Loading...
PC 02-24-86 CITY OF C'UPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ` 1 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING,COMMISSION HELD ON February 24, 1986 Meeting Held in the Council Chambers of Cupertino City Hall SALUTE TO THE FLAG; 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman Szabo Vice Chairman Mackenzie Commissioner Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Sorensen Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning & Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planning Director Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Charles Kilian, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Cann. Sorensen, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 10, 1986, as submitted. ® SECOND: Cam. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: -None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None CONSENT CALENDAR -None ITEMS REMOVED FRAM CONSENT CALENDAR -None PUBLIC HEARINGS: - 1 - • PLANNING COMNIISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 PAGE'' 2 PC-488 • ITEM 1 Application No(s) . 1-U-86 Applicant: Cupertino Union School District Property Owner: Cupertino Union School District Location: Eaton School located on Suisun Drive !! Fremont Older School located on Calle de Barcellona, east of Miller Avenue Parcel Area(Acres) Eaton = 10.4, Older = 13.0 MASTER USE PERMIT (1-U-86) To allow the following uses to occupy approximately 30,000 sq. ft. at Eaton School and approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of the Fremont Older School facility: (1) Day Care Programs (2) Exercise Classes (3) Counseling Programs (4) Private Education including the following: (a) Preschool (b) Adult and elementary school (c) Technical and specialized training (d) Fine Arts/dance Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki stated that this is a request for a Master Use Permit for both the Eaton School Site and for the Older School • site. Of the combined 50,000 square footage, approximately 9,000 square footage is available for lease to other than public school uses. is The applicants have suggested that they be allowed to have a Master Use Permit to allow a variety of programs. The request for a Master Use Permit 1) avoids the expense of filing:individual Use Permits for each prospective lessor of this space and 2) ieliminates the time required to process a full Use Permit. The expense is approximately $700 to $900 per application and the time required is about two months. Mr: Piasecki explained for the information of the audience present that Master Use Permits are an accepted practice and have been utilized in the City of Cupertino for nonresidential developments. In addition, the uses allowed on school sites in Cupertino tend to be more restrictive than communities.those allowed in adjoining '` The General Plan for Cupertino and the zoning stipulate that these uses must be of a quasi-public nature. li ii Y _ PLANNING CUMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 PAGE 3 PC-488 11, ITEM 1 (Cont'd) All of the proposed uses of this application are consistent with The General Plan and with the BA (Quasi-Public) zoning district. The staff recommends one qualification, namely that counseling services should be sponsored by a nonprofit agency; this brings them under the umbrella of quasi-public use. Last year the Planning Commission adopted a Minute Order regarding private use of school sites; the Commission stated their concerns as hours of operation and traffic. On this application, staff suggests that the hours of operation extend from 8:00 A.M. - 8:00 P.M. with the exception of day care hours which may be allowed to start as early as 6:30 A.M. The School District has suggested that the allowed uses be more restrictive than presently being operated in many sites due to late evening activities conducted by many community groups. In regard to traffic, public schools generate approximately one (one way) trip per student. Due to current bussing and the "open school" concept, the trip count is now 1.5 trips per student. Mr. Piasecki stated that the issues in question at this hearing for the Master Use Permit are: 1) how these conditions relate to specific uses; • 2) are the controls adequate?; 3) are the Commissioners favorable to a Master Use Permit approach? The Environmental Review Committee is unable to render a recommendation at this time for lack of a specific project. They will hear this application on March 5th; thus, the Commission will not be in a position to make a final decision until the March 24th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Piasecki stated, in response to Cam. Claudy's question regarding the measures available to monitor usage, that Condition No. 25 specifies the procedures that the school district must abide by, including trip factors for various types of uses. Com. Claudy, citing the definition of quasi-public/institutional activities, questioned whether within these constraints, the school can rent properties to profit making organizations. Mr. Piasecki stated that the school can within the specific, listed uses as delineated in Condition No. 19. In response to Coon. Sorensen's question on the use of school facilities by counseling programs, Mr. Piasecki stated that the staff was concerned about the possible use of these facilities by private psychiatrists. Cram. Sorensen noted that offices for counseling services are difficult to locate and that the school site would provide a logical solution for this need. Mr. Piasecki stated that the Commission could make that determination. L PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 PAGE 4 PC-488 ITEM 1 (Cont'd) Mr. Piasecki stated that since this isia new approach to a Master Use Permit in such a case, the Crmmiission may wish to consider a one year temporary permit with a yearly evaluation. Applicant's Presentation: Ms. Sonja Shurr, Cupertino Union School District, publicly thanked Mr. Cowan, Mr. Piasecki and the Planning Staff for their assistance to the School District'lin preparing this application. Due to the potential cost of individual applications for use of classrooms, an application for a Master''i Plan Use enables the School District to better serve the community. Ms. Shurr, in reference to Condition No. 25, stated that this condition protects future district employees as well as the city by giving the District guidelines that will aid whomever occupies positions of authority, in the District Office. Eaton School has three remaining roams ,for rent; for the Fremont Older School site, the District has received proposals for preschool activities. Special classes for the handicapped are held at Fremont Older and the District was actively seeking any lessee that would permit handicapped children to participate in this program. Ms. Shurr questioned Condition No. 20, Hours and Days of Operation for the • Day Care Programs. Eaton School presently operates their day care services from 6:30 A.M. - 6:30 P.M. In addition, a dance program operates until approximately 8:45 P.M. In response to Chr. Szabo's question, Ms.1Shurr stated that the District is in the process of completing a long range facility Master Plan; this Plan , is scheduled to be presented to the School Hoard in the fall of 1986. One of the components of this ' Plan is Asset Management which indicates that some schools should be mothballed; others, perhaps, need to be sold. Some schools, such as Eaton, were appointed as reserve sites in 1983 and are being leased at this time. Sites that are to be sold during the craning years must nonetheless be maintained during the interim; these sites will be leased. Ms. Shurr stated that there is a great need in the carom unity for infant care, preschool and nursery school. Once these services are located on a site, the District is very careful as to what other services might be located there also. Thus the District prefers to focus on services for children and educational services and does not feel that these services mix well with commercial enterprises. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 PAGE 5 PC-488 i ITEM 1 (Cont'd) In response to Cann. Claudy's question on a procedure for reconverting leased areas on school sites back to public school use, Ms. Shurr stated that some schools have divided uses; however she does not see the District combining commercial and preschool. Com. Sorensen commented that currently Fremont Older School combines various groups of students; Ms. Shurr reconfirmed that the District is trying to serve the children and in the process may be able to help adults also. The Commissioner further asked whether the School District meets with the community on an ongoing basis to inform them of issues. Ms. Shurr stated that District staff members have met with both the Eaton and Fremont Older School neighborhoods in the last month. Notification to the Fremont community extended 500 feet, but no residents came to this meeting. Recent Use Permits were displayed to provide an example of school uses. Cam. Mackenzie questioned whether the District has guidelines for use of school facilities. Ms. Shurr stated that the Use Permits are given on a short term basis; short term is defined as not exceeding one year. These guidelines are applied to every school. • In response to another question, Mr. Piasecki stated that the Commission needs to determine whether this Master Use Permit will supersede the former use permits. Mr. Kilian stated that the question is "Does the prior Use Permit issued by the City supersede approvals under a Master Use Permit?" The answer is that the Commission can make it so, or the Commission can state that a previous permit is grandfathered in. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Tony Scott, 20230 John Drive, Cupertino, a member of the Eaton Traffic Committee stated that his concerns are; - The Master Use Permit for the School District. The School Board, or whoever makes the decisions on applications, has not demonstrated a satisfactory track record of concern for the community in deciding what kinds of activities are and are not suitable for the schools. - Lack of notification to and involvement by the Eaton School community. - Utilization of schools in line with original purposes, i.e., nonprofit, educational programs that benefit school age children and related types of activities. PLANNING COKMDISIONFUNUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 PAGE 6 PC-488 W 1TEM'l (Cont'd) Mr. Scott would be in favor of this application for a Master Use Permit; However, there are implications for commercial leases with year round activities; he does not favor schools involved in profit making enterprises. Mr. Phil Harris, 20087 Suisun Drive, Cupertino, stated that he has been involved with the School District on a regular basis when proposals for neighborhoods were presented. The neighborhood wishes to keep the school occupied to maintain the way it looks, prevent deterioration and vandalism. Mr. Harris stated that mothers of the community have established the following guidelines and request that they be implemented: - That the site will be used as a school or a similar environment as when the public school was operating. In practice, this means usage from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. with limited evening activities that last only until 9:00 P.M. - That the school will remain occupied Monday through Friday only. - Traffic control in the neighborhood. - Neighborhood recourse and input regarding programs to be located at the school. The Master Use Permit, allows no recourse for the Aft neighborhood, nor can the neighborhoodmonitor these uses. Mr. Harris recommends that the Commission refuse the application for a Master Use Permit and continue with individual review of programs on their own merits. Utilization of the remaining classrooms is important to the community and, from a financial standpoint, to the School District. The community favors using only the remaining three classrooms. Ms. •Elly Werner, 20076 LaRoda, Cupertino, commented on the lack of information for the neighborhood on organizations who wish to lease space from the School District. Because of this, she is not in favor of approving the Master Use Permit which removes any planning decisions from the neighborhood. The use of space in the schools creates, extra traffic problems for the neighborhood. As a member of the Traffic Committee, she does not wish to encourage any heavy traffic use in the neighborhood. She does not favor use of school facilities by profit making organizations and favors abiding by the original purpose and intent for which schools were placed in the communities. In summary, she favors separation of uses and individual review of use permits. The Public Hearing was then closed. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 PAGE 7 40 PC-488 ITEM 1 (Cont'd) Mr. Piasecki confirmed that without the recommendation from the Environmental Review Ca mittee, no decision from the Commission was possible; however, he requested that the Commissioners discuss and reach a consensus on the issues. This Application will be continued to the March 24th Planning Commission Meeting, at which time the Planning Commission's decision will be final. Due to the potential costs of individual applications for use permits, Con. Claudy asked Mr. Kilian if an open hearing could be initiated which would eliminate the cost of new fees. Mr. Kilian stated that the purpose of the hearing is to give notice to the neighborhood; at the very least the city would have to publish and mail. What part of the fees this uses is unknown. Public Hearings are set for a specific event. Perhaps the adoption of a schedule of fees that would reduce charges for same permit procedures would be appropriate. Mr. Kilian stated that fees could be waived. 1�roP Cam. Adams suggested a time limit on this application with review in a year; thus, fees would not be required again. Mr. Cowan stated that if there is a prescribed period of time in the use permit, fees are not • normally charged again. Cam. Claudy stated that the community is in an unfortunate situation where the School District is competing with private developers to lease out space available. Historically, schools have not been used in the way that the School District wants to use them now, certainly not for use in commercial development. We are seeing the need not only to rent out space but to rent it out to nontraditional activities. This is troubling. The other issues to be taken into account is attention to the rule of having no greater impact on the neighborhood then the school originally had. In addition, the idea of profit making organizations leasing space in the schools raises the question of whether the taxpayers are building commercial developments to rent. Cam. Adams stated that he is concerned about the question of whether the school system should become involved in commercial ventures; however, he has no objection to seeing a vacant school site being used for educational purposes. Such activities reduce the general tax dollar paid for schools while maintaining these school site for future use. He suggested the addition of a paragraph that would address the inconsistencies of permits that have been approved previously. He also favors individual review of future Use Permits with review of the Master Use Permit in a year. PLANNING COMMISSIWNENUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 PAGE,8 PC-488 Aft IIP ITEM 1 (Cont'd) Coin. Sorensen favors leasing of presently unused space in order to prevent vandalism and provide maintenance for these buildings. Cam. Mackenzie recognizes that the public hearing process has prevented unsuitable uses of the schools; in a 'number of cases the applicant withdrew the permit. Thus, the Commissioner is reluctant to negate this aspect of the Use Permit process. He alSo favors the yearly review, and suggested that existing permits being allowed to continue until the evaluation of the Master Use Plan. He suggested a Condition that requires review of rental contracts and their lessees similar to the provisions of Condition No. 21. Mr. Kilian suggested that the wording, "this rental agreement is subject to the Master Use Permit issued by the City of Cupertino. Any activities that are inconsistent with that Use Permit are not allowed." be added to the Condition. Chr. Szabo stated his concern with the Master Use Permit is the possibility that while individual lessors are not violating any limitations of the Master Use Plan, the collective activity may be in violation. The Chairman feels that the School District must be allowed reasonable use of their property since the District cannot abandon this property and must maintain this property without the power to raise taxes to provide these services. Rental of these properties allows the School District to absorb the costs entailed. In addition, prohibition of all profit making enterprises is an unsound idea; for example, there are profit makingi day care centers and Cupertino desperately needs these centers. Schools are ideal for this type of center. These and similar profit making enterprises are appropriate. Com. Claudy added that the Commission's role is to ensure that the long range uses are broadly educational. Chr. Szabo stated that the question of whether or not to approve a Master Use Permit is dependent upon constructing guidelines that are reasonable and Ithat prevent abuses. He feels that guidelines can be written which guarantee that the use of these facilities will not intrude upon the community. Elimination of the required fees for individual applicants is required since these applicants cannot afford this expense and it is in the community's interest that these services be provided. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 PAGE 9 PC-488 410 ITEM 1 (Cont'd) It appears from experience that communication from the City and the School District has not been sufficient. Chr. Szabo requested development of a method to grant the Master Use Permit with clearly defined uses that protect the community. With regard to specific applications, residents should be notified of their ability to approach the Planning Commission with their input on an individual permit application. Mr. Piasecki suggested the following guideline: Staff would notify everyone within a 300 foot perimeter upon making a determination of intent to issue a Use Permit advising people of their right to contest the permit. A lower fee could be charged for this service. Ms. Shurr clarified for the Commission that the School District does not have notification of neighbors about use permits which it issues, except on leases as stipulated in the State Education Code. Since there is no indicationCity's in this Codefootage, the District uses the Ci s regarding g , tY 300 foot perimeter in notifying residents. These Community Hearings, as they are called, are held at the site itself. Mr.Cowan suggested a review of Uses that may solicit community comment and perhaps require a separate hearing with lower fee schedules. Cam. Adams • concurred, suggesting a token fee that would cover mailing of notices to the public. Mr. Piasecki stated that the City presently has a $140 fee for interpretations or minor amendments to Use Permits. Perhaps this fee could be utilized. Mr. Piasecki summarized the discussion as follows. The Commission wishes the following additional Conditions written into the Master Use Permit: - 1) A clause that ties rental contracts to the Conditions of the Master Use Permit, and any specific limitations imposed by staff to insure compliance with that Permit. - 2) The Commission is automatically consenting and agreeing to the one year automatic review. - 3) That the staff should review Use mixture for compatibility. - 4) Existing Permits would be grandfathered. - 5) Development of a process for notifying neighborhood residents advising them of their rights to appear before this Commission and question the issuance of a Use under the Master Use Permit. Consensus was reached by the Commissioners in favor of the concept of a Master Use Permit with the proper conditions of notification of the community and recourse by the same for individual Use Permits, according to the staff's summary stated above. • PLANNING COMMISSION NUNUTFS Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 ' PAGE 10 PC-488 Aft ITEM 1 (Cont'd) Mr. Piasecki stated that this application will be referred back to the Environmental Review Committee for a determination as to whether a Negative Declaration should be granted. !'The Commission will then review the application and environmental recanm rydation at the March 24th meeting. MOTION: Cam. Mackenzie, to Continue Application 1 U-86 to the regular meeting of March 24, 1986. SECOND: Conn. Claudy I VOTE: Passed 1 5-0 Break 9:50 - 10:00 PUBLIC HEARINGS (New Items) 1 i I ITEM 2 ' - 1 Application No(s) 1-TM-86 and 2-U-86 Applicant: John Vidovich Property Owner: DeAnza Properties,' Location: North side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 400,ft. east of DeAnza • Boulevard Parcel Area(Acres) 8.9 gross USE PERK (2-U-86) To,;, construct and operate a 2-story, 11,600 sq. ft. office building and 1-story, 20,000 sq. ft. retail building and recognize existing church/school activities. TENTATIVE MAP (1-IM--86) To consolidate 7 parcels into 3 parcels with lot sizes ranging from 96,000 sq. ft. to 157,000 sq. ft. Break 9:50 - 10:00 P.M. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan stated that because there are questions of interpretation relating to the General 'Plan, this application is being �. presented for discussion. The fundamental plan for the community, as described in the General Plan, is to allow fairly high intensity activities in the Town Center area and the '.Vallco Park area; suburban style office and commercial buildings are allowed alon g Stevens Creek Blvd., North De Anza Blvd. and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. 411 li is III • .A4TATgOe TvTozauuuOo S OITE TTTgs Pue utzo3 buTpunq buTgseiaguT smut P 3O uoigeazo a/iq SMDTTP 11071m guauddoTanap esn pexpu 3o Tepotu auq sT uoTgdo aaugou' •4uoa3 uT buptzEd pus e s eeg og A4TINTsbaLxiv TsnsTA ao3 paau eeq se /ions 'suraTgod auos squesazd dugs slug buoTe quewdotanap TvTa a nuo0 Luetd Tezaue0 aug uT squauzas rbaz buTdeoSpu2T eqq g0eT3aa AITngeavo eaouz O . pazngonzgsaz eq uetd gain ue0 FYN sewooeq uoTgsenb a/iq • ua/iq 'Aortal buTuoZ•pue uetd TezauaD 3o suuaq uT edAA esn pueT aTge4de3oe UP sT TeToaaunuoo ge/iq uoTgeuTuuagap e/iq sawn uoTssTunuoo buTuueld a/iq 3I •)peggas wog 9 ATuo s uoTg TTdde s-Fq4 :x0egges 4.u0zg qoog OS gTOTTdxa us seq. buruoz 'uomppe u2 L4uo3. uT buT}tzed /igTM asTadzaque TezO.xaunun0 a buTMoTTP • Act quaundoTeAeep 3o puarq auk ebueg0 st/iq swop' i quaz3 aug uT armed eTgTssaooe seq uOTgzod TvTO.z9nA16g eq4 'alattembq lama eq4 O . buTxzed /iP.TM buTPTTnt eoT33o Azoq.s ooq E sT pesodazd ddeouoo au1, •queundoTanap sTuq oq PeTTdde se ubTsap TenngoagT/iaze Pus utzo3 buTPTT t suaeouoo enssT aa/igo eqj . .. (ooTTeA Pus .zaqua0 utoy •a•T) sepou ooq e/iq uaeMgeq gieu otanap A4Tsua4uT aamoT a uTequTeuz oq ssM quagtT aoceuz a/iq ge/iq sT uoTgtsod SIueMoQ •ays 'SSW sTuq uT saTTdde uoTgeubisep sTsvgdiva aoT33o a/iq ao STse/iduza TPToaaunuo0 a/iq xa/iga/iM buTpzebaz TTounoo ' TO eq4 3o uoTquaquT auq buTgazdxaquT 3o }iseq atiq unTM g3aT sT uOTSSTu moo butuu5Td a/iy •gueun5oTanap TeToxaunupo uT - ese0 aqq qou sT sTgl •qoe Cod geniq 3o soTumuooa aq4 oq guaurr z4.ep .zeTnzT4.zsd Cue gno/igTM 3peg uT pageooT eq Aeuz squeundoTanap eoT33o .zo3 &.rp zed LquewdoTanap aoT33o burzTseudura Aq seam xzed .oOTTen Pue Speoassoap 'aequao uIOiL uT SeT.TATPDP TSTO.zammoo ueaMgaq 4seaguo0 aageazb buTpTnod uT pagsazaquT uoTssTunuoO aqg sem (Z - •e gegdaooe SIouI eq q/ibTux Suuo3 buTPTTnq uT pug A4TAT4oe uT /igog eangeu AgzsuaquT MDT si;T Aq 'oT33o 4eq4 pue A zedazd TeTquapTsaz buTaoggbTau uo goegga eAigebau s SAE/i q/ibTuz TmTa/ammo sdegaad LPATH 3raaao SueAe.S EUOTS seams TeTguapTsaz a/iq butaapzoq saTgTATgoe A4TsuaquT MDT uT pagsazaguT uoTssTunuoo butuuetd a/i3 pue TTouno0 A4T0 aug S2M (T -• sanssT oMg sae axe , e SLM ue d S ue uoTss bu uue a - P��P T Tub uM T�'J td � Pue TTounoO A4T0 a/iq 3o quaquT a/iq 3o aznsun sT ;;s .s a •esn� eoT330 sT sTse/icTua auq •PATS ezuV eQ 3o ;sea seaza/iM 'TEToammoo sT (peas speoassox0) -PATS ezuv ea 3o apTs 4s9M auq u0 •PATS xaaalo SuaAp4s ao3 gdaouoo esn Pu2T TPePT ue sag aosap qI 'PATH szuv ea pus 'PATS xaaao sue/egs ao3 usTd buTuoZ Tsn4daouo0 SqT peqovue '.T0 auq 'uetd Texaua0 Sqg 30 uotgdops eqg . e;;v (P 1 gu03) Z maim 88t-0d • TT E'd 9861 ''Z gad 3o buTgeaw aurnead su)NIw NOISSIN O IINNYId � t PLANNING COMMISSION' MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 PAGE';12 PC-488 • Tram (Cont'd) In summary, the applicant's pruposal to redevelop this area is positive and the assembly of properties is very positive. The issues primarily relate to the site planning concept and not necessarily to the intensity. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. John Vidovich, applicant, stated that he had submitted a site plan and wished to clarify had the property sits. There are seven parcels with an average depth of 105 feet which makes it very difficult to develop by itself. The present layout had a lot to do with haw the property will be developed; cooperative efforts with the Church allow this project additional trip counts. The Church felt that the development of this adjacent property would enhance the area and their ultimate use of the Property. In addition, the City needs to consider, the existing uses of developed properties. Mr. Dempster's building and the dentist's building are substantial for the site and cover a large floor area. On the west side there is an existing use permit for the smaller piece of property. The issues identified by the applicant are: 1) Commercial use and design: there's 20,000 feet commercial and 12,000 feet office. The General Plan requires an office emphasis, but does allow retail. In this spots, retail is appropriate. Office development on Stevens Creek Blvd. is because of the market. The General Plan allows much greater densities for office and this meant greater profits. Thus sane retail space was lost. 2;) Design issues: Retail is an urban use and the building is designed with an urban character in mind. With regard to a parking lot in front, the site is across from a parking lot which is much larger; this doesn't seem inconsistent with what's going on in the surrounding area. 3) Trips issue: The church has surplus trips and these can be used. 4) Boulevard setbacks: Taking into account that this development carbines seven parcels which have al very narrow depth, the 35 foot setback is appropriate in this case. Combining properties has eliminated at least five driveways. Other buildings dings along Stevens Creek Blvd. have 35 foot setbacks. ' _ 11 PLANNING ODMMISSION MINUTES ° Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 PAGE 13 PC-488 ITEM 2 (Cont'd) With regard to the Conditions, he objects to Condition No. 21 of the subdivision map. It is to the City's advantage for them to combine these parcels whether they tear the buildings down or not. Once combined, the City has the ability to require one development on this property. This is far more favorable than piecemeal development. The applicant also objects to Condition No. 20 of the Use Permit which requires a traffic study. This application may not be approved by the City Council and it is fairly obvious that the church has surplus trips. This would be an extra expense and could possibly be made a condition after approval. Mr. Tom Boyd, Architect, stated that the mixed-use concept is unique for development in this area. A separate parking lot in the rear of the site has been created for the office parking which is long term. The buildings of this project are considerably further back from the property line as compared to other buildings along the boulevard. In response to Cam. Adams' questions, Mr. Boyd stated that a decorative screen wall was to be placed along the north property line. Cam. Adams 40 commented that this area is a play area for neighborhood children. Trash containers will be located in the northwest corner of the property. Only the Fir tree will be saved; there are no other appropriate trees on the site to retain. The air conditioning units will be below the parapet line on the retail stores and will not be seen from the street. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Jim Martin, 10325 Plum Tree Lane, Cupertino, stated he is pleased with this development and feels it will be a big improvement from what is presently there. He asked if, in the future, there would be a road from Vista Drive to De Anza Blvd. and secondly, would traffic be generated through the neighborhood to use Vista Drive? Finally, will there be on-street parking in front of the complex? Mr. Cowan stated that it would be difficult to have an access from Vista Avenue. Mr. Brian Wilson, 20401 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, stated that he is in favor of the project as it is attractive, and solves a problem area in the City of Cupertino. Mr. Wilson requested that the Planning Commission approve this application. I. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 � ' PAGE14 PC-488 411 ITEM,;2 (Cont'd) MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Cam. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 Cain. Mackenzie commended Mr. Vidovich for combining seven pieces of property in one development; possibly this justifies the 35 foot setback. The Commissioner expressed concern regarding the trip transfer from the Chruch and would like to see an accounting of this before final approval. The retail-commercial mix is in close proximity to the Crossroads Center and he does not see a problem with mixed use in this location. Cam. Claudy also commended the applicant for unifying seven pieces of property. He stated that one of the reasons why commercial was deexihasized in discussions concerning thed;General Plan was to protect the viability of Vallco and other existing retail centers. Residents along Wheaton Avenue especially were concerned and felt strongly that they would rather see office uses rather than late night/weekend activity. On this site, the Commissioner does not see any particular problem with commercial use, althoug h the 35 foot setback is the issue that is of most concern. Com. . Adams concurred with Com. Claudy ';and cautioned the applicant to carefully screen the the air conditioning units. The 35 foot setback is acceptable; possibly incorporation of Cam. Claudy's idea to depress the parking area would be helpful as well. Com. Sorensen prefers a 50 foot setback, but will accept the 35 feet proposed. She stated a preference for other architechical designs than ` I presented here, but will accept the applicant's design. - i Chr. Szabo concurred with the above comments and is in favor of this project. With regard to the question of transferring trips, Cam. Mackenzie stated that � when the Gene ral Plan was adopted, thequestion was raised, Does the �� Church have trips? Is it assumed to be a church Ps or a developed property with trips? Mr. Cowan stated that from his research it is evident that there is the ability to transfer trips. Trips can be transferred if the Church property itself is involved in the proposal; in this case, the transfer can be made. However, it is not ]mown how many trips are made during the peak hours of 4:00 - 6:00 P.M. by the existing church school and rectory. 6 410 nfeem sT744 Peiiuu eq TT tIeTP aad pua eau; aTa eq4 ao; seousnpy •a0uaaaeuo0 at. bps eau otim sTEnpTATpur ete ao3 epuu uaag eAtiq suoT;;Azasaa quq4 paguqs ueur0 •aki - norm a is UDIINLrrd am d0 m0dau '986T 'ZZ traa uo ag IUM aauuTa siaauoTsszux ate l Pe4P4s ogezS 'atp - NOISSIWWOO WINNVId am d0 imam au0K - SSSmSfIS mart euoN - SSamisnS QZ0 0-5 Pesssd :MO& salupq 1E00 :QN003S '9Z Pue 5Z suoMPuop il'eans0Taue tjsua . pue„ epnTour o4 vZ uoT;Tpuop '£Z - 9T suompuoO 'ST-T suo- -Tpuoo paepue4s t14TM '986T 'bZ Aaunaqaa 3o sagnutW uOTSSTUAUO3 buruue1d ate ur pagegs suoisnTouoogns Pus sbuTpuT3 et. o. gecgns 99-n-a uo TgotTddy go Tunoadda jo uoT;upuammooaa aoj pen=ut uesueaog •u D :imam 0-S pesssa :mom suV 'uc :aNQQaS 'ZZ cUe TZ suOT.Tpuoo 04 £Z Pus ZZ suoT;Tpuop ebuutlo pu 'T Z uoTgTpuoo q wo 'o Z - 9T suOTg?Puo0 'ST-T suompuoo paupus}S tr4TM '9861 'tz Zamnaqua ;o sagnuiut uoTssTu1 buTuuuTd et . UT pia4g4s suotsngouoogns pus sburpur3 etP. og 4oacqns98-1nZ?-T uo "ngoTTddY go TEnoadde ao; panau uesuazOS 'WO :NOLIGNI 0-5 Pesspd :aMOA salgPV quo0 :moms •98-l1-Z uo-moTTddV ao; uoTg Toea eATgebaN E gueab 04 Penouz ApnLTO ' :NOTION (P 1 guo0) Z410 JnIIs2 8817-0a STSJ'dd 9861 'i7Z Aaunaqaa 3o burgaaw aeTn5e i Sa`OMIM NOISSINWOO S IIrIIdF2'Id I � PLANNING COMMISSION M NUTFB Regular Meeting of February 24, 1986 PAGE 16 PC-488 i ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded its business, the planning commission adjourned at 11:05 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of March 10, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. Attested: /s/Dorothy Cornelius Dorothy Cornelius City 'Clerk j . Approved by the Planning Commission At the Regular Meeting of , 1986:. /s/Nicholas Szabo Nicholas -Szabo, Chairman • is