tha neighbors also favore:l this plan. Com. Szabo was favorable to the neighbors: p:refel.-en::e; ~· Mackenzie a~. MJl'ION: e.can. Sorensen nxwed to grant a Ne:,Jative Declaration. SECOND: cam. Claudy VOTE: Passed 4-0 M1l'ION: cam. Sorensen iooved to recanmerrl approval of Application 18-'IM-86 and 37-EA-86, subject to the conclusions ani subconclusions of this Hearirq and Staff Report, Coniitions 1-11; COndition 12, delete 3rd to read, "Exhibit A 21¥1 Revision ••• "; coro.ition:i 13-17; delete corxiitions 18 and replace with C'on:iltian 18 to read, "'Iha easteJ.'"11 property line of tot 6 shall be considered the rear yard an:i the western property line shall be considered the front yard for purposes of e.stab lishirq setbacks. s~: can. Szabo vora: Passed .ct-o ITEM 3 Application No(s) Applicant: Property owner: I.Dcation: Parcel Area (1'c) : 20-'IM-86 Kelly-Gordon Development corporation Michael Cheshci.ek et. al. West side of Stellin::r Rcad,t_apProxi.n1g1.~te~"'l .... Y __ 150 ft:.t. south of_ Oak Meadow Court .86 net PI.ANNING a:f.1MISSION MmU1'ES Regular Meetirq of January 26, 1987 , PJ'.GE 12 PC -511 TI"'EM 3 (Cont'd) ; ··. :/~ ::· -~ 'rENTATIVE MAP To subdivide 1 parcel into 4 parcels with lot sizes rangin] from 6,500 sq. :r.t. t.c-~ 1,500 sq. ft, · FIRST HEARING cx:m'IlIDED ~ DEI'ERMINATION: categorically E:>ceirpt ***P!A.NNING l'.Xl,lMISSION ACI'ION FINAL UNlESS APPEALED*** (a::NTINUED F'IQ1 'lliE MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 1987) §itaff Et:esE>.ntation: Mr. Piasooki stand that the Application as presented was acceptable to Staff. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Brian Y.elly, Applicant, stated that he was in agreement with the m:xilfied street plan worked out with Si:aff, 'llle Public Hearin:] was then opened. Mr. Joe McDonald, 1305 s. Stellirg i:.:cl., CUpertino, roted previoos canments made regai:tling this Application; in addition, he had addressed a letter to the Cctllmissian am. asked that it be part of the Public R.fla)1'tl. He pre.sent:ed pictures of the davelopnent ard adj aoent prq::iert.y. Mr. Bill Heiss, Civil En;Jineer, noted charqes on Stelling Pd. as .. davelOfX0011t continues. He suggested that the privacy i:npact would ba less "II' on the McDonald home if the proposed house were fronted on a private road rather than Stelling Rd. MJI'ION: SECOND: \lOI'E: Com. Claudy IOCNed to close the Public Hearirg. Com. Sorensen PassOO 4-0 Com. Szabo favored fronting the house on the cul-de-sac~ consensus reached. by the other Commissioners. IDI'ION: cam. Sorensen moved. approval of Application 20-'IM-86 subject to fin:l.in:1s arxt subconclusion of this Hearing an:i the Staff Report. SECOND: cam. Claudy VOI'E: Passed 4-0 IDI'ION: cam. Claudy moved to Continue Item 4 to the Planning ConuniS.sion Hearirq of February 9, 1987. SEOOND: Corn. Sorensen VOTE: PassOO. 4-0 MJI'ION: Corn. C.laudy moved to Continue Item 5 to the Plannirxj Carmnission Hearing of February 9, 1987. SECOND: com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 PIANNnG a.:tHISSIOO MINCJ.l'.ES Rsgular Meatir.g of January 26, 1987 PAGE 13 PC -511 ADJCXJRNMENT: Havin:;J conclu:::led. its business, the Planning Cctnm.is.c;ion adjcurned at 11:57 P.M. to an Adjourned Regular Meeting of January 28, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. ~ by the Planni.rg camilssion At the Regular Meatir.g of February 9 , 1987: ~>-}) J DJnal~\d~~~~ . ;