PC 03-11-85 - I
t1 •
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ; PC-461
10300 Torre Avenue,Cupertino,Ca. 95014 Page 1
Telephone : (408) 252-4505
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING CCi'•IMISSION
HELD ON MARCH 11, 1985
SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7 : 3 0 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : Com. Mackenzie
Com. Adams
Com. Szabo
Corn. Sorensen
Chr. Claudy
Staff Present : Dir. of Ping. & Devel . Sisk
Assistant Planning Dir. Cowan
City Attorney Kilian
Assistant City Ens. Whitten
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The following corrections were submitted:
Page 2, paragraph 2, substitute "might" for "would probably" .
Page 5, section 2, 5th paragraph, substitute ":nj.sinF' ,imation '
for "attendance" . I .
Page 5, section 2, paragraph 8, substitute "response" for
"behavior" .
gage 6, 3rd paragraph, add "being loaded or unloaded" after
„tables" .
Page 7, 9th paragraph, add "near the liquor store"at the end'
Page 5, 9th and 10th paragraphs, substitute "Mr. d_tchman"
for "Mr. Hickman" .
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to approve the Minutes as
corrected.
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 5-0
POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS:
NOTION: Com. Adams, to continue Item #1 to the
Meeting of April 8, 1985
SECOND: Com. Mackenzie
VOTE: Passed 5-0
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to withdraw Item #2 and
Item #9 from the Calendar
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE; Passed 5-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
• A letter from A;iita D. Marsh regarding Item #7 to be heard
at that timr. .
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS ?LE.iMMOVED FROM CONSENT C ,LENDAR
i.
I !
PC-461 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCMARCH 11, 1985 111
Page 2PUBLIC HEARINGS :
3 . Applications 1-Z-85 and 2-U-85 of CHRISTINA LA MONICO :
REZO`,ING approximately 1 . 38 acres from CG (General Commercial)
and R3 (Multiple Family Residential) zones to P (Planned
Development with General Commercial intent ) zoning district or
whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commis-
sion; USE PERMIT to construct a 15, 000 sq. ft . retail shopping
center consisting of three single story buildings and resulting
yin the removal of an existing service station and two residen-
tial buildings and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review
Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration.
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of De
Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Roadi. First Hearing continued.
Tentative City Council hearing date - April 1, 1985.
`
( Assistant Planning Director Cowan! distributed A. S .A.C. ' s*
comments to the Commission, described the location and
mentioned issues of circulation, reciprocal access to the north,
relationship to residential to the east, potential sbortcutting
and the bus turnout, all of which were covered in the written
Staff Report, he said.
He advised that the option of placing parking closer to the
residential area had been examined, but it was felt there would
Abe more problems, and this way the buildings wou:d act as a
• I sound barrier. He noted the roofs would. be finished all around .
to give a pleasing appearance .
He pointed out on the zoning map a symbol representing h± h
density residential, but advised Staff felt it • had not been
is conscious act to designate that certain spot for high density
housing, and had taken the position that the Planning Commission
should have the lattitude to change it .
On the matter of reciprocal easements, Corm. Adams determined that
grade levels were presently unknown_, and Staff undertook to
research the matter.
Com. Adams wanted more information on the 10 ft . along the backs
lof the -buildings, questioning it for security reasons .
!Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised there were fire doors
there and the owner wanted it for limited access .
In response to Questions from Com. Mackenzie, Assistant City
Engineer Whitten thought that Staff could re-examine the matter
of"clipping"the corner at Bollintger and De Anza Boulevard.
Mike Horton, architect on the project, added that this was a small
development, and could not fit what A. S.A. C. wanted, though he
listed design features that had 'been incorporated to make the
project more attractive within the constraints. Commenting on
the zoning, they felt this should be commercially zoned as it
was on a busy corner and surrounded on three sides by commercial, •
the said. He pointed out benefits of a noise buffer for the
houses on Clifden Wayand long-a;-iaited ingress/egress to the north,
!and stated they could live withlStaff' s conditions.
PLANNING CC T LION MTNTJTES, MARCE 11, 1985. PC-461
'
P.a 3
Com. Adams established with Mr. Horton thatthe residences
to be removed were approximately 15 years old and would not
be preserved, that there were no special plans to take care
of trash that might accumulate in the 10 ft . easterly
boundary area, and that the wall alongside the Clifden Way
residences would be cement plaster. He wondered if the
developmentmIght, be functional without the driveway cut on
De Anza Boulevard, since it was so close to the corner. •
Assistant Planning .Director Cowan cautioned that the cut
should be kept until the reciprocal access might be co :pleteL,
foi' traffic reasons .
Com. Mackenzie determined that the reciprocal access would
link all properties eventually, but physical access would
be limited to Paul ' s restaurant, and that other access could
not be required to be completed presently . He established
with the architect that it would be possible to block off
some space. on the easterly boundary, though the buildings
should not be any closer.
Com: Szabo established that the gas station lot was present-
ly zoned commercial and the other two residential and all
were under one ownership.
Darko Zuanic, 20395 Clifden Way, determining that the height
of the wall would be 8 ft . , wanted to put a. 6/8 ft . wall
at his Bollinger boundary.
Chr. Claudy pointed out that it would be illegal to put such
a wall on the property line, and suggested Mr. Zuanic check
with Staff regarding setback requirements .
Elizabeth Heimsoth, 20387 Clifden Way, noting she already
had a privacy problem with the duplexes, did not want the
proposed buildings behind her residence. She mentioned the
dangerous corner and the bad traffic situation.
William Ford, 20337 Clifden Way stated that the duplexes now
gave them a good buffer and protection, whereas with this
project there would be crime potential and their properties
would depreciate because of traffic . He also noted it
would be impossible to access Bollinger with the traffic
situation there .
Com. Mackenzie established with Mr. Ford that he would
prefer to see a two-story, higher density residential ;:ro, ec.gi
there.
cry Schwind, 20381 Clifden Way was advised by Chr. Claudy
that the type of tenants were unknown, but was assured there
were certain restrictions. She wondered if more shots were
necessary on De Anza Boulevard when so many were vacant
and felt that the access from Bollinger was dangerous and
accidents might be caused.
• Com. Adams listed some modifications he would like to see to
the easterly border.
PC-461 ;PLANNING C0:'INISSION MINUTES, MARCH 11, 1985 •
Page 4 . ''It was decided that first the zonin_., would be discussed and then
Igo on if necessary .
(Corr Mackenzie felt the project would be a good use of the land
land would provide a transition to !the residential area.
ICom. Sorensen was unsure it would be liveable residentially, but
could appreciate neighborhood concerns about the commercial
development .
Corr. Szabo felt that more residential could be built, even though
'the situation was not ideal, and Pointed out there were already
'families living there who would be displaced. He did not feel
!that valid reasons had been demonstrated to convert the site to
! commercial and noted that only one residential property would be
left in that area of Bollinger. I
f
!Com. Adams felt that as the vacant lot was presently zoned
!residential; the zoning should remain residential here .
Chr.. Claudy did not want to lose ,.ore residential land in the
! City, especially as this was zoned to an appropriate density,
land conjectured that reasonably priced apartments could be built .
However, island commercial should be considered, he thought, if
it was to be commercial, to mitigate the problems of being next
to the residential area.
The consensus of the Commission Was to leave the zoning on the
three lots as it was, after sore discussion. They also preferred
to keep the housing stock.
Mr. Horton asked for continuance for further research.
MOTION: Com. Szabo, to continue' Applications 1-Z-85 and
2-U-85 to the Meeting of April 8, 1985.
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 5-0
i 4 . Applications 2-Z-85 and 3-U'85 of PAN CAL INVESTMENT COP1PANrl
I (JOE CHOI) : REZONING arproxi:n at[ely 2.14 gross acres from
R1-10 (Residential Single-Family, 10, 000 so . ft . minimum lot size)
! zone to F (Planned Development with Residential 5-10 dwelling
units per gross acre intent ) zone or whatever zone may be deemed
appropriate by the Planning ComMission; USE PERMIT to construct
25 attached townhouse units and IENVIRONME •ITAL REVIEW: The
!! Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a
Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the
' southeast corner of Blaney Avenue and Price Avenue . First
Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date -
Aril 1, 1985.
' Com. Adams announced he would abstain from the item.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan, giving the Staff Report,
commented this was a radical departure from the last Hearing,
! but unless the Commission was concerned that ,at under
5 units per acre, it was less than their direction, the only
remaining issue w^s the street 'system. He described the
applicant ' s street plan (Alternate A) and Staff' s street plan
1 (Alternate B) which were exhibited, pointing out that the
! applicant ' s plan proposed an offset intersection which Engineer-
! ing felt was unworkable .
PLANNING C0:•:Y,I sIC., MINUTES, MARCH CH 1 1, 1 FC
^ c
-461
advised Staff wanted to see a development rattern that Page
allowed the houses to front on Elaney arid have a garage
access to the culdesac arrangement, which could be done in
the PDT setting. He also advised they did not want disup-
tive soundwalls and such along Blaney.
Jim Jackson, attorney, representing Pan Cal Investment
explained that the change was radical because the "in between"
range had been very difficult, so that this was now a
traditional type development . He described Alternate A as
having a street opening onto Blaney, rather than Staff' s
Alternate B that would open up onto Price, and stated they
felt that because of neighborhood and traffic flow concerns
Alternate A was preferable, and wanted an opr. orunity to make
it work.
He pointed out for Com. Mackenzie where the driveways and the
curb line would go and established that five homes would
front onto Price.
Gary Evans, 10170 Mello Place, stating that he had been very
opposed to the development, had completely changed his mind
because of the single family concept and the comparable size
of the dwellings to those presently existing in the neighbor-
hood. He was confused about the possible subdivision at the
Wilson school site, he said, since he had heard a future nark
mentioned at the last Lreeting; however, he was in favor of
110 Alternate A for the access road.
J .B. Burk, 19935 Price Avenue areed with Mr. Evans, and did
not want another street on Price, in front of his house, so
rr eferred Alternate A, and felt it would eliminate extra
traffic and parking on Price.
Ed `Lerman, 10150 i'4ello Place agreed with the applicant ' s
'_oizposed design and with Alternate A and advised that all the
neighbors he had spoken to were now in favor of the nroj ect .
Vic Dervin, 10109 (,cello Place was satisfied with the develop- '
-merit and preferred Alternate A.
Andy Prophet, 10171 Deeprose Place, thought Alternate A was
excellent and supported the otrarspeakers.
John Alburger, 10108 Mello Place felt Alternate B would lead
'to problems and was concerned about Price Avenue being a
thoroughfare, and felt in any case, there should be some
future traffic control on that street .
David Garelick, 10132 Deeprose Place felt the Commission should
take the support of the neighborhood as an approval of the
development, and supported Alternate A.
kinzen Wong, 19965 Price Avenue supported the development and
felt Alternate A would prevent the annoyance of people
slamming on their brakes at the intersection, that residents
III would get from Alternate B.
*'PD - Planned Development
i
.
I
PLANNING ,.:T r.
PC-461 _ �ANNI G COMMISSION ('MINUTES, MARCH 11, 1985 •
Page IDavid Trotter, 10144 S. Blaney, favored Alternate A, and wanted
! signs erected to stop through traffic at peak hours on Price .
( Roberta Garelick supported previous speakers and felt that
restricting traffic on Price would be in order.
•MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close „the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed I 4-0
(Com. Adams abstaining)
The Commission favored Alternate A for traffic reasons and felt
the flow would be better, and wondered if there could be a
little better alignment without elimination of a lot . They
, requested that Staff and the developer collaborate to see what
could be done.
! Assistant City Engineer Whitten commented that althou7h the
[offset would create some conflict in a four-way stop situation,
if it could be minimized it could be workable.
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend acceptance of the
Negative Declaration of ;the Environmental Review
Committee '
(SECOND : Com. Sorensen
!VOTE:A . Passed i . 4-0
i (Com. Adams abstaining)
111 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application
2-Z-85 subject to Conditions 1-15 and Condition 16
of the Staff Report, the findings of the Staff Report
and subconclusions of te H r_ earin°
f!SECOND: Com. Sorensen f VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Adams abstaining) I
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of 3-U-85,
subject to Standard Conditions 1-15 and Conditions
to and 17 as per Staff Report, with new Condition
18 reouiring the Applicant to work with City Staff
to attempt to better align the proposed new street
and the existing Rodrigues Avenue, subject to the
findings of the Staff Report and the subconclusions
I of the Hearing. j
!.SECOND: Com. Sorensen
1kk m
I, OTE: Passed 4_0
!(Corn. Adams abstaining)
(assistant Planning Director Cowan, noting that the tentative _
Pity Council hearing date was April 1st, stated that Staff would
!try to have the street plan modified for their review at that time .
15. Application 1-TM-85 of DENNIS EARRY: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
o subdivide approximately . 6 acre.s into two parcels and E.NVI.?ON-
iENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exesiot, hence, no
_ction is required. The subject property, is located on the111
portheaste_rly corner of Stevens) Canyon Road and Ricardo Road in
Ri-10 (Residential Single-family, 10, 000 sq. ft . minimum lot
ipize) zoning district . First Haring Planning Commission has
4
(final approval.
i
4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 11, 1985
PC-4b1
p
Director of Planning and Development Sisk advised that the I a, e 7
Map had been previously approved in 1980 and had lapsed. He
described the amalgamation of three 1917 lots into two more
buildable lots.
There were no questions from the Commission or comments from
the audience, and the applicant was not in the audience.
MOTION: Com. Szabo, to close the PUblic Hearin;
SECOND : Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 5-0
Com. Sorensen wondered about the soils report required in
1980.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk explained that this
was a requirement of the subdivision.
MOTION: Com. Szabo, to approve 1-TM-85, subject to
Conditions 1-18 of the Staff Report and the
Findings of the Staff Report
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 5-0
6. Application 2-TM-85 of KIER AND WRIGHT (WILLIAM BARNES) :
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP to consolidate two parcels consisting, of
® • approximately . 58 acres into one parcel and. ENVIROHIINTAL
REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt , hence, no
action is required. The subject property is located on the •
southeast quadrant of Foothill Boulevard and Cupertino Road
in a F (Planned Development with office intent ) zoning
district . First Hearing,. Planning Co,.,, _ssion has final
approval.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk advised that a Use
Permit to construct an office building on the amalgamated sit .
had already been approved.
Chr. Claudy wondered what had become of the east/west ingress
egress previously discussed, and also recalled the discussion
at that time had been that the lot would remain residential.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk advised that, at
Council level, it had not been required to physically install )
the ingress/egress and recalled that in the discussion
mentioned, there had been some indication that the lot had
other than residential potential.
Chr. Claudy and Staff briefly discussed the reciprocal access
between the lot in question, the A.E. C. Electric lot and the
lands of Preston. The applicant did not speak.
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com, Szabo
VOTE: Passed 5-0
• • MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to approve Application 2-Ti.'-85
subject to Conditions 1-10 and the findings of
the Staff Report
SECOND : Com. Adams
VOTE : Passed 5-0
i .
PC-461 IPLA:-i',i1 G CG=ISSION MINUTES, MARCH 11 , 19=5
Page 8 17 . Application 6-U-85 of GREGG C . PUN :Ei (PHOTO DRIVE-UP) :
T CT' ^i�""m
USE PERMIT to construct a single-story, 4, 930 sq . ft . expansion
'to the existing 1, 210 sq . ft . Photo Drive-up facility for a
total building area of 6, 140 sq . ft . and ENVIRONNENT l REVIEW:
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of
a Negative Declaration. The subject property; is located on the
northwest corner of South Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Wildflower
Way in a P (Planned Development with commercial, office and
fresidertial 5-15 dwelling units per gross acre intent ) zoning
district . First ?searing. Tentative City Council hearing date -
.:'`.arch 18, 1965.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk advised Staff was
!satisfied from an architectural standpoint, but there were design
issues inconsistent with the South De Anza Eoulevard Conceptual
Design Plan and the driveup window was inconsistent with the
!Criteria adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council
for such facilities, and as the applicant was unwilling to
;consider these concerns, Staff recommended denial, he said.
(Referring to the letter from Mrs . Marsh addressing traffic
concerns, he suggested the neighborhood should submit such
concerns to City Council and described the procedure.
Chr. Claudy noted that the expansion was approximately 400 , and
was almost rebuilding.
ICom. Mackenzie enouired if the criteria would be different for
Ia redevelopment than for a new development . •
I Chr. Claudy advised that something; only increasing 10;; mi=-ht
be viewed differently than something increasine- 400;, as in this
'case, but that the same criteria applied to every Use Permit .
!Ray Rooker, architect on the project described the structure
Ias simple, non-conflicting and meeting the general design
guidelines. He pointed out the abundant landscaping specially
,shown on the site plan, and explained they had retained the
;present facility for several reasons; that they had been there
!for several years; they had completed extensive landscapine; and
offsite improvements in order to have the driveup window, which
,was already existing; and equipment would be expensive to relocate .
fHe commented that though Staff guidelines required 75 ft . of
!landscaping along the frontage, they were suggesting tonight
that they could create the illusion of more landscaping by taking
;out the front portion of the drive-up lane and installing 'rass-
crete or some such material. He pointed out there were many
!buildings in the area that did not meet the guidelines and listed them
!Director of Planning and Development Sisk remarked that the
!buildings listed were either in the County or the City of San
(Jose, and felt there was an opportunity here to meet Cupertino
(standards with this substantial redevelopment .
1kr. Rooker, on the issue of traffic, felt they ^,ere' not creating
'problems, especially since the development was low-key and they
were providing, reciprocal ingress/egress to the Yama.gami site,
thereby eliminating an ingress;egress on De Anza E.oule;gars?. 411
Gem. Adams asked what would take place in the expanded area.
I .
4110 PLA,';t;_Ti:G C=TSSION MINiUTES, MARCH CH 11, 19E . "-451
9
i` r. Rooker il explained it would be a retail facility, rrimar `,r Page
of photography ecuipment, he thought . Commenting on the ��
privacy issue, he advised the applicant would augment the
existing conifers and would provide a soundwall . Further on
the landscaping, he advised that they would rut in grass
instead of gr ounacover if necessary, r d wanted to add more
mature shrubbery instead of raising the berm; but if this
was not satisfactory, they would take out the paving and
cut in alternate material, he reiterated.
Lill Feitchmann, 7394 Wildflower Way was concerned with
traffic problems and described them. He felt the building
should be further back to eliminate traffic and crime
problems behind the building, with parking in front, and
possibly eliminating the drive-up window. He did not feel
there was an adequate noise barrier from the Wildflower side
and suggested also having no access to Wildflower from the
development, or alternatively, closing off Wildflower.
Tim Ceyf ino, 7411 Wildflower, Way, supported Mr. Feitchmann
on the traffic issue, adding they were in an ideal location
between Rainbow and Prospect for people who did not i.rant to
stop at stop lights . He suggested closing Poppy, and felt
that the brisk business of Photo Drive-Up and the expansion
of the retail business would create more traffic .
I) Anita Marsh, 7429 Wildflower Way felt her letter was very
relevant to the issue, since the traffic situation would be
compounded by the project , and retail sales created more
traffic than office use would, she emphasized. She pointed
out they were at the back door of three commercial develop-
ments and did not want them increased without at least a
traffic count being taken. She felt the ideal solution
would be a demarcation between the residential and retail
area, possibly by the use of a culdesac .
Chr. Claudy, remarking that closing streets was often
suggested by residents in such situations, asked 'Ars . Marsh
for her comments regarding the inconvenience that this
would cause them.
Mrs . Marsh described the longer routes that they had
presently to take in the interests of safety, and felt the
noise, traffic and hazards they suffered far 'outweighed the
inconvenience . She established that the Commissioners had
read her letter.
Preston Oka, 1341 Aster Lane, advised that his family owned
Yamagami ' s Nursery. He established with the architect that
the building would be higher than the sidewalk and the
location of the fire door, and established with Staff that
the median on South De Anza. Doulevard to be built in conjun-
ction with the City of San Jose was not yet in the five year
program.
i
1 �
PJ-�I}6l PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, r•'ARC'ri 11, 1985
III
Page 10 n
Gregg C. Dunker, the applicant, stated that he, his general
manager and two vice presidents would be occupying the building
and that their video operation would be transferred into the
'new area to create more convenience for customers . He
emphasized that the landscaped areas would be maintained.
Questioned by Corm Adams on the amount of increased retail
activity, Mr. Dunker advised that ! this would amount to
approximately 1,000 sq. ft . I'
Director of Planning and Development Sisk, on the request of
Cora. Sorensen, exhibited some slides of the existing building.
It was established that the drivetp window would remain in the
same location, that there would not be a "dog house" on the
roof and the existing roof was to! be removed.
The Commission and Staff, discussing the traffic concerns, felt
Ithe application could not be denied on such a basis, since the
limract of this particular project would not be great , considering
'the existing problem.
Chr. Claudy summarized that the consensus seemed to be that the
conditions, standards and requirements were appropriate, especially
with the size of the increase, although the architecture was
,acceptable .
Mr. Rooker suggested they would like to proceed to City Council
without the drive-up window and discuss the matter with City Council,
Chr. Claudy established that if the drive-up window requirement
was removed .and the asphalt areal converted into landscaping the
(Commission ipuld be satisfied, and it was further established that
!setbacks were adequate for the required landscaping.
MOTION: Com. Sorensen; to close the Public Hearin;
SECOND : Cora. Szabo
VOTE: Passed 5-0
Corr. Adams established that processing and control of hazardous
chemicals was addressed elsewhere.
MOTION: Corm. Mackenzie, to recommend acceptance of the
Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review
Committee
SECOND: Corm. Adams
VOTE: Passed 5-0
OT r.
,«� I0. Com. a,CtCPn'L1P., to recommend c."'�"'rgVal of Application
6-U-e5, subject to theilfindings` of the Staff Report
and Conditions 1-15; twritten
ions Cndi�ior. 16 ^as �.� ��ter. with a
new paragraph added that the plan has been nodif_ed
to eliminate the drive-up window, the driveway
serving the drive-up window, and modifying the
landscarin` to conform! to the recuirements of the
zoning ordinance; Conditions 17-22; Condition 23
eliminated. Subject also to the findings o= this •
Hearing, that the drive-up window asinitially proposed
is inconsistent with the Drive-up v,"indaw Criteria and
the Criteria for the Mouth De Anza Boulevard Conceptual
Landscape Plan.
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VO 2: Passed 5-0
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 11, 19E5 PC-461
It was agreed that a MINUTE ORDER be sent to City Council Fate 11
separately rewarding the Commission' s findings and encoura-
gin City Council to act on a Hearing; for the traffic
situation in the i;ildflower/Poo;y nei hborhood.
8 . AT plication 7-U-85 of RAYMOND C . ROOKER (LONNIE FRANCA-
DAKIS) : USE PERMIT to construct a 2,750 sq . ft . second
story addition to an existing 3,800 sq. ft . office building.
Total square footage will equal 6, 550 so . f t . ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the
granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is
located on the north side of Pacifica Drive approximately
300 ft . east of De Anza Boulevard in an OP (Planned Office)
zoning district . First Hearing. Tentative City Council
hearing date - March 18, 1985.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan exhibited photographs
advising that the F.A.R. ' and parking were satisfactory and
that the architecture was the only potentially controversial
point .
The Commission and Staff discussed the A. S.A. C . findings
and it was established that two members had had concerns,
reflected in the Minutes, with regard to the upper story .
The Commission was also dissatisfied with the upper story,
especially the window design.
Mr. Rooker, the architect, explained it had been decide:
to make the building look as low as possible, to integrate
with the neighborhood. He . suggested that the concept of the
expansion could be discussed and the Item could be continued
in order that they could review the design.
Com. Mackenzie requested that maybe arched windows could be
put in the second story to match the first , and also that
easing the slope of the tile roof in the middle be examined.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there were certain structural
restraints and that also to tear off the whole expensive
tile roof would not be cost-effective .
Chr. Claud;; felt the architect should be given the chance
to redesign and the direction to curve the top windows to
match the lower only should be given.
MOTION: Com. Szabo, to continue Acolication 7-U-85
to the Meeting of April 2, 19E5
•
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE : Passed 5-0
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
HTFORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
• Com. Sorensen had received comr?lalnts regarding the traffic
at Vista and Stevens Creek, reporting that it was an
especially bad situation with regard to Collins school, which
a
7
wascommute school.
F. A.R. -Floor Area rta.tio
A.S. is. C. - Architectural and Lite Control Committee
,
pc-461 PLANNING CO:4 ISSION MINUTES, :':ARCH 11, 1985
'age 12
Assistant Planning Director Cowan gave a brief history of the
411
situation and advised that the Corn„ission should approach
City Council for the additional Staff and Plarnin Commission
time required, should they wish a( change to be considered.
The Director of Planning and Development advised that the
School District had already appeared before City Council in
:his regard and that a report from Engineering was awaited.
Com. Szabo established with Assistant City Engineer Whitten
that the City did not have jurisdiction over the traffic
light at highway 280 and De AnzaiHoulevard, commenting that
because of the length of the light, traffic tended to turn right
onto De Anza and then make a U turn.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten remarked that the State had not
heeded their advice on the length of the light .
Com. Adams enquired about the situation of a house on Upland
Way where there was slipr_age, and wondered whether it was in
the City.
1
The Assistant City Engineer advised that the claim received had
been sent on to the County, since it was in their jurisdiction.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Assistant Planning; Director Cowan suggested that since the
Agenda for the April 8, 1985 Meeting was heavy, two :fleetin„s,
one on the Eth and one on the 10th be ar.",ve_�tisFc., with the
Seven Springs Application bein,, schedules: for the 10th April . 410
Adjournment :
I I
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Dorothy Cornelius /s/John Claudy
City Clerk I Chairperson
•
i
I I
I I
I
1
I