Loading...
PC 01-27-75IPC-178 Page 2 13-Z-74 continued to Feb. 24th Hillsides Study continued to Feb. 20th MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 27, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The only written communications received referred to items on the agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. N. Loukianoff, 1 Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, requested time on this agenda for a fullblown discussion regarding Cupertino Business Park (Dr. Joe Brown application) plans prior to review by the Environmental Review Committee. He felt it was more appropriate Ito have the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission first. IThe City Attorney advised that, since this request is for a Public Hearing, it must be duly advertised to give the opportunity for input ,from all factions. POSTPONEMENTS 1. Application 13-Z-74 jUpon request of the applicant, it was moved by Comm. Cooper, seconded by Comm. Adams to continue application 13-Z-74 to February 24, 1975. Motion carried, 5-0 7. CITY OF CUPERTINO:' Public Hearing to consider 1973 Comprehensive General Plan. (a) Hillsides Upon recommendation of the staff, it was moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Adams to continue the Hillsides Study to Thursday, (February 20, 1975. Motion carried, 5-0 Chairman Gatto noted that no public hearing would be initiated after 12:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 13-Z-74, SAN CARLGS.HOMES & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Continued to February 24, 1975. 'PC-178 Page 4 OF THE JANUARY 17, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Sobrato said their biggest problem is the staff's suggestion that they link up their property with the Mariani'property to the south. They feel strongly that they have to maintain their own parking lot and private driveways. He is willing to eliminate the driveway on Beardon. e agreed to the staff's suggestion of increasing the landscaping from 3' to 5'. He said they feel it is a waste of money to construct a b' masonry wall since they don't know at this point how the adjacent property ill be developed. He felt that a landscaped screen would be more ap- propriate. Mr. Sobrato said this will be office -type light industrial use. He said they will be happy to move the building 4 loading dock to the east providing they can also have a loading dock on the south side. This is a spec building and they. need the versatility. He noted that they are providing 51 parking spaces over and above the requirement. r. Karl Berg, Mr.-Sobrato's associate, said that in previous cases where hey have had common drives with their neighbors they have had severe arking problems. They hope to avoid this at this location. omm. Woodward was concerned about developing this property and leaving he Falk property undeveloped. Mr. Sobrato said he tried to purchase his property, but Mr. Falk wanted three times what it is worth. He ill probably come in with a proposal to build -a -small real estate office r something similar. r. Anselmo, representing the Valley Green Apartments, asked if this evelopment will have access to Beardon Drive. Chairman Gatto assured im there will be no access to Beardon Drive. Mr. Al Garcia, 10511 Beardon Drive, said his home is at the corner of Greenleaf, and he was happy to hear the access to Beardon was closed. He was concerned about the height of the buildings. He was told the single -story buildings will be 20' high. He also was concerned about the overflow of traffic and parked cars when the Any Mountain business has a sale or ski swap. omm. Woodward was concerned that the westerly driveway was very close o the intersection and could be dangerous. The Assistant City Engineer aid there is the possibility that it will be closed off at a later date. omm. Adams and O'Keefe agreed that they would- prefer not to have a oading dock facing residential, noting the recent problems with Ralph's Market on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. omm. Cooper felt it would be equitable to have this property owner split he cost of the masonry wall with the adjacent property owner. This will e made a condition of approval. by Comm. O'Keefe, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 17, 19.75- PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING PC-178 e Page 5 Comm.* Woodward observed that the property owner to the south has a free choice of residential; commercial and/or industrial. He is not sure that this property owner should have to split his property in order to provide access when an alternative is there. He would like to opt to keep the loading dock where it is on the plans because we don't know at this time if the adjacent property is going to be developed residential, commercial or industrial. With the size of this property, Comm.* Cooper was not -convinced that a common driveway is necessary. Comma O'Keefe,would like to,have the common driveway. Moved b Comma Adams seconded b Comm.Woodward-to approve Y 9 Y PP 8- - 1 3 Z 74 application 38-Z-74 , subject to the-14..standard conditions , app.roved conditions 1551 16 and 17 in the staff report, condition 18 as w/conditions noted earlier in these Minutes, condition: 19) That the applicant shall sign < a written agreement to allow for joint cost:sharing of - a common masonry wall with the adjoining property owner to the south if ..the property to the south develops resider 20) That ,the parking lot driveway entrance on Reardon Drive be removed, 21) That the landscape planning area adjacent to the south property: line be increased from 3' to 5' This motion was amended by Comm. Cooper,. seconded by, Comm. 0O'Keefe { that the'load`ing:door and/or dock for building 4 be reoriented to the east --facing elevation; Vote on the amendment o .. AYES. Comma Adams, Cooper, O'Keefe NOES. Comma Woodward, Chairman Gatto - Amendment carried, 3-2 i Vote on the motion: AYES. Comma Adams, -Cooper, OffKeefe, Woodward, Chairman Gatto NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm.* Adams, seconded by. Comm, .Cooper .to approve applica-' 28-TM-74 tion 28-TM-74 with the 14 standard conditions, conditions 15g 16, approved. and 17 in the staff report, condition 18 as enumerated in these w/conditions Minutes,:conditions 19, 20 and 21 as reflected in the previous motion on the zoning. AYES a. Conm.d Adams, Cooper,.O'Keefe, Woodward, Chairman Gatto NOES. None; Motion carried, 5-0 'PC-178 Page 6 32-U-74 approved ;, / condit ions INUTES OF THE JANUARY 17, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING oved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Cooper to approve application 2-U-74, with conditions 1 through 21 as enumerated on the previous pplication, page 5 of these minutes. YES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, O'Keefe, Woodward, Chairman Gatto OES: None Motion carried, 5-0 3. Applications 25-Z-74, 26-TM-74, 27-U-74 & 31-U-74 of DE ANZA RACQUET CLUB AND VILLAGE GREEN (DON`0. BANDLEY AND EQUITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY): REZONING 13.2+ acres from P (Planned Development with General Commercial intent) to P (Planned Development with Residential/ Recreational and Incidental Commercial Activities intent) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to redivide 13.2+ acres into two parcels; USE PERMIT to allow construction of a commercial racquet club consisting of clubhouse, restaurant, pro shop, Olympic swimming pool, and twenty tennis courts; USE PERMIT to allow construction of a'residential cluster development containing sixty-eight units. Said property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, First Hearing. Che Planning Director introduced the proposal, details of which are in -he January 23, 1975-staff report. As to the City's new policy of ?ark dedication, the staff recommended the fee rather than land dedication in this instance. r. Ron Dick, of Monarch Associates, 1799 East Hamilton Avenue, San ose, said they are the designers of the tennis complex. He then eviewed the exhibits. r. James H. Burke identified himself as one of the four persons developing he 64 residential units to the rear of this property. r. Roger Griffin, of Dick Finegan's Office, said the units in this dul.t community development run 1180 to 1800 square feet in size. They ave attempted to lower the profile of the project by depressing the arages, with second -story element above the garage. He said this makes he walks through the common areas more pleasing. The parking ratio s 3.5. r. Don Bandley, 10054 South Highway 9, Cupertino, said he was representing he Racquet Club. They agree to the dedication of Anton Way and the extension f Alves Drive, which makes their dedication and development on all four ides of the park. He said it is their intent that the tennis courts are ore important and the restaurant, if built, will be secondary in importance. e offered to answer any questions. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 17, 1575 :PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-178 Page 7 Comm. Cooper asked about the status of the environmental impact report and how they intend to handle such things as parking overflow due to 'tennis tournaments, etc. Tennis pro Don Gall, 13170 Lorene Court, Monta Vista, said their first consideration is to not put on large tournaments. If there is one per year they will try to work out something with_De Anza for parking.. They would.put.in temporary bleachers ifwarranted> Comma Cooper asked what the width of the green strips was. Mro Griffin P g P i said there will be low -.type landscaping and meandering walkways by the tennis courts. Comm. Cooper wanted to know how exclusive this tennis court would be. She was told the dues will be $1,2500 Comm.O°Keefe was answered that this is a.private tennis club with entrances from Stevens Creek Blvd. and from Stelling Road It was noted that they exceed the parking standard Comm. O'Keefe asked how these developments are compatible with Memorial Parke He could not. endorse this proposal which might limit the use of the Memorial Parka We are considering a considerable housing application which is backing up against a residential development .on the northeast: section of Memorial Park.. The very area for outside activities.with loudspeakers, with unquestioned day use:planned,before us today does not take.this into consideration Mr. Burke. said they. have made it.a point in their designs to put in the kind of landscaping that will be compatible with the park Mr. Bandley added that their landscape.architect does not yet have the details finalized. Mr. Donald L Boos, 20863 Elenda, Cupertino, .the landscape architect, said it will not be a "posey planter" or 'a "shrubber-upper". He said he has offered to coordinate his services.with the adjacent development.' Lighting will be coordinated. There was a discussion of the possibility of the affairs at the amphi- theater in Memorial Park causing some disturbances for residents.in the area, with excessive noise Comm. Gatto was concerned about the: 3°green area between the residential. homes He also sees the overhangs.of the residential units almost touching - At this point, Chairman Gatto told the audience that agenda item 5 would not be heard at this meeting, due to the time factor. It will be continue. to February 10, 1975< Chairman Gatto asked for comments from the audience. Mary Knopes, 20985 Alves Drive, Cupertino, asked if Alves Drive will be continued across Stelling Road. The Assistant City .Engineer said the traffic diverter at`Alves and Stelling will remains Alves Drive will continue west. --178 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 17, 1975 PLA14NING COMMISSION MEETING .' age 8 Comm. Adams said that in the event this application is approved, he would like to add a condition about relocation of the lighting for some of the tennis courts. Comm. Cooper said she was very unhappy with this plan. She thinks we would be creating a multitude of problems unless it is redesigned. The noise factor from the amphitheater is one major concern. The residents living here will receive :his noise from the amphitheater as well as from the street and from the concrete mass bouncing off the tennis facility and the swimming; pool and deck, This plan shows a sea of concrete and very little landscaping. The walkways between the buildings are too narrow. This is a "mugger's haven". The whole purpose of this development was to Have it compatible with Memorial Park, but the layout of the total development is dividing it from the park. She does not see the uses trying to coordinate with one another. Next, Comm. O'Keefe wanted to address the EIR, Mr. R. Frisbie answered that the area concerned, on page 19, is the tennis courts so there is very little landscaping. The landscaping must be chosen very carefully because with a 15' wide strip the roots could come up under the tennis courts. !Comm. O'Keefe was concerned about the statemens on pages 28 and 29 minimizing the effect of the pedestrian and bike riders. On page 32, if Anton Way is part of this project, the opinion of the EIR is changed. Previously, the residents only had access through Stelling Road. On page 35 there was some pro and con discussion of moving the residential closer to the park. That whole area is going to be impacted �by sounds from the amphitheater. The park probably has inadequate sparking and the spill -over would undoubtedly go on the residential. l parking lot. IMr. Frisbie said they had some concern about the narrow passageways between the residential buildings. There are probably some problems !with roof overhangs and drainage facilities. �A lower density would make a more desirable development, but would also ;raise the cost of the units. As to the parking ratio, Mr. Frisbie felt that a 3.5 ratio for two -bedroom units was quite high. Further study in that area might result in more iopen space, On page 44 of the EIR it was noted there are blank walls oriented toward the amphitheater. Without knowing the kind of equipment to be used at the amphitheater, Mr. Frisbie said he could not respond to the impact. PC-178 Page 9 As to the density With 10 units per acre, the development calls for-36% building coverage. As to integration of the units, it will be -better -if Anton Way goes in- Tennis courts would make better neighbors to the units than a parking lot. Referring to page 27, Mr. Frisbie responded .that he did not includ the traffic coming from Memorial Parka Comm.. Adams commented that an 8' wood mall would be better than an 8' masonry wall,. Moved by Comm.. O'Keefe, seconded by Comm. Woodward to close the Public Hearing.. Motion,carried, 5-0 Comm. Cooper wanted to give the. developer some direction at his point,. She said the density does not concern her but rather the kind of living environment within the development and how it relates to, the tennis courts. It is a.matter of creating a more livable environment within the development She would prefer. to achieve "open space,.and a multi -story development might even'be more_app,ropriate. As.she understands it, the noise goes over'the berm and through the landscaping. This factor should be rectified' She would like to see the developer come back with a more desirabl. .proposals Comm. O'Keefe believes a development 'similar to' this is needed but we need a more imaginative approach. He felt the big problem was the homes bordering the park. Comma Woodward said this project is lacking in open space. He agreed with Comm. Cooper's statements. We have a restauraiit'here that will probably stay open until..2 a00 a.m. and it is adjacent to'a residential area. He suggested berming between the tennis club and residential area be considered with a 3' masonry wall on top He believes the amphitheater is going to be a major source of trouble.` Moved by ,Comm. Adams, seconded :by Comm. Cooper to continue applications .2.5-Z-74, 26-TM-749 27-U--74 & 31-U-74. When the . applicant asked for a decision at this meeting, the above motion j was withdrawn 1 -178 ,ge .10 °5-Z-74 'o--TM-74 7-U-7 4 31-U-74 denied MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 17, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moved by Comm, O'Keefe, seconded by Comm, Cooper to deny applications 25-Z-741 26-TM-74, 27-U-74 and 31-U--74 for the following reasons: inadequate coordination between the park and the ex.i.sting development. There is the possibility that this development will receive undue noise and other environmental impacts from the amphitheater and lighting of the baseball .field. The development is arranged in such a way that there is undesirable placement of the homes. The restaurant is placed in an area where late hours will have an effect on the homes. The ingress/egress requires further study. There is inadequate landscaping around the tennis courts. Access to the tennis courts from the residential could be made more compatible. The long corridors within the housing development create alleys of paved area making livability questionable. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper•, O'Keefe, Woodward, Chairman Gatto NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 Chairman Gatto called a recess at 10:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:02 p.m. 4. Application 28-Z-74 of. W. J. HERMAN (KESTER PROPERTY): REZONING approximately 2.7 acres frcm Rl-7.5 (Residential, single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) and 15.2 acres from A-ua (Agricultural/Recreational) to P (Planned Development with residential cluster, 68 units maximum intent) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said property is located adjacent to and easterly of Stevens Canyon Road approximately 200' southerly of Riverside Drive. First Hearing. The Assistant Planning Director identified the property on the map and introduced the proposal, as noted in the January 24, 1975 staff report. He noted that if the land use, number of units and street system could be decided upon at this meeting, they could then hear the use permit application on February loth. Because of the deliberations on the hillsides, the developer has been asked to submit more precise plans than are normally required at this point. The submitted plan is consistent with the adopted flood plain plan. The Planning Commission has tentatively adopted a slope density formula. The staff feels this plan is consistent with the General Plan and the Hillside General Plan Amendment. There is no active fault going through the property. Access to this property will be from Stevens Canyon Road and from Drea Road. There is concern by residents in the area of the potential increase in traffic, due to this development. ANU R A Y 1T, 1975 PLANNI]NTG COMllIISSION MEETING PC-178 MINUTES OF THE �T - Page 11 The Assistant City Engineer gave an overview of the traffic situation. The: traffic "engineer for the EIR and the staff traffic engineer are in disagreement on some points. The 10.8 trips per unit per day comes to 658 per day with peak hour of 59m. He said 65-70% of these trips would go directly to Stevens Canyon Road, leaving 30-35 going to Drea"',.Riverside or. Stv.Andrews< The traff � engineer does not feel there. is a sight problem with ingress at that point on Stevens Canyon Road. Ms, S. Rennie, of Enviros, the firm that prepared the EIR9 .said there are two things to consider when determining average traffic generation: type of development and size of units. As to the _ question of geology,'she said they could not confirm there was an inactive fault existing on the site. USGS has stated there is thepossibility that Monta Vista Fault,crosses here. The plan has; been modified to remove any buildings, from the flood plain, and additional green space has been added. Comm. OHKeefe stated that USES is going to be publishing a updated:; map very shortly and it is going to be quite significant. We might have to wait for this information before making a. decision. CommCooper asked .for iaentification of the innundation area for i1 the dam, should it f ail. Mr. Herman, developer of the project, offered to answer any' questions Mr. Darryl 0, Smith; 22409 St. Andrews Avenue, in regard to the EIR, wanted to know what traffic numbers are alluded to. He asked' if.there has been a recent traffic count on Stevens Canyon Road at Ste Andrews -He He felt it was significar..tly higher than, when he first moved there three years ago. He also felt: the access to the; - property in question was put in a very poor place. It will be ver hard for the people to get out onto Stevens Canyon Road. Ms,. Renn e quoted portions of the EIR and the staff report. She said the road will be evened out.. The Assistant City Engineer said the roads haveSufficientcapacity for even higher counts than are presently there. With the modified entrance onto the private road li it will have better sight distance than either St. Andre`,as'or Riverside Drives Mr. DavidStephen, 2244.4. Riverside Drive, noted there. are many bicycle riders along 'here, particularly in thesummer— _ There is impaired vision at -the intersection. Further, his view of the valley will be impaired if this 'development goes i_n.r ' He did not like the crowded appearance of the proposal. i .178 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 17 , 1975 PLANNIING COMMISSION MEETING , ;e 12 1-V-75 and Cluster Ord. continued to next meeting Mr. Jerry Davidson, 22296 De Anza Circle, said he has lived here 1.5 years. He is concerned with progress and profit. The reason this property is so valuable is because of tl.e investment of the other people in the area. The developer should make a fair profit, but this area does not call for multi. -family type homes. Stevens Canyon Road is crowded and dangerous. Mr. Dale Adams, 10784 Deep Cliffe, is concerned about inadequate planning and consideration of the traffic problem for the people living in the Deep Cliffe area. Ile would like the developer to consider forgetting about access at Drea and consider some other avenue out. There are many children in this area, and increased traffic would be a hazard. Mr. Henry Severin, 22570 San Juan Road, has lived there since 1946. He is in favor of decreasing the density of this development. Mr. Richard Donahoe., 10649 Deep Cliffe Drive, has lived there for 6 years. He is very concerned about traffic. Since it was becoming evident the agenda. would not be completed at this meeting, it was moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. O'Keefe to continue application 1-V-75 and review of the Cluster Ordinance to the next regular meeting. Motion carried, 5-0 Mr. Dean Sayre, 10805 Stevens Canyon Road, said he has lived there for some 15 years with an average of one accident per week at that inter- section. We have horses in the area as well. as bicycles, He is shocked to hear the staff say we don't have a seriotis traffic problem here. The City has allowed the development of 8 units right up to the street so it can't be widened. Ile said that if they decide to widen on his side of the road they will have to purchase the entire property. He cited the danger of the failure of the dam. Mr. Al Kreizelman, 22293 De Anza Circle, said the EIR was very con- servative. The Achil_lies heel here is whether or not the people living in this project will die from fire, flood or accident. The basic density question should be discussed. How do we get from 4.4 to zero? He reviewed the various proposals that wave been presented to the City for this property over the years. He would. like to see that area closest to the golf course left open to protect the view for the people living in the area now. He is concerned with getting back into the property because it will mean left turns. If these are going to be older people who are not under any t me constraints they will probably use St. Andrews. lie would like to see the ingress/egress through the property where the Buck Norred stables are now. MINUTES OF THE JANliAR:Y 1.7 , 1975 PLA-NNING COMMISSION MEETING i Ms, Stella Kester, 10850 Stevens Canyon Road, stated. she has had this ranch for over 25 year '. Her taxes ha�Te been 12,557 per year for. 8 years. She said si.e has had satire nice neighbors up there, but she has had to clean up garbage for some of theme She said the sight clearance is better from her place than from Riverside Drive. If it hadn't been for Stella, there would never have been sewers in De Anza Circle. She said she is getting older and:would like to have a fete years to live in a nice, new home. Mr. Roy Roberts, 22364 Riverside Drive emphasized that this is a transition area and should be treated as such. Norma Bradlyn, 22344 Riverside Drive, would like to have this proposal held up untilthe USGS Report is available. She believes` Stella's property deserves a better proposal than this one; The Assistent.Cty Engineer explained that the City gets a copy of the Sheriff's Report on a weekly basis and they have pin maps shoring all accidents over the past few years. He offered to prepare a report -giving all the details, The Planning Director answerrd Comm. Woodward that the Drea Road aecess. could be made strictly an emergency access. He stated that the existing roads will,se;vice this development. But he asked . how one addresses the way people dr.ive? The staff is not aware of any plans for improvement of Stevens Canyon Road, It is under County jurisdiction. Comm..Adams asked the staff to check on the possibility of a stop light at this intersection For the benefit of the audience, Comm. Woodward wanted to inform them that the application at this time was for the zoning and not for the use permit. Mr. Davidson said the .people living in the area basically concur there should be development of that area. They are concerned abouj traffic_4tid about the number of units per acre, Mr.. Mike Maurice., 22276 De Anza Circle, said he has lived there for 5 years,.and he likes open space. But he said Stella has the right to make . a profit on her property, The developer has the right to make a profit also.. Traffic is a problem, The accidents 1 have not ,involved carsturning on or off of Riverside Drive, It is more a; problem of the errant driver. He feels the developer should be ;given :some direction. PC--178 Page 13 ?'C-178 tIWUTES OF THE. JANUARY 17 y 1975 PLANNTIN'G C01-2ilSSION MEETING Page 14 28-Z-75 approved w/conditions Mr. Parviz Ramvar, 10855 Stevens Canyon Road, said that if we develop this property based on emotionalism this property should be held for a park. He took issue with the people who are "eating out of the public trough". Further study of the density, traffic and geology should take place before any decisions are made. oved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the public eating. Motion carried, 5-0 There was some discussion of Brea Road being closed off and considered for emergency access only. omm. Cooper wondered if less units would ameliorate the problems. he would like more traffic data before closing off the Drea entrance. loved by Comm. Cooper, seconded by Comm. O'Keefe to continue application 28-Z-75 and to await further geological data. Discussion followed. he motion and its second were withdrawn. Moved by Corm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Adams to approve application 28-Z-741 with the 14 standard conditions, conditions 15, 16, 17 revised and 18 as enumerated in the staff report. hairman Gatto asserted that we may be doing the developer a disservice y approving this application based on 61 units on the assumptions there re no geological nor traffic concerns. He felt he needed to know how any units would be a.11owc-�d. Comm. O'Keefe stated that Mr. Herman is a rofessional person and must realize the pitfalls. YES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, O'Keefe, Woodward OES: Chairman Gatto Motion carried., 4-1 EW BUSINESS: Consideration of questions for citizens survey are to be turned in to the City .tanager's Office. OURNMEN'r: Chairman Gatto adjourned this meeting at 1:25 a.m. APPROVED: /s/ Daniel P. O'Keefe ATTEST: Chairman /s/ _ Ift. E. Ryder City Clerk