Loading...
PC 11-26-79 ~- CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-320 Page 1 MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 7: 30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman Gatto Commissioner Claudy commissioner Adams Commissioner Koenitzer Commissioner Blaine Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner piasecki Assistant City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Engineer Whitten APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 1979 Commissioner Adams: Page 6, par. 6, add the word "of· after "...Staff review...." Commissioner Claudy: Page 4, par. 5, change to read ·by the designer, by the builder, by the Architectural Site Committee, and the Staff." Page 7, par. 3, strike "So be the speech I " Page 8, line 3, change to include Staff. Page 13, par. 3, change to read ·...should not be required to make off-site improvements...." Page 17, par. 3, change "...in the subject development...· to read ·...from the same developer...· Commissioner Blaine: Page 15, par. 2, change "vertical· to ·perpendicular.· Commissioner Koenitzer: Page 6, par. 4, change ·boat people· to read "some of the 'lower class' do have a tendency to strip things.· Page 12, par. 3, change to read ·...most adapted to future planning, Plan C, would be the best plan...." Page 13, par. 3, change ·...the problems concentrated on...· to read "...the problems connected with each of the modes of parking." Page 15, par. 5, change "(10M or 20M sq. ft.)" to $10,000 or 20,000 sq. ft." Page 10, change Motion to include discussion that Vallco would put up truck signs, directional signs, along the side of the road and it would be continued for four months and then it would be decided whether the overhead signs were necessary or not. PC-322 Page 2 MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION TO APPROVE AS CORRECTED: Com. Blaine Second: Com. Claudy PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY - 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM '8, CITY OF CUPERTINO: AMENDMENT TO VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE to· ensure compliance with the General Plan and State Subdivision Map Act and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing. Tentative City Council Hearing Date - December 17, 1979. MOTION: Com. Claudy, postponment to the first meeting of the Planning Commission in January. Second: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Mr. curry from Four-Phase relating to Item '2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA ITEMS/PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM '2, Application 19-U-76 of ANY MOUNTAIN, LTD.: PUBLIC HEARING to review the on-site parking situation at the existing Any Mountain facility and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence no action is required. Said property is located on the southwest corner of Mariani Avenue and North De Anza Boulevard in a P (Planned Development with industrial, commercial and residential intent) zoning district. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council Hearing Date - December 3, 1979. COM. GATTO advised that this was a continuation from the last meeting, awaiting for additional information from Four-Phase that they would be amenable to the use of the property for major functions of Any Mountain, Ltd., specifically the Labor Day Sale. Associate Planner Piasecki commented a letter had been received and that Mr. Matthews from Any Mountain was in the audience and could possibly explain it more in detail. He said from the Staff's viewpoint there were two options I one, the Staff's original recommendation, and two, to close the hearings and take a wait- and-see attitude because of the changes going on in the neighborhood, namely, the wall that is planned within the next one or two months and the Bandley Drive extension which may change the nature of the problem. And the Commission could close the hearings, watch the situation, and if it poses another major problem next year, reopen another set of hearings and take a stronger position. MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-322 Page 3 Mr. Ter~ Matthew, Manager, Any Mountain, Ltd., said that he was adv1sed by Mr. Curry of Four-Phase that they didn't want to risk having the parking lot opened up to usage, not only by Any Mountain, but all the businesses. He said that hopefully, as far as putting it to next year, once the street was built, they could deal with working with the City or the Cupertino Nursery and possibly Dr. Brown in using their facilities. COM. ADAMS asked if Mr. Matthew had any other ideas as to what they could do to help alleviate the parking problem on their big sale days, aild 11r. Matthews said no, other than possibly going to some of the larg.e!: shopping. c~n1:~r"..~~ê.h_ as P&W , whic~.wa.s across the hfghii~,~-~~~~_ .bus:f,ng people_ in. .____.~.___.___..__u_.._ ____..._ ___ ..__________ __ _____._~._ COM. KOENITZER commented that his concern on parking was the everyday, week-to-week parking for Any Mountain's fifty or so employees during the five or six months that they are open, and if they can get their employees parked someplace off Mariani Avenue and out of their parking lot, that would make that much more space available for the public to use. Mr. Matthew advised that he was asking his employees to park on Bandley, which alleviates Mariani. COM. CLAUDY asked when Bandley was going to be completed, and Assistant City Engineer Whitten said that if they start right away it could be completed in a month, and that would complete Bandley all the way through from Stevens Creek to Valley Green. COM. BLAINE asked if there were any plans for having no parking on Bandley and Assistant City Engineer Whitten said there were no plans at this time. CHR. GATTO: expressed the concern that the main problem seemed to be the invasion in the residential area on the sale day and wanted to know if the Council had already acted on the plans for a wall. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that the wall would actually be constructed sometime in the next two or three weeks, with an opening which could be closed in the future should it warrant. COM. ADAMS suggested that possibly Any Mountain could have some sort of a van pooling arrangement to help save at least 80 parking spaces (the number of employees Any Mountain has) on any particular day. COM. CLAUDY said that his inclination would be that the commission ask Any Mountain to come in for this request of the tent sale two or three months ahead of time, and at that time to reevaluate the changes that may have occurred in the parking situation, that being has the wall been completed, has Bandley been completed through, has Any Mountain been able to work with some of the new industrial sites along Bandley. PC-322 Page 4 MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: PASSED : COM. ADAMS. SECOND: UNANIMOUSLY COM. KOENITZER 5-0 COM. ADAMS suggested that for future large sales at Any Mountain that they come in to the Planning Commission at least three months in advance for such an application, and based upon the known,conåitions of parking availability at that time on possibly Bandley, could determine then whether Any Mountain would have to provide for car pooling or spaces used by employees. He sa1d that he would go along with a wait-and-see attitude, but based upon the conditions of available parking along Bandley and whatever else Any Mountain can offer to do to help the potential parking problem. COM. BLAINE said that perhaps at that time they would be able to worltaøt something with some of the other companies, or some, type of a sh~ttle not only for the employees of Any Mountain, but also for their customers. . CRR. GATIG advised that accompanying the request for the special event, there should be a proqram of how the traffic would be managed. COM. KOENITZER fe,lt that any special use permit request -þyanybody should ªdrlr~ªs the prob~em-of·the expected parking load, parking and how they were to be handled'H CRR. GATTO cOllU1lented that so far the only criticism has been the intrusion in the residential area, and he'd be willing to wait and see what the wall and extension of Bandley does with that. COM. BIAINE said that it seemed that the main complaint about the day-to-day traffic on Mariani in the residential area were employees parking there all day. She suggested that if the employees would park on Bandley, that would probably alleviate most of the problem of the day-to-day parking, and then the Commission could wait and see what Any Mountain could come up with before the next big sale. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained the procedure for obtaining special use permits, that if the applicant goes beyond the guidelines, then there is a requirement that the applicant can seek approval from the City Council. CRR. .GATTO said that, knowing the Council would be interested in knowing how they would solve the problem, it would behoove the applicant to give as much information as they could. After some discussion, Chr.GATTO said that the special event situation should be addressed by the Council, future afte~ ~vailable in regard to th.!' qay-to-day parking, the Commission snould -wait and see if -ÃIiy11oun-fa:Ih- ëoti1â correct the employee I'ark{ng--¡'-iobTem~-- ---- - MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-322 Page 5 COM. ADAMS agreed and wished the Commission to retain the capability to look at the matter at any time, depending on when there is a problem. COM. CLAUDY said that he would be inclined to think the Commission ought to send a Minute Order to Council recommending that they tighten up on their procedures, but as far as the day-to-day parking, leave it alone and encourage Any Mountain to work out some agreements with the other industries that would be easily accessible when Bandley is finished through. Assistant City Attorney Kilian mentioned that one of the differences between a use permit amendment and a permit for a special event is the fact that the neighbors get no notice of a request for a special permit, so there wouldn't be the public input in that sense as there would be with an amendment to a use permit. MOTION: Com. Claudy, take no action on amending the application 19-U-76, reserving the right to review this permit at any time, with the anticipation that improvements will occur. Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 MINUTE ORDER TO COUNCIL: We believe that the procedure for granting permits for special events should be covered by the permit strengthened by paying particular attention to parking and traf- fic problems that will be created and mitigating measures that would be taken by the applicant, and recommending that it probably should be done in the order of three months in advance of the time of the event. MOTION: Com. Claudy Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 ITEM #3, Application 24-TM-79 of HMH, Inc.: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately one acre into four parcels equaling approximately 10,000 sq. ft. each and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the south side of Crescent Road approximately 150 ft. easterly of Hillcrest Road in a pre Rl-lO (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council Hearing Date - December 3, 1979. Associate Planner piasecki pointed to the two exhibits on the board which reflected the applicant's request to subdivide the one-acre parcel into four lots. He reviewed the points made in the Staff Report and said the Staff is recommending the full improvements due to the need for adequate site distance along Crescent Road and the need for a safe place for pedestrians to walk, basically. 'C-322 'age 6 MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Jack Schenk, representing HMH, Inc., said that they have reviewed the Staff Report, and he voiced a little confusion about conditions 1 through 14, that they looked more like they would apply to a commercial development than a residential development, and that they don't appear to interfere with anything they are proposing to do, so it's questionable whether or not they would actually appear o~ any kind of a resolution of the Commission. He commented, in regard to Condition 18, that it was fully their intent, but his corte ern was that the condition read as though the adjoining property owner would then be involved with the maintenance of that driveway, and he will not, and that it would be in his best interest if the last half of that sentence would be excluded. CHR. GATTO responded that the intent is that there be a maintenance agreement with the driveway, and if the parties make an agreement amongst themselves and one of the parties does not participate, that does not negate the condition. He also said that in regard to Conditions 1 through 14, these are s~andard conditions that apply to all projects, and if the specific condition did not apply in his case, it doesn't apply. . ~ "¡ ", , Mr. Schenk also advised the Commission that relative to the Crescent Road improvements regarding curbs, gutters and sidewalks, whatever the City desired they do would be fine with them. Regarding the structures on the property, he said there are two structures on the site in poor condition and will be removed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: PASSED: Com. Claudy. UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Adams 5-0 Assistant City Engineer Whitten said they were getting a lot of pressure from parents because their children have to walk along that roadway to get to Stevens Creek School, and as soon as they feel they have enough agreements to start the improvements, they would go ahead with that. COM. KOENITZER said that at the meetings between the City Staff and the property owners in this area, it was indicated that the property owners would also like to have access to various parks, so sidewalks would be necessary in this area. MOTION: Com. Blaine, approval of Negative Declaration. Second: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine, approval, 24-TM-79, 14 Standard Conditions and Conditions 15 through 18 as in Staff Report, Findings and Subconclusions, which was on Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of November 13. Second: Com. Claudy VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-322 Page 7 ITEM '4, Application 23-Z-79 and 25-TM-79 of WTW -WARREN WHALEY (SHUTTS & SCHWIMMER): REZONING approximately .5 of a gross acre from Rl-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately .5 of an acre into five townhouse parcels and one parcel to be held in common ownership and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the east side of Vista Drive approxi- mately 350 ft. southerly of Forest Avenue. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council Hearing Date - December 17, 1979. Assistant Planning Director Cowan exhibited an aerial photograph and a diagram and reviewed the Staff Report, commenting that the Staff's concern was the issue of privacy protection both in terms of yard spaces and in terms of privacy intrusion that might occur from future residents looking into existing duplex backyards, and except for this issue the project is compatible with the neighbor- hood. Mr. Phil Schwimmer, the project architect for Shutts & Schwimmer, felt that the proJect does maintain the privacy for the existing site, due to the many trees in the area. He said their intent is to maintain the perimeter tree border and to use the rear area for a passive quiet-talk type of use, and that they didn't foresee it as a very active area. He did address the problem of an infestation of five-spined beetles in the last month, which were now dormant, but which would necessitate the removal and thinning of some trees. They would propose coming back and planting new and smaller trees. Mr. Joe Canarda, who lives in the adjacent property on the east side of this project, was concerned with the thinning of trees and the basic overall privacy of his back yard, and also in regard to the fence -- his fence is about three feet into his property -- and he was concerned about what type of fence would be put in and what would happen with the three feet, would they have their own separate fence, what type would it be, and how tall would it be. He also addressed the problem of the noise factor from five family dwellings adjacent to his back yard. Mr. Ed Pross, who lives on Virginia Swan, around the corner from Vista, asked how garbage trucks would service this area, inasmuch as they come at 7 o'clock in the morning, and the noise factor that would be created. His other comment was in regard to the trees on the street. He made the suggestion that because there is a lot of moisture under the tree that material be used that would not be conducive to the growth of moss that would collect and cause the area to be slippery. 'C-322 'age 8 MINUTES NOVm~BER 26, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING CO~~ISSION MEETING CHR. GATJO, in answer to Mr. Pross's question about the garbage trucks, said that the garbage would be collected from the sidewalk, in 30-gallon type cans, similar to a regular residential area, so there wouldn't be dumpster pickup, just the normal garbage truck. And as far as the dew problem, CHR. GATTO felt that wouldn't really be a problem because a lot of the trees were going to be removed. Mr. Schwimmer, in response to Mr. Canarda's question about the fence, said that they would probably put up a standard good- neighbor type six-foot fence. And as far as the noise factor, their intent was to have a passive area, a patio area, which would not allow for any sort of a heavy play usage because of the existing trees. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Koenitzer. Second: Com. Claudy PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 The Commission discussed the issues of privacy, the minimal amount of space for setbacks, etc., due to the number of units on the property, space available for the planting of some kind of screen, number of parking spaces, the high density and the configuration of the units, etc. MOTION: Com. Adams, to reopen Public Hearing. Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 Mr. Schwimmer addressed the issue of density and configuration of the units and advised the Commission that they have made about four different studies, and this was the best usage of the property, it gave the most open space, and that the density was no more than the duplex adjacent, but that the project would have more outdoor usable space. He said he realized that the con- figuration was not standard, but this happens to be a very unusual site, large enough to accept these units. CHR. GATTO took a poll, and COM. BLAINE advised that she would like to see Mr. Schwinnner go back and work on this and try and get the setbacks a little larger and advise what the plantings will be on the side. COM. KOENITZER felt that the density was not that much different than the duplex in the area, and that the problem with these units is that they are too big for the available land, and that if the units were reduced from 1800 sq. ft. to 1400 sq. ft., there would be a little more space in the area and yet be a very livable unit. MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-322 Page 9 COM. ADAMS said he thought it would be better to seriously consider two duplexes or a combination of four units configuration and would like to continue the matter on the basis of looking at a 4-unit arrangement. COM. CLAUDY said he would be in favor of reducing the number of units by one and coming back with another design. CHR. GATTO felt five units on the site was the problem and that he would like to see either a reduction in the square footage of each unit or a reduction in the number of units before a positive recommendation will be made to the Council. He asked Mr. Schwimmer if he wanted a decision from the Commission this evening or a continuation in order to improve the setbacks and the distances around the units and the overall tightness of this plan. Mr. Schwimmer agreed to a continuation. VO'l'E : Com. Koenitzer, to continue Planning Commission Meeting Second: Com. Claudy PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY ITEM '4 to the Regular of December 10, 1979. MOTION: 5-0 RECESS: 9:50 p.m. RECONVENED: 10:05 p.m. ITEM *5, Application l8-TM-79 of MICHAEL G. PISANO: TENTATIVE MAP to resubdivide four existing lots of record consisting of approximately one acre into four parcels equaling approximately 10,000+ sq. ft. each and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the west side of San Felipe Road at the westerly terminus of Alcalde Road in an Rl-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council Hearing Date - December 3, 1979. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report and exhibited a viewgraph of a map that was designed mainly as a Planning map, and said that the application involved essentially the adjustment of the property lines of four legal lots of record and to consolidate the flag corridor to a dual corridor. He also exhibited a mpa illustrating the existing subdivision and a map illustrating the proposal. He concluded by saying that Staff feels that the issue is primarily a private one in nature, and that unless there is hard evidence to the contrary, they would go along with the information submitted to them by the applicant's engineer. Mr. Mike Pisano, developer and owner of the proposed project, advised the Commission that after many discussions with Staff, it was decided that in regard to access to the proposed project. rather than making easements of record to get access, to go ahead and realign the property lines and file a new parcel map, and this was the direction he was trying to go. Also, in regard to the San Felipe Road right-of-way·, he would be willing to dedicate the 24 required feet of his property and realign a lot of the 'C-322 'age 10 MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING property lines that are in question, which would solve the problem of the existing house. Mr. Pisano requested deletion of requirements 16-C and 19 on the conditions of approval. Mr. Pisano felt that 16-C, requiring him to hire a landscape architect, would be restrictive to him, and as far as screening, the placement of the house would screen almost all of the scarring cuts that would be made. In regard to 19, he felt that as a developer he would be legally liable to any damage to adjoining properties, and that posting the bond wouldn't solve any problems other than costing him money. Assistant City Engineer Whitten explained that condition 19 was required on hillside developments to insure that the sites would not be graded and then left through the winter to become erosion and landslide problems. Dr. Larry Marelã' whose property is to the south of the subject proJect, advise that he hired a registered surveyor to redefine his property lines and found that the property lines do not meet when they come together. He wanted the Commission to ask for a clearer definition of just exactly where everything exists and where they overlap. He also wanted to know how many internal changes in lot lines could be made before it is called a subdivision and the rules change. There was considerable discussion in regard to the redefining of the property lines and the legal ramifications of approving this application between the Commission and Assistant City Attorney Kilian. COM. BLAINE expressed the concern that any decision the Commission could make in regard to the boundary lines might set a precedent and give validity to these boundary lines because they are approved. Assistant City Attorney Kilian said that their decision would make the boundary lines more valid, subject to a court action. He suggested that one condition the Commission might want to consider in regard to this tentative map is for the applicant to hold the City harmless and to defend the City from any lawsuit, because the City might be a defendant in the case. Mr. Al Nolan, owner of the property immediately south of this map, advised that the problem has far greater impact than had been talked about, that the map does not show the impact on adjoining properties. The shifting of the boundary lines will be carried throughout the area, he said, because as these boundary lines shift, somebody's lot is going to have to shrink by twenty-five feet. He felt the immediate effect of this MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-322 Page 11 application is, number one, they now have a major property conflict, and number two, with the construction of the lots themselves, in that this area is a major drainage area for water out of the surrounding hills, and it is a constant battle to keep water flowing down San Felipe Road and into adjacent streets. His other concern was to have some guarantee as to what happens to his access. He required - c-oÌ1tinuousac.cess-wl11Tetneconst-rucuon ~s~~rn~- on.- -~..".._---- Marie Rose Gaspar, representing Mrs. Gilbert, advised the Comm~ssion that she got involved the Wednesday preceding and had not had time to do research. She said she had ordered a preliminary report and would urge the planning commission to continue this matter. She felt this was a rather serious situation and required more time. After much discussion, CHR. GATTO wanted to take a poll. COM. KOENITZER commented that no matter what the Commission does, they can't resolve the problem of whether the lot is located properly or not unless they ask the City to go out and spend money to survey it and all adjoining property. COM. CLAUDY felt that the matter would probably go through a court action no matter what. COM. BLAINE had reservations about approving the map and perhaps giving some validity to something about which there was quite a bit of disagreement. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Claudy 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy, to deny application lB-TM-79 on the basis that approval of this application would be adverse to the interest of the adjacent property owners. Second: Com. Adams. VOTE: PASSED AYES: Com'rs. Claudy, Adams, Gatto, Blaine. NO: Com. Koenitzer. ITEM *6, Application l5-U-77 of SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES: AMENDMENT OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT to increase the allowable building size and number of seats in the existing Peppermill Restaurant and ENVIRONMENT REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence no action is required. Said property is located on the northeast corner of North De Anza Boulevard and Mariani Avenue in a P (Planned Development with commercial/industrial/office use intent) zoning district. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council Hearing Date December 3, 1979. )C-322 )age 12 MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (At this time Com. Koenitzer left the hearing.) MOTION: Com. Claudy, to continue application to next meeting inasmuch as the applicant was not present. Second: Com. Blaine. VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 ITEM #7, Application l3-U-79 of STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER: AMENDMENT OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT to construct a single office building equaling approximately 3,500 sq. ft. in lieu of two buildings equaling approximately 8,800 sq. ft. and add approximately 2,000 sq. ft. to the planned building on Stevens Creek Boulevard. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed hence no action is required. The subject property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approxi- mately 500 ft. westerly of Saich Way in a P (Planned Develop- ment with General Commercial intent) zoning district. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council Hearing Date - December 3, 1979. Mr. John Volckman appeared before the commission and explained the requested change. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Blaine 4-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy, approval, Application l3-U-79 (Revised), Standard Conditions 1-14 and Conditions 15 and 16 as per Staff Report, subject to the findings and subconclusions as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 13, 1979, and add to Condition 15 "as amended by the City Council." Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 ITEM # 9, CITY OF CUPERTINO: AMENDMENT TO VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF Rl (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONING ORDINANCE including but not limited to setbacks, building height, lot width and architectural projections and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing. Tentative City Council Hearing Date - December 17, 1979. MOTION: Com. Claudy, to continue Item #9 to the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1979. Second: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-322 Page 13 ITEM n, Application 25-Z-79 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: REZONING on the Monta Vista School site and adjacent City Park containing approximately 13.9 acres as follows: 4.19 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Lockwood Drive and Voss Avenue from PR (Public Park/Recreation) to P (Planned Development with residential use intent with a density range of 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) zone: 6.19 acres located at the north- west corner of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Voss Avenue from BA (Public Building) to PR (Public Park/Recreation) zone with the remaining 3.53 acre portion of the school site from BA (Public Building) to P (Planned Development with residential use intent with a density range of 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review'Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing. Tentative City Council Hearing Date - December 17, 1979. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report, and said that Staff would like to have the Conceptual Plan modified in two respects: number one, to modify the wording to make it clear that PD would be the residential portion of the side and the other would be zoned straight public park/recreation: and number two, involving the wording on Condition 2-B, the eventual development of this project, in order to preclude an introverted or walled-in development, dwellings and yard spaces should be oriented to public streets. He made the further comment that the map is in error and the particular length of the roadway will be a split obligation in terms of fair share of the road. COM. BLAINE expressed concern about the wording in Condition 2-A regarding -The minimum lot area requirement for a con- vential single-family approach may be less than 7500 square feet.- She said this represented a major change in Cupertino, and that she would like to have that sentence stricken from the Condi tion. COM. CLAUDY commented that he was very concerned about this plan, as he lives in the area, and feels that the neighborhood is -getting the shaft- in that it is losing acreage and ends up with less neighborhood park than it had to start with, which he feels is diametrically opposed to the General Plan. He wanted to state on the record that he would vote against any plan for this because he thinks it is opposed to the General Plan and the néighborhood is losing out. Mr. Darrell Cramm, from the Cupertino School District, addressed the Commission and gave a background on the transaction in question. It was pointed out that the City of Cupertino bought the front two 'C-322 'age 14 MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING acres on the condition that the rema1n1ng four acres would be authorized by a vote of the people November 6th. He also pointed out that at the time of negotiation a price of $150,000 an acre was agreed upon and at this time the land could be sold for $300,000 an acre. Assistant City Attorney Kilian advised the Commission that the City would technically be in breach of this agreement if they didn't follow through, but there would be no damage since the property is now worth more. Mr. Cramm further pointed out that the replacement value of the buildings on the site would run somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million at today's cost, and any portion of them that could be utilized would save the City that much money in construction costs. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Adams 4-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine, approval of Negative Declaration. Second: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine, approval of Monta Vista School/Park Conceptual Plan as presented in the Staff Report with the deletion of the last sentence in number 2-A and number 2-B shall be worded, according to CHR. GATTO's suggestion, "It is the intent to create a residential character compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and towards this end would be encouraged to eliminate walls and to orient dwellings and front yard spaces to the public streets." Further, to amend Figure 1 and have Residential become PD. Second: Adams VOTE: PASSED AYES: Com'rs. Adams, Gatto, Blaine. NO: Com. Claudy COM. CLAUDY said that he would vote no on the grounds stated, not because he is opposed to the PD or the property, but he thinks the neighborhood is losing on this. UNFINISHED BUSINESS MOTION: Com. Claudy, resolution to have taped meetings and keep the tapes for eight years. Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 ITEM #10, Discussion of Meeting Schedule for December