Loading...
PC 04-28-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupert~no. CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-331 Page 1 MINUTES/APRIL 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Chairman Koenitzer Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Attorney Foley Planning Director Sisk (arrived later) APPROVAL/MINUTES of April 14, 1980 (PC-330, pp. 1 to 12) Com. Blaine, page 6, (cf. Motion, Condition #16, change to read "...dwe11ings constructed adjacent to Tract 3628...;" and add "...single story homes that do not have windows facine on other yards; or two-story homes that do not have windows facing on other yards; or, in any other manner that the developer would like to propose" Com. Claudy, page 2, par 2, line 2, change number to 1980. Page 3, par. 4, line I, change spelling, "ruled." Page 4, par. 5, line 14, delete sentence, "A change from 108-1841" Page 9, par. 4, line 17/18, delete sentence not completed. Chr. Koenitzer, page 11, par. 5, line 7, insert to read: "delivered to the street in front of the property, was col- lected...." MOTION: Com. Adams, Approve Minutes as amended. SECOND: Com. Blaine PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 APPROVAL/MINUTES of April 16, 1980 (PC-330, pp. 13-19:1-7) Com. Blaine, page 3, Motion #3, insert: Second by Com. Blaine; PASSED, UNANIMOUSLY 3-0 Page 4, cf. Motion, Condition '17, line 6, change to ~ead, "... edge of the parking...." Com. Koenitzer, page 2, par 2, delete lines 4 & S. period after back on line 3. Page 5, par. 6, line 7, change "hole" to "poll." Page 7. par. 3, line 4, insert after (rather detailed), "...for privacy intrusion, when adding 2nd stories to ex- isting homes, in instances...." MOTION: Com. Blaine, Approve Minutes as amended. SECOND: Com. C1audy ABSTAINED: Com. Adams PASSED: Insert 3-1 PC-33l Page 2 MINUTES/APRIL 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Cowan requested that ITEM 84 be withdrawn from the calendar pending completion of Staff work, setting of a new date for public hearing, and readvertisement of the Subdivision Ordinance on a future Agenda. ' MOTION: Com. Blaine, Remove ITEM #4 from Calendar. SECOND: Com. Adams PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #1, Application 1-GPA-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to consider various amendments to the City of Cupertino General Plan including, but not limited to (1) Land use changes for a number of individual properties lo- cated throughout the community; (2) An evaluation of alter- native land use types and development intensities for property located within the southwest corner of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard; (3) A refinement of the City's Circulation Plan including a plan to provide long- term financing of major transportation improvements. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date -- May 19, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan introduced the Staff Renort of Aoril 25, 1980 that was accompanied by a Matrix Land Use Dotion I and Land Use Option II slide --- the matrices of which nrovided a nropositional description of the logical use of land within the Core Areas of the City of Cupertino. Mr. Cowan noted that with the formation of the new City Council on April 21, 1980, a feeling had grown that there .shou1d be a change in emphasis on general planning con- siderations in terms of Core Areas -- the emphasis being placed on retaining neighborhood character rather than a previous emphasis on housing opportunity increase within the Core Area. The Staff Report of April 25, 1980, as presented, listed items related to "neighborhood compatibility" and "quality." Maps posted on the board showed: 1. Ocher color - basically low density. 2. Purple color - planned for industrial activity. 3. Red color - commercial. 4. Dark brown color _ land designated for high density development (primarily properties of De Anza Boulevard near Homestead Road bor- dered by Stevens Creek Boulevard. I MI~UTES/APRIL 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNINC COMMISSION MEETINC PC-33l Page 3 Mr. Covan pointed OU~ that tbe Genera1 Plan, a color-coded copy of which was posted on the board, was adopted in 1979 and embodied principles in written or unwritten understand in s of 20 years. The accepted principle of major emphasis had been to introduce different activities on Stevens Creek and North De Anza Boulevard to break up the strip commercial zoning pattern. It was pointed out th.t high density de- velopments had been felt to be realistic for the purpose of breaking the pattern of strip commercial. Mr. Cowan quickly ran down the list of Components of Neigh- borhood Quality, explaining the relative term and des- I cription of the categories. I COM. BLAINE said she had no difficulty with the defining of things of II quality for neighborhoods, and there were things she'd like to add. She pointed out that the City has an approved General Plan and an aonrov¡ ed set of goals. However, she pointed out that since there seemed to bp. difficulty between the Council and Commission in interoreting and im- plementing the approved General Plan, she asked that a Workshon with the City Council be scheduled. The rurpose of the meeting would be to clarify the Council's position on the goals and the nolicies of the General Plan, and also to seek direction for the Planning Commission. COM. ADAMS, COM. CLAUDY, AND CHR. KOENITZER agreed with the statement I and approved the suggestion of a Joint Meeting Workshop, CHR. KOENITZER asked if there was a copy of the completely I approved General Plan. He had three (3) drafts but no final draft. A lengthy discussion was held relative to the var- ( ious items to be discussed in a Workshop. CHR. KOENITZER asked for input from the public. * ) Ms. Nancy Bennewig, 10546 Merriman Road, Cupertino, said that as a past candidate for City Council she had been mon- itoring Planning Commission meetings, and she had been working with the Staff for seven years. She charged that in speaking to Staff, she had felt that her neck of the wood (Mont a Vista and up Foothill) was treated like poor re- lations. Particularly she noted that people moved into the area for a rural atmosphere, but the Staff was intent upon improving streets, installing gutters and sidewalks. A Straw Vote asking people to indicate where they drive to and what stores they use for shopping and why they do so might help generate some insight into what was needed in Cupertino Rosemary Callahan, 19954 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino, asked for the maps to be shown again. She said ~e agreed with the Commissioners that a Workshop should be established to in- clude the Planning Commission, City Council and citizens in the form of a committee. Exhibiting the 1972 General Plan for Cupertino, she said that it called for the General Plan being reviewed and revised, which had been done as late as July of 1979, But the July 1979 revision had not in- cluded input from a Citizens' Committee. Mrs. Callahan felt citizens should be included in whatever program was adopted. Mr. Jim Way, 20182 Rodrigues, Cupertino, introduced himself as a newcomer to Cupertino (from Mountain View). Having 1 PC-331 Page 4 INUTES/APRIL 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING oved away from high density, he said he hoped the Com- ission would maintain the area as rural as possible. r. John Foster, 20212 Rodrigues Avenue, Cupertino, said hat although he had come to the meeting on another matter, e seconded the things that Mr. Way had said. Having isited throughout the neighborhood that is a short dis- tance from the planned rezoning, he was shocked to find that the residents did not know of what was planned. He sked that the residents be informed of what was going on, in the Workshop and also as to plans for neighborhoods. OM. KOENITZER advised that notification was always sent to all residents living within 300 feet of a proposed development; people immediately adjacent. Although the State law doesn't require direct notification, he stated that the Cupertino Planning Commission had always been in- terested in notifying any people in contiguous areas. Only property owners were notified. Tenants would not be otified except for unusual circumstances. r. John Callahan, 19954 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino, re- fering to the Assistant Planning Director~ review, in re- gard to traffic density, said he took a traffic study every orning, waiting for lights on the way to work, and he labeled the area saturated with traffic and unable to and1e further traffic spilling out from newly raised apart- ent buildings. School children crossing the streets had become a major problem since schools had closed down. He said he felt that basically there was no Core Area in Cupertino -- Cupertino was a City and all the areas in the City are working together. He felt there was not one area designated the Core Area, or the implied blighted area. He called for a combined meeting with the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Citizens. (Applause from public.) r. David Ko e1s, 10161 Bilich Place, Cupertino, expressed concern on some comments he'd heard. Traffic and the quality of life in structures placed on Stevens Creek. The state- ment that a 700 sq. ft. one-bedroom apartment would generate less traffic than a 2,200 sq. ft. structure might not be true any longer. He said the smallest unit was apt to gen- erate a two-car ownership, plus recreational vehicles or craft. Parking facilities did not seem to be adequate on plans he had seen. '..... COM. ADAMS asked the Staff if it was not policy for notice to be given in the local newspapers as to what the Planning Commission was considering at each meeting. He asked if The Cupertino Scene was sent to every homeowner in the city. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said the City did adver- tise but that not too many requests for information came in. He called it very frustrating. People did not audit ongoing proceedings month after month -- interest faded. COM. BLAINE, noting that the General Plan was not static, said it would always be under review and require auditing. MINUTES/APRIL 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-331 Page 5 COM. CLAUDY reminded the public ~ateach of the members of the Planning Commission (the four present and a soon-to-be- appointed fifth member); and members of the City Council wer all citizens of the City of Cupertino -- a part of the pub- lic. He said they were unique in that they had been appoint ed or elected to the body they represented. They had had to apply and ask to be appointed to the Planning Commission. It was their duty to divorce themselvis from "tunnel vision" in favor of looking at the City as a whole unit Mrs. Ann AnRer, Monta Vista resident, said she had been fol- lowing development of the City of Cupertino and Monta Vista at the local level, county level and state level (Sacra- mento) for a long time. Traffic in Cupertino, she said, was aggravated by the commuters coming through from the southern communities. The extension of the 85 Corridor had to be put through. She said for four years they had been hammering at Cal Trans and legislators, ABAG, MTC, and all agencies with jurisdiction. She said she saw the biggest problem as being with the governor and the transportation director at Sacra- mento. Twelve developers wished to build on the corridor and there is no way of stopping them. Having gone up to Sacramento five times this year todate, alone, she knew that they needed funds to maintain and improve and extend the corridor in order to prevent building on it by property owners who had been paying taxes for 25 years. At the prese t time there was a study (EIR) scheduled for two weeks hence, which in the past had been characterized as necessary to any decisions on the corridor: and, even so, it seemed that they were in worse shape than three years ago. She said they wer actually losing the corridor. At a meeting she had organ- ized locally, legislators, ABAG representatives, Cal Trans, Chamber of Commerce represent~tives, labor and industry representatives, the final outcome was that nobody could say what could be done about the corridor. She invited the people of Cupertino to start "screaming." She suggested a petition be circulated for signatures throughout all the neighborhoods of Cupertino -- -registered and non-registered voters were eligible to sign such a petition. She noted that the candidates for election to the City Council had not called to check on the corridor; yet, that was part of the platform they ran on. In conclusion, Mrs. Anger said that in her work on committees in Santa Clara County she had been told repeatedly that Cupertino was one of the best balanced communities on the Peninsula. Mr. Marvin Grimes, 10174 Randy Lane, Cupertino, informed the Commissioners that he had moved to the area from Southern California, and he said he was familiar with what happened to many of the communities down there. In his opinion, if the City got involved in Core Area and high density, and tearing down certain property to put up high density devel- opments, then the question arises of how soon it would be necessary to have one's own police and fire departments to support. Having had to wait his turn to come into the com- munity and finally arriving didn't mean that he had to agree to allow in a lot of other people. Police and fire depart- ments required raised taxes, which should be considered if PC-33l Page 6 MINUTES/APRIL 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING the Planning Commission and the City Council were going to insist upon high density. Mr. Jim Joy, 19811 Price Avenue, Cupertino, said that he lived in the Core Area in a house he bought thirteen months previously, and trying to find out what was going to go onto the empty lots isn't easy. The City had zoned it com- mercial was the information he got. And, Mr. Joy said the Planning Department had given him the wrong information. Mr. Joy recommended that citizens be alert and aware of what was going on in the City of Cupertino. He noted that as the General Plan had changed there was a real departure from the kind of developments that had been done and the kinds to expect in the future. He likened the situation to the building pattern of New York City (around Broadway), where condominiums and high density were solutions for yesteryears; the degeneration having set in proving that the original building patterns had not been wise. He did not wish the same thing to happen to Cupertino. (Applause) Mr. Joy asked about the various areas colored in on the maps on the board. CHR. KOENITZER identified the various areas and their uses as in compliance with the General Plan (which he pointed out was under the process of revision). He noted that there was comparatively little land left for future development. The steeply sloped areas were identified and noted as being unlikely locations for high density development. Mr. Tom Siron, 20064 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino, compli- mented Assistant Planning Director Cowan and the Com- missioners for the input presented in the Staff Review. Mr. Siron said he felt most of the audience had come to the meeting because of interest in the two pieces of property on Stevens Creek. Speaking for himself, he wished to ask the Staff and Commissioners to carefully consider the areas in terms of parks and recreation. Although the City had parks and recreation areas (they were identified), Mr. Siron said there did not seem to be any in his part of town. A public swimming pool for children and adults was suggested as something the Commissioners and the City Council might wish to consider. He asked if the City Council would have the responsibility of approving an ad hoc committee for review of the General Plan. COM. CLAUDY reminded the Commissioners that the City Council was meeting in the Conference Room, and he suggested that they be asked to commit themselves to a joint commission and council meeting prior to leaving the building. Assistant Planning Director Cowan volunteered to approach the City Council for a date for a joint meeting. MINUTES/APRIL 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-331 Page 7 Mr. M. C. O'Shea, 20367 Clay Street, Cupertino, said he had several points he'd like to offer, quickly, for considerati n by the Commission: 1) As a citizen, it was difficult to work and separate two issues -- the first issue being what was felt for the whole city and the other issue being what was in one's own backyard; 2) Frustrations arose, and he asked that his statements not be considered offensive; 3) There was a need to look at ways to improve involving citizens and government agencies; 4) A change of approach was needed because during the last few years the citizens were not involved early enough over a broad geographic area 5) As for the City Council, there was need to convert the citizens, the Planning Commission and the City Council into a "WE" attitude, instead of an us and theM; 6) He stated that his contacts with citizens indicated they rejected preferential zoning in the City, and in many cases it simp1 was not understood; 7) Cases could be Made for areas of the foothills, etc., but he felt clarification was needed; 8) If high density was essential, he felt it should not be based down in the Core Area. Mr. O'Shea asked for a moratorium on all growth until Route #85 was extended to Prospect Road and Highway 9, and focus the energy out of the town rather than on each other within the town. Finally, until shown otherwise, the town should adopt a policy that no new development could exceed 150% of the existing average development of the town -- a average of 10-12 units/net (not gross) acre. Finally, a height restriction of 25 ft. to 35 ft. should be adopted. Each COMMISSIONER made statements regarding the Staff ( * ) Report, attitudes and opinions of the public, and supporte a Joint Planning Commission and City Council Special Meeting. Assistant Planning Director Cowan returned with the infor- mation that the City Council was available for a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission on May 6, 1980 at 6 o'clock p.m., (Tuesday). BY CONSENSUS the members of the PLANNING COMMISSION agreed to the Joint Meeting date and the time for a WORKSHOP. COM. KOENITZER announced that the public would be welcome to attend the Joint Meeting but the meeting would not be a Public Hearing. SECOND: PASSED: Com. Blaine, Continue ITEM Workshop with City Council 6:00 p.m. Com. Claudy UNANIMOUSLY #1, I-GPA-80 to a on May 6, 1980, at MOTION: 4-0 RECESS: 10:40 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. PC-331 Page 8 INUTES/APRIL 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM #2, Application 26-TM-79 (Revised) of REGNART CREEK ESTATES: TENTATIVE MAP to modify the exhibits and con- ditions of approval relating to access to a recently ap- proved five lot subdivision and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the north side of Orogrande Place approximately 230 ft. esterly of Stelling Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - May 5, 1980. ssistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report (revised) of April 25, 1980 by Planning Director Sisk., which proposed amending Condition #21 to provide access to two lots per Exhibit A, 2nd Revision (Planning ommission Resolution No. 2021), Festival Drive right-of- ay access. t was pointed out that the easement might become the ermanent access to future development of the property cross Regnart Creek, and it might eliminate the right- f-way across Route 85. OM. BLAINE said she'd like it added that if the City hould put something in on Route 85, without State coop- ration, that she'd like to keep all their (City) options pen. ssistant Planning Director Cowan said he felt that the ecision would be in by the time Mr. Whaley had his ermits and started work. A temporary access would be aintained during the interim. OM. BLAINE mentioned the possibity of eventual improve- ent of the temporary access (Festival Drive) assuming he State did not provide access, and she asked who would e financially responsible for the improvements. r. Warren P. Whale, Jr., Applicant, responded that he ppreciated the concern and advised that the bonding equirement covered the situation - the bond being with he development. He said the item was to be on the next ighway Commission Agenda, and he foresaw no reason for he State not to relinquish Festival Drive if Route 85 s not improved by the City or by the State. Mr. Whaley tated that it had been the lender that had held up the atter until full access could be acquired -- map re- ordation was contingent upon having access. OM. BLAINE inquired of Mr. Whaley whether or not he ould be adverse to relinquishing the easement if Festival rive was approved -- ~e1inquishment being to the City. r. Whaley said, "No.' In that case there would be no need or the easement." UBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams. ASSED: UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Claudy 4-0 MINUTES/AP~IL 28, 1980 ~EGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-331 Page 9 MOTION: SECOND: Com. Adams, Approval of Negative Declaration. Com. Blaine. PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 SECOND: PASSED: Com. Adams, Recommend Approval 26-TM-79 Revised, as per Pindings and Subconclusions outlined in Staff Report; Standard Conditions 11 through 114; 115 as revised; 118, 119, and #21 as noted in Staff Report Com. Claudy UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 MOTION: ITEM 13, CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Comprehensive Noise Ordinance relative to the control of noise originating within the City. First Hearing. Tenta- tive City Council hearing date - May 19, 1980. Consultant on Noise Control, Mr. Stan Shelly, stated that the development of the ordinance was a compromise between what one would like to do and what is possible to do to pro- vide for the City in terms of environment. Mr. Shelly said that the ordinance was not perfect but it was workable. He asked if there were any questions. CHR. KOENITZER requested that the Commissioners go through the ordinance by the page and comment, suggest changes, and/ or additions. Mr. Shelly, Consultant, 10404 Paradise Drive, Cupertino, noted the comments, suggestions and changes. Mrs. Jo Ann Gholson, 22125 Regnart Road, Cupertino, COm- mented on the noise ordinance, asked for clarifications, and made suggestions, which Mr. Shelly noted. Mrs. Gerrv O'Hara, 10404 Paradise Drive, Cupertino, asked that provision be made for the owner of an establishment to be covered to take responsibility for violation of servicin vehicles and personnel. She related one instance of vio- lation of a truck arriving on site about 6:00 a.m., running the motor loudly. The Sheriff, who arrived about 6:30 a.m., after being called, refused to cite the vehicle in the ab- sence of a driver. Assistant City Attorney Foley advised that language could b included to cite owners for violations. In the case of a vehicle, if it was timed past three (3) minutes, it was possible the vehicle could be tagged. PC-331 Page 10 MINUTES/APRIL 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 'Assistant City Attorney Foley requested thst the Noise Ordinance be restructured to address rebuttable pre- su.ptions -- Provisions of Article VI; the basic stan- dards, are indeed the basic standards. The noise 1i.its for daytime and nighttime had to be set up as rebuttable presu.ptions; otherwise..court challenge on it would s.ount to its being considered arbitrary and capricious. MOTION: Co.. Blaine, to Continue Noise Control Ordinance to the Regular Planning Com.ission Meeting of Tuesday, May 27, 1980. Co.. C1audy UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 SECOND: PASSED: UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Planning Direct Sisk advised the me.bers of the Planning Co..ission of a meeting to be held the next night (Tues- day, April 29, 1980) in the Creston neighborhood, Stevens Creek Sehool at 7:30 p.... The meeting was for tbe purpose of discussing annexation under the MORGA ¡laws. ADJOURNMENT 11:45 p... ( * ) N.B. Attached is digest of the lengthy discussion re- fered to (Pages 7A through 7B). ATTEST: ~êa:> ity Cl erk APPROVED : £j)j;r+ '1-- MINUTES PC-33l, April 28, 1980 7A DIGEST/COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS ON ITEM #1 In response to a citizen: COM. KOENITZER identified industrial-zoned property -- purple-colored areas on the Land Use Mðp on the right-hand side of the drawings posted on the board. He said that it could be seen that there is comparitively little left. Almost all of the remaining land was designated as being in the Va11co In- dustrial Park. He su~gested Val1co be approached about change of zoning on it. If the speaker thoug~ land was expensive, he suggested the speaker asked Va11co what they were asking for the land they owned. He noted that the area had been under de- velopment; such as overpassed or other things for over fifteen years, and possibly longer. On the yellow-coded land to the southwest, except for Seven Springs Ranch, he noted that most of the land was steep- ly sloped and not very useable for anything or anyone for planning over a density of 1-5 units/acre, single-family homes. COM. ADAMS recalled that the Commission had looked at the General Plan (for the last few years) and had a con- sultant give a study of the commercial area and what could be excessive and what numbers could be used in certain areas. The General Plan was pretty close to the consultant's report or study. COM. BLAINE added that office space had been studied also. COM. CLAUDY said he would like to add that they were talking about the undeveloped industrial land. He noted that Four-Phase was under construction, a site with permits granted to Mariani, and Dr. Brown's (behind Ski Any Mountain). He said the only property zoned industrial in the City was owned by Vallco. In the the upper righthand corner. There was one small area of land adjacent to the railroad tracks in Monta Vista. That area was rezoned and changed to straight commercial. COM. KOENITZER pointed out that the rezoned land was Borth and the rezoned land was south -- the cannery area. ------- In response to a question re ad hoc committee -- COM. KOENITZER instructed that that would be initiated and determined by the City Council as to whether or not a group (of any kind) should be gotten together to restudy the General Plan. COM. BLAINE reminded the Commissioners and the speaker that the Commission members could make such a recommendation. MINUTES PC-331, April 28, 1980 7B COM. CLAUDY made the suggestion that the City Council, ·meeting in the building, could be approached for a special Joint City Council-Planning Commission Workshop immediately and probably a date could be set. COM. BLAINE said she'd like to ~dd a few things to a neighborhood quality index for consideration. We have to add privacy to the visual or functional ambiance. As a separate item spoken to, noise should be con- sidered. It was one of the points made by a speaker with regard to new high densit~ development -- the noise generated by proximity to the old project. She said she'd like to add conveniences to certain neighborhood; walking to a market was impossible. Convenience shopping or neighborhood commercial ..._~----_.- She said that when they talked about street capacity, maybe it could be noted that in addition to the landscaping, in talking about curbs and gutters and lighting she had some questions of concern that she'd like to discuss. COM. ADAMS said he thought structural size of building, actual floor space; and height of structures, were two ele- ments of intensity that were self-explanitory as mass could be appreciated. Size of the building to the site itself was very important. COM. CLAUDY stated that there were a couple of things that struck him to comment on; although, they were things that could not be settled immediately, but certainly things that could be thrown into the thinking. He explained that they alluded to 20 dwellings or 12, or whatever numbers, of site/acre without saying the number of square feet we are allowing per unit. Maybe it should be tackled as allowing X many feet of living area per unit -- divide that up in some manner to denote density figures. The other thing he thought of was a chat with a de- veloper. The question was raised about the approach to be used. He said they zoned a density range (whatever the figures), say 5-10 units/acre; and, then the developer comes in at the high end. We thereupon turn around and usually argue them down to a lesser number. The developer's sug- gestion was that we think about adopting a fixed density, hammer it out with the residents and advise the developer it will be. At that point, Com. C1audy continued, it would be up to the developer to come up with a good plan - the real concern, in addition to traffic, privacy, etc., being esthetics. When the time comes to argue about an application, it is no longer a density factor. It is a layout factor. The developer knows that he's got to come out with a good plan. In many cities there are moritoriums to the extent that there are fifty building permits available. Com. Claudy said these were a couple of things he felt it was important to think about. A lot of the problems MINUTES, PC-331, April 28, 1980 7C come in because they have a density RANGE instead of a density figure. He felt it might take a little more hammering out and more discussion to come up with thefigures. It is not the way the present General Plan is written. And, he added, it would represent a radical change. However, it made sense to him. COM. BLAINE reminded the Commis~ioners that they had talked about that when they had been discussing a range of 20-35 units/acre. There is a tremendous difference between 10-20 and 20-35, etc. Whenever we were talking about making smaller ranges, we didn't follow through and do it. CRR. KOENITZER said that's one of the things, perhaps, that the General Plan review should look at. There are cer- tain things you can do when you are building 25-30 units/acre that are totally uneconomical at 15-20 units/acre. With slab over for parking -- the fire department requirements make it expensive. As an example of underneath parking, in the Sunnyvale Town Center, a van could not be driven or fit into to get somebody out during a heart attack. He asked how realistic some of these things are. They are certainly concerns over development, but he said he didn't know that they would have any better luck at getting agreement from the citizens if we held a meeting or workshop on six units. Having had hearings on the General Plan Amend- ments for 5-10, it seemed to him that one of the things they tended to look at was the density at the same time as they were looking at the design of the building. COM. BLAINE said that that shouldn't be. When we are setting the General Plan, we are setting broad ranges -- setting density broad-range densities on the zoning map. Then, in comes an application -- COM. CLAUDY interrupted to state that they were setting density as a range. There is no controversy because we can't foresee what it's going to look like. It is when they are going to zone with the General Plan they plan a set of sketches that worry individuals -- these windows or the the fourth floor. It's hard to separate that from zoning. COM. ADAMS commented that the original idea of the zoning ranges was that once you fix a density it gives the Council and the Planning Commission latitude to look at the overall influence of the proposed project to the surrounding neighborhood. Once you fix the density at the one limit, that's what you have to buy. You don't have the flexibility of innovative design concent. He stated that he'd rather stay with the ranges. COM. BLAINE suggested that maybe they could be smaller ranges and not such a hugh split. CHR. KOENITZER remarked that it would not be part of ordinances, but at least the rough description of the kind MINUTES PC-331, April 28, 1980 of thing we'd like to expect to see in that denRity range. If you pick 25-30 or 30-35, we expect to see three-story buildings over underground parking, smaller units of 800 to 1,200 sq. ft.. If you are going to 15-20 range, you are going to have two-story units, parking structures, or cardboard type structures or otherwise, and units of 1,500 sq. ft.. 7D COM. BLAINE suggested they should go beyond density range and discuss uses. COM. CLAUDY said that would be Planned Development. You expect to live there with age groups. You are talking about restrictive general planning and zoning. I hear the public saying that's what they'd like, he concluded. COM. BLAINE said the public would like some input. COM. CLAUDY puts they'd like to on what's going on. said that he felt that one of the out- see is the most restrictive conditions These are things to think about, he said. about. CRR. KOENITZER said he thought it was worth talking COM. CLAUDY said they should be candid. If you provide the opportunity and advertise it well and do a good job, and the public chooses not to make that time, even though you are holding very public hearings, if people choose not to take part, then they honestly have less right to com- plain about it. COM. BLAINE said she had something else she'd for- gotten to mention. Perhaps we have to talk about orientation of the property or structures. Some property can be oriented towards one part of the neighborhood rather than another. Depending upon the orientation of the property in question, she said that when they started talking about compatability with the other things, they might be looking at two different directions. COM. CLAUDY: Not to take away from the walls and fences. COM. ADAMS: Add that to the visual function -- CHR. KOENITZER said he felt they had discussed some ideas for another hearing. He asked for a motion to continue l-GPA-80 APDCowan asked if they'd like to decide upon a Workshop. After consultation with the City Council (meeting in the Conference Room, it was agreed that a Workshop would be held (with the City Council) on May 6, 1980, Tuesday evening at 6:00 p.m.; and the motion to Continue l-GPA-80 was passed.