Loading...
PC 10-08-79 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 ~INUTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SALUTE TO THE FLAG - 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL - Commissioners Present: Chr. Gatto Com's. Claudh Adams, Blaine and Koenitzer Abs en t : None Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki Assistant City Engineer Whicten Assistant City Attorney Kilian APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 11, 1979, as submitted. Com. Koenitzer. Second: Com. Blaine * June 18, 1979, as submitted. Com. Blaine. Second: Com. K . I oen1tz~r September 10, 1979, Corrections - Com. Blaine. P2;e 8, par. 2, unidentified speaker is Alf Modine Page 12, par. 6, line 2, chanf-e to "...number of ~HR units. Approval of Minutes as amended: Com. Adams. Second: Corn. Koenitzer SepteTiber 27, 1979, Corrections - Com. Blaine Paº"e 8, par. 8, complete to read ".. .available square ¡ footage for commercial and industrial use should take place ~'! ~I~UTES APPROVED AS SUBMITTED AND AS AMENDED ABOVE ~OTIO~: Com. Adams Second: Com. Blaine VGTE: PASSED - UNANHIOUSLY 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS i ITEM 12, Applications 17-Z-79, 20-U-79 & 20-TM-79 of PARK PLAZA DEVELOPMENT CMAYCO CONSTRUCTION), postponed two weeksj ~OTION: Com. Claudy to approve. Second: Com. Adam. i VOTE: PASSED - UNANHIOUSLY 5-0 ITS:~ :~ 11 , cor;tinued Applications 20-Z-79 & 24-U-79 of ALLEN DEGRANGE, two weeks as requested by Staff. Com. Koenitzer to approve. Second: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY Com. i , Adams i ~[QTI():~ : VOTE: 5-0 ITEM "13, CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARI~G. Rm@ndment to Subdivision Ordinance, continue to Nove~ber 2G ·,~2n¿a. ~OTION: Com. Koenitzer. Second: Co~. Claudy VOTE: PASSED - UNA)H1·WUSLY 5-8 ~'( Absent from meeting: COlT.. Clauày PC-319 Page 2 MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA ITEMS/PUBLIC HEARING CHR GATTO, calling attention to the length of the Agenda, ex- plained that it was felt each speaker being brief would enable the Commissioners to complete all items. ITEM #1, Application l7-TM-79 of J.M.T. DEVELOPMENT CO.: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately two acres into 15 parcels consisting of 13 residential parcels, one common area parcel and one parcel equaling approximately .5 of an acre to accommodate future development and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW * : The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the north side of Wildflower Way approximately 200 ft. easterly of Poppy Way. First hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - October 15, 1979. I Associate Planner Piasecki identified the green area on the I wall map as outlining the buildings (all of which fit 'nto : the lots), and the red lines outlining the lots -- another 1'1/2 acre piece being shown on a map included with the packets. He confirmed for COM. CLAUDY that Lot #13 driveway would be ,off of Wildflower and the other lots off the private drivewav. I And, COM. KOENITZER was assured that the developer would hav~ . to improve the entire street (Wildflower Drive). I PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED I MOTION: I 5-0 VOTE: Com. Blaine, recommend approval 17-TM-79 with Standard Conditions #1 through #14; Conditions #15 through #18 as recommended in Staff Report; Findings and Sub conclusions in Staff Report. Second: Com. Koenitzer PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 ** ITEM #3, Application 21-U-79 of REGNART CREEK ESTATES (WTW - I WARREN WHALEY): USE PERMIT to construct nine new single-family homes while retaining one existing home for a total of 10 homes on the subject property; 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 250 ft. westerly of Stelling Road. First hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - October 15, 1979. * Negative Declaration passed to City Council October 15 Agenda. PC-316, page 4; Use Permit - PC-316, page 4. *~ ITEM #3 being heard, on Motion, with ITEM #4. MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-319 Page 3 VOTE: Com. Koenitzer to hear Item #4, Tentative Map for Item 03 property, together. Second: Com. Blaine PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 MOTION: ITEM 04~ Application 22-TM-79 of RPGNART CREEK ESTATES: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately two acres into 10 parcels ranging in size from approximately 4,000 so. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft. and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed hence no action is required. Said property is located on the north side of Orogrande Place approximately 250 ft. westerly of Stelling Road. First hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing ¿ate - October 15, 1979. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that the City Council had approved Zoning and agreed with the overall street planning recommended by the Commission relative to the neighborhood and the park issue. Size of buildings relative to size of lots was questioned by the Council and therefore, the Use Permit and the Tentative Map issues are ~I back before the Planning Commission. Definitive maps of th project and subdivision plan were posted on the board. The Valley Water District, the City, and the developers had reached agreement on ease of right-aE-way, preservation of trees, and protection of the creek channel (future work expected to be necessary to maintain the status quo of the creek conditions). Staff recommennations on Conditions in- clude shifting buildings closer to additional rear yard set-back space and driveway to the existing home be ex- tended 18 ft. to provide off street parking. Trade offs were recommended because of small lot sizes (compared to ! development to the south) and in consideration of the ollblic benefiting from the quasi public state of ownership of the creek bed and bordering land (through fee title), and, also because of pending decisions by City agencies as to dis- position of land across the channel frcm the park. COM. KOENITZER brought up the request of City Council to look at the reduction in square footage of the homes. He noted that he recalled a separation of 9 to 12 ft. and two- story walls facing (contrary to the usual 18 ft. separation CHR. GATTO confirmed that 2 acres was the size of the property prior to street dedication, and Mr. Cowan advised that the density was in accordance with the General Plan; although, he added, the trade off in public lands, which was not available in conventional developments, was a dis- tinct advantage in this development. Mr. Barry Scott, 22n93 Baxley Court, Cupertino, one or the co-owners of the property, advised the Commissioners that the sq. ft. areas of the homes had been reduced, from about * ITEM #4 being heard, on Motion, with ITEM #3. Page 4 I ~INCTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I i 2,600 to about 2,400 sq. ft. for I a total reduction of 600 so. ft, that they had met the s lope re- i quirem¿I1ts of the Water District, and that of 87,000 sq. ft. ! a'lailable, housing represented 14,000 sq. ft.. He asked for clarification of fence requirements. "0'>319 Assistant Planning Director Cowan located the two fences: 1) required where the existing home backed to the creek to permit access by emergency vehicles and, 2) a barrier on the inJoard side of the path to protect pedestrians from the steep cree-;ç bank. PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED: Com. Koenitzer. VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Adams 5-0 MOTIO~: Com. Adams, granting Negative Declaration. Second: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: PASSED - UNA~!IMOUSLY 5-0 CO~l. ADAMS brought up inconsistencies in garage locations from one set of plans to another and was told by Mr. Cowan that the major consideration was to get the vehicles off the street. Another consideration had been that the property was within the area annexed from San Jose wher,e a 6 ft. standard was usual. (Cupertino standard - 9 ft.). COM. ADAMS re- quested that the inconsistency be corrected prior to pre- sentation to the City Council. COM. CLAUDY questioned the windows on facing sides of the builriings on side yard setbacks. Mr. Cowan said that the de- velopment, because it was unusual, was bein~ treated as a single family development in some respects as opposed to Planned Developments. CHR. GATTO stated he preferred to go to existing ordinances. The Commissioners discussed the side yard setbacks and the possibility of reducing the size of units or a townhouse plan with zero lot line. Because a fairly large portion of the total area had been taken up by roads, and/or dedication, it was considered an unusual development but an asset for the area. MOTION: Com. Claudy, to approve 21-U-79, Standard Conditions #1 throuqh #1&; #15 per Staff Report; #16 modified per October 8, 1979 Amendment: lf17 per Staff Report; and subject to Findings and Subconclusions of the Staff Report. PASSED 4-1 AYE: Com's. Claudy, Adams, Gatto, Blaine. NO: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: '1OTIO:J : Chr. Gatto, approve 22-TM-79, Standard Conditions #1 through #14; #15 through #19 per Staff Report, and Findings and Subconclusions of Staff Report. Second: Com. Adams PASSED - UNANI~OUSLY 5-0 VOTE: MI~UTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-319 Page 5 MCWT!: ORDER: Com. Claudy to ARCHITECTURE & SITE CONTROL, to direct particular attention to loLa~ion 0 windows on side yards to preserve privacy. ITEM #5, Application l8-Z-79 of GLORIA ITEM: PREZONING .34+ acres from Santa Clara County RHS (Residential Hill- ; side Slope Density Formula) to City of Cupertino RHS (Resi-I dential Hillside Slope Density Formula) zone or whatever I zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Com- I mittee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. ! Tl\e subject property is located on the southeast corner of San Juan Road and the future extension of £1 Cerrito Road approximately 800 ft. westerly of Stevens Canyon Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - November 5t 1979. Assistant Planning Director Cowan identified the green- shaded area on the wall map as being the subject of the re- zoning request for two lots of 7,500 sq. ft. each. He ad- vised that the General Plan Policy was to recognize all lots of record served by existing streets and utilities -- the City Planning Commission having determined that those lots of record not served by existing streets would be placed I in a land-use designation requiring merger. The property involved in the request was on San Juan (an improved streett and El Cerrito (an unimproved street servici~g Inspiration Point), and 1;.¡ith service and utilities from Cupertino. A further consideration of the request was that no variances! would be permitted at the time of building on the site. : Front setbacks would be a little closer. Heights would be . a consideration, but it would remain two lots. Ms. Gloria Item, 10195 Viceroy Court, Cupertino, told the Planning Commission they would be please to be able to make: use of the property. Mr. Louis Paviso, 22820 San Juan Road (County) Cupert ino, as~ed what was to happen to El Cerrito Road and if pre- vision was planned for changing the 40 ft. right-of-way. Mr. Paviso stated that he felt the property should be sub- ject to a lImerger" situation. He objected to variances on the lots and objected to the fissures and faults on the property being ignored. In fact, he charged, he felt he was personally being discriminated against. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised there would be a ~ 24 ft. paved road within the 40 ft. right-of-way and added i that the right-of-way was outside the applicant's pro?erty.: , Mr. Leo Bianci, property owner, asked if there was ~ny possibility of the 40 ft. right-at-way for San Juan R03d and he was told that the Pre zoning did not address the question. PC-319 Page 6 MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLA~NING COMMISSIO~ MEETING I I CHR. GATTO assured ~tr. Paviso that he was not being discrim- I inated against and that at the time the buildings were pro- ¡posed it would be necessary to have geologic reports. Also, he said that the application would be a matter of public hearing procedure. PUELIC HEARINGS CLOSED: Com. Claudy. PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Blaine 5-0 MOTION: Com. Adams, to declare a Negative Declaration on Pre zoning from the County to the City. Second: Com. Blaine 1~:~~:KOEN:::::Dw:s~::N:::U:::ord to show that t::: was one ¡of t~e cases on which the City of Cupertino set a General ¡Policv that if a lot had services, then, the City would ¡recognize its existence even though they disagreed with the ¡planning that put it there. IMOTIO~: Com. Blaine, recommending approval of 18-Z-79 as per Findings and Sub conclusions of Staff Report. I Second: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: AYE: Com's. Claudy, Gatto, Koenitzer & Blaine NO: Com. Adams PASSED 4-1 ITEM J6, Application 19-Z-79 of CATHERINE AINSWORTH: PRE- ZONING approximately one gross acre from Santa Clara County Rl-IO (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to City of Cupertino pre Rl-IO (Residential, single- family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Com- mittee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the souths ide of Ainsworth Drive approximately lOa ft. northwesterly of the intersection with Starling Drive. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - November 5, 1979. (Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report and pointed out that the primary concern was provision of water to areas unable to annex because they were not contiguous. Recommendation to the County Planning Commission would be in order if it was felt the two lots would be too small. IDeed restrictions in the neighborhood caused concern about a two-story house; but, that could be resolved through owner's agreements. A map of the area was exhibited showing the lots. He advised that the owner had agreed to signing the City agreement not to oppose annexation and had agreed to pay tile water rates set by Council Policy. COM. CLAUDY, noting that setbacks and yards had to come out of the 5,700 sq. ft. felt it was a very small area for a pad. MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING CO~'~tISSION lfEETING PC-319 Paue ì Mr. Steve Lewis, 22312 Starling Drive, Los Altos, in:ormed the Commissioners that he was totally unfamiliar ~iLh ~he procedures and results of procedures before the City and the Commissioners; however, he said that he opposed annexation because of losing a prestiegous address as was afforded by having a Los Altos address. COM. KOENITZER told Mr. Lewis that he need not fear the City or annexation being a threat to his Los Altos address because the United States Post Office had sole control over. det;=-r~ining who would receive mail and from which Post Office. ! COM. CLAUDY commented that eventually it could be expecre' that all of Creston woulc;! be expected to come into Cupertino under LAFCO policy, and that would change only with a cna1tg in LAFCO policy. Mr. Jerry Humpa~ 22276 Starling Drive, Los Altos, referred tIte Commissioners to a Los Angeles Court case of 1914 which decreed that a city proviàing water syste~ as a cor- poration was bound to furnish the water service without d~scrimination. and he asked if that did not apply Lo this case. Assistant City Attorney Kilian explained that it was true if the propertv was within the serving city. Santa Clara County followed the practice of a city providing essential service and that a city could require new develo?ments to join a city before services had to be provided. He added that cities, being entities~i tor the purpose of avoiding large pockets of unde'leloped I land, were perP.'litted to annex within their sphe.re of in- I £luence. In response to Mr. Humpal's question abou~ resi- dents being able to stop annexation if 50% signee a petitiof, ~lr. Kilian explained that current law and practice ner- ¡ ~itted annexation without being bound hy rulin~ -- a hearin~ before City Council and LAFCO being the usual ~rocedur2. He stated that the question of protest defeating annex- ation ~as obviated by current law. CWè. GATTO called the meeting back to the prezoning and asked that other matters ~e proper time. petition for addresseè at the i I ~r. Roger Coombes, 10604 Ainsworth Road, Los Altos was con-i cerned that the older, well-developed area might be sub- jected to construction inappropriate to the ~rea. o~ ct show of hands, Hr. Coombes' concern ".Jas supported 01" a ma:ority of the audience. ~r. w. A. Starnes, agent for ~rs. Ainsworth, 106~O Ainsworth Drive, Los Altos, asked for a definition of Xe~2tive De- claration, if the City had approval procedtJre to the Ce~tra~ Permit Office, and noted, for the record, that the ~re3 had¡ I l , Pr,-3l9 Page 8 ~INUTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COM~ISSION ~EETING two-story homes. He instructed the audience and the Com- missioners that the proposed building would enh3nce the area financially and esthetically. Ms. Nancy Humpal, 22246 Starling Drive, Los Altos, said that the people of the area were threatened by a snowballing effect for annexation. Also, she said easement and power poles would prevent a pleasing location for structures. She wished to protest the granting of water rights as a means of controlling what was built. CHR. GATTO explained Negative Declaration, explained that this being a Prezoning only most of the concerns addressed could be taken up at an appropriate time with an appropriate agency. COM. KOENITZER asked Staff if County regulations would de- termine setbacks and restrictions through County re2C!lations. Staff advised, repeating CHR. GATTO'S statement, and stated that all else besides the zoning was in the authority of the County. COM. CLAUDY was told, in response to his inquiry, that if the City failed to grant the prezoning, as requested, then Mrs. Ainsworth could go to the County for permission to sink a well, which permission would be granted under usual County policy. COM. ADAMS got clarification of County setbacks on fronts, sides, and backs of buildings -- heizht re- strictions not applying except through deed testrictions. Assistant City Attorney Kilian advised that the Subdivision Map Act would apply, which did guarantee protest rights but not against partic_lar buildinzs. PUBLIC HEARI~GS CLOSED: PASSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Claudy 5-0 MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, approval 19-Z-79, in accordance with the General Plan. Second: Com. Claudy. AYE: Com's. Claudy, Gatto, Koenitzer & Blaine. ~O: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 4-1 ITEM #7, Application 15-U-79 (Revised) of EDWARD YA~AOKA: AME~DMENT OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT for a 3,200 sq. ft. cocktail leunge to increase the allowable seating capacity and permit live music and E~VIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located in the Portal Plaza Shopping Center on the northeast corner of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard in a CG (General Commercial) zoning district. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan provided to ~!r. Yamaoka and Mr. Donald Wright copies of the latest information per- tinent to Item #7, and informed the Commissioners that t~e MINUTES OCTOBER S, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-319 Page 9 concerns before them was increased area (3,000 to 3,200 sq. ft.) and permission for a piano (piano bar installation), (PC-315, August 13, 1979), and also increase of capacity from 80 to 92, and relaxation of the live music prohibition.: I~formation as to noise attenuation, traffic figures, which I were inconclusive, were provided, and traffic counts on late, Saturday night - early Sunday morning did not reflect com- muter or work traffic. On Condition #17 he noted the re- quirement that absolutely no noise should be heard by the residents -- tests possible to guarantee that condition. carL BLAINE'S concern over adequate parking was unfounded (more than ample parking being available). CO~. KOENITZER'S concern was the increase in size (7·) and seating capacity (12%). Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the Fire Department established the p¿r- missible level of use/persons/sq. ft. area. COM. CLAUDY advised restriction of use of the back dooc to panic situations. He inquired as to the air conditioning in the building. i Mr. Edward Yamaoka, co-owner of the property, 20645 Sea I Gull Avenue, Saratoga, identified the air-conditioning as j b~ing a 6~ ton unit that had always been on the premises. COM. ADAMS inquired about problems of conduc~ing sound test. prior to opening, during open hours, and in the time frame , of 9 plus o'clock to midnight, etc.. He also had Mr. Yamao~a identify the two walls to the back of the building as being I office space and store room enclosures to the cieling. ¡ Mr. John Cleaveland, 19715 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino. i Mr. Donald D. Wright, 19698 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino. I Ms. Helen Cortes, 19710 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino. I Ms. Hermina Muscarello, 19726 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino. i ~s. Edna Rodriquez, 19742 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino RESIDENTS to the rear of Mr. Yamaoka's property, repeated ! their statements from the August 13, 1979, PC-315 Meeting. ~ PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Motion: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. B'aine PASSED: 5-0 In response to COM. BLAINE, Assistant City Attorney Kilian advIsed that the residents had rights and reCQUrse to law through the courts but not through ordinance. MOTION: Com. Adams, change Condition #17 to read "...the i sound attenuation properties of the buildin~ anà masonry I sound barrier shall be tested (from (9:00 p.m. to Midnight) J in the evening prior to occupancy and shall be compared to ! '" live-music conditions. Proper accoustical equipment re- alJired so as to maintain original sound levels.. .1'; C~ndttion #19, wall along the whole prooerty line to the re:lf shall be raised to eight (8) foot, solid block, mea- sured from Alley side of property (residential); Condition PC-319 MI~UTES OCTOBER 3, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COgHISSION MEETING Page 10 :'/20 to read II... barrier improvement to the blocked-or fend i of the alley shall be added to prohibit use of bicycles, motorcycles and vehicles to pass through. Approve Amendment of 15-U-79, Standard Conditio~s #1 through #16, #17 (amended above); #18 as per Staff Report; #19 & #20 (amended above). Second: Corn. Blaine VOTE: PASSED AYE: Com's. Claudy, Adams, Koenitzer, Blaine. NO: Chr. Gatto. CHR. GATTO advised the residents of their right of appeal and the time frame. RECESS: lÜ:20 p.m. RECO"VE"ED: 10:30 p.m. ITEM #8, Applications 22-Z-79, 26-U-79 and 23-TM-79 of GARDENVIEW TERRACE: REZONING approximately 3.75 gross acres from RI-B6 (Residential, single-family, 6,000 sq. ft. mini- mum lot size) to P (Planned Development with single-fa~ilv cluster intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appro- priate by the Planning Commission; USE PER~IT to construct 41 single-family townhouses; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide the subject property into 41 townhouse parcels and one parcel to be held in common ownership and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting or a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the west side of Gardenside Lane and Poppy Way approximately 100 ft. northerly of Rainbow Drive. First Rearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - November 5, 1979. Assistant Planning Directo~ Cowan reviewed the content of the Staff Revort. He stated traffic in the neighborhood seemed to be distributed confortably and he pointed out the BMR housing policy that would apply to the development. Since the project would not include open space for park or recreational purposes, it was proposed that the developer would participate in Three Oaks Park project. Several design changes were noted as opening up a central area and providing additional attractiveness. Privacy issues had been given careful attention and landscaping would further enhance and insure against intrusion. Mr. John Rintala, representing the developer, 10350 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, volunteered to answer any questions for the Commissioners. ~r. Duane S. :noke. 1224 Ruppell Place, Cupertino, upon re- questing Mr. Rintala to do so, was given clarification of elevations on units, and pertinent information as to the profiles of two-story units. MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-319 Page 11 Mr. ~artin Rinnhil1, 7544 Kingsbury Place, said Three Oaks Park did not exist, or was still in the planning stage, was unfunded (as per conversation with Cupertino City Manager); and, then, he objected to a high density adding to congesti n on Cleo. Assistant City Engineer Whitten explained that extra parkin tax revenues, or construction taxes, or both, would be used for park improvement. Mr. Rinnhill objected to traffic congestion, lower auality of life by virtue of higher density (as compared to what they were enjoying). He said the neighhorhood homogeniety would be benefited by single-family residences (expensive), and he felt the value of present property would be eroded. Mr. Max Ilic (phonetic), 20666 Cleo, Cupertino, noted that opening up a street would require fencing as a noise barrier Mr. Richard Grialar, 1194 Ruppell Place, Cupertino, wondere how a non-existent park would be useful. He said he had supµorteà becoming a part of Cupertino but was having seccn thouqhts because of tIle higher density zoning. Ms. Edith Tromnel1er (phoneti~), 11630 Crestline, C\lpertino agreed with the other speaker~ objections to "density, traffic, and more people in the area. Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised Mr. Ilie that to ¡ his knowledge fencing had not been proposed for the locatio~; however, he said a curbed gutter and sidewalk with 30-[t. I paved roadway would be required. I I I , I , , j PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: PASSED: Com. Claudy. Second: 3-0 Co~. A~ams CO~. CLAUDY and COM. ADAMS were surprised at the resistance to the project, complimenting the developer on its being superior to other projects they'd seen. They felt the transition density was well-designed for a~ainst single- family units. COM. KOENITZER also complimented the project as being one of the better ones. VOTE: Com. Koenitzer, approval ~egative Second: Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 Declaratio~. MOTION: VOTE: Cc~. Koenitzer, approval 22-A-79, Standard #1 through 114 & ~15, as of Staff Xemorandum of October 8, Second: CJ~. Claudy PASSED 5-0 , i Conditions j per recomme~d~ti ns 1 9 ï 9 . MOTION: PC-319 MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, approval 26-U-79, Standard Conditions #1 through #14; #15 through #21 as per Staff Memo, and the Findings and Subconclusions of Staff Report of September 8, 1979. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: PASSED 5-0 MOTION: Corn. Koenitzer, approval 22-TM-79, Standard Conditions #1 through #14; #15 through #17 in accordance with Staff Memo of October 8, 1979; and the Findings and Subconclusions of Staff Report. Second: Com. Claudy VOTS: PASSED 5-0 AYE: t";om's. Claudy, Adams, Koenitzer & Blaine, Gatto. NO: None CHR. GATTO pointed out to the residents that the project was in conformance with the General Plan, and if they felt the density was too high they could so indicate to the Council for possible future General Plan action. CHR. GATTO advised that although it was very late, the Com- missioners wished to finish the Agenda, and he asked for brevity in presentations. ITEM #9, Application 22-U-79 of ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: USE PERMIT to operate an automated, self-service gasoline service station (with expanded gasoline storage facilities) and a 1,500 sq. ft. convenience market and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environ- mental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the southeast cor- ner of Silverado Avenue and De Anza Boulevard in a CG (Gen- eral Commercial) zoning district. First Hearing. Asssociate Planner Piasecki reviewed the major points for consideration and raised the question as to whether approval ¡would be precedent setting. He pointed out Condition #19 ¡speaking to police problems; and, he noted reservations about parking and stacking of traffic for clients during a gas shortage -- the stacking taking place on Silverado Avenue. Mr. Ted T. Clausen, POB 5811, San Mateo, representing Atlantic Richfield, exhibited pictures of the site, and stated that ARCO would be responsible for the renovating. He told COM. BLAINE an income of 75% from gasoline products, and 25% in food store services was expected. Hr. Lee Chaney (phonetic), Chamber of Commerce, brought up cash flow, credit card acceptance, and making-change situations, which he felt could be very important to an establishment and to the City, especially during critical hours. CON. KOENITZER was disturbed by the back-of-the-lot parking being awkward for shoppers, and agreed with COM. CLAUDY that it was a kind of project and operation the City probably did not need. COM. BLAINE remarked that losing a mechanic for repair work did bother her as she felt it was a valuable service. ~I:~UTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLAN~I~G COMMISSIO~ MEETI~G PC-JI9 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams Second: Com. Blain.e 'fOTE: Com. Blaine, deny 22-U-79 as proposed use would generate traffic, and the property failed to be of size and shape to accomodate the proposed use; and, the value of the service removed in- fluenced her decision. Second: Com. Claud}" PASSED - DENIAL 4-1 AYE: Com's. Claudy, Gatto, Koenitzer, Blaine ,,0: Com. Adams ~IOTION: ITEM 410, Applications 23-U-79 and 21-TM-79 of REX ASSO- CIATES: USE PERMIT to construct an 8,000 sq. ft. office btlilding; TE~TATIVE ~AP to reconfigure ten parcels into th~e2 parcels. Said tentative map includes a request to abandon the street rizht of way of Alhambra Avenue south of Santa Clara Avenue to Sevens Creek Boulevard. E~VIRONME~TA REVIEW: The Environmentsl Review Committee recommends the granti~~ of a ~egative Declaration. Said property is lo- cated on the northwest corner of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek 30ulev~rd in a pre P (Pl~nned Devel8pment) zoninz dis trict. First hearing. Tentative City rouncil hearing date October 15, 1979. Assistant Planning Director Cow~n exhibited the Site Plan and pointed out the items for critical consideration by the C(Jmmissioners. He said the plan confor~ed to what was ex- pected to be developed in ~onte Vista (encouraging building close to streets). He said that because of freeway right- of-way and sewer lines the building was moved back 0f the parking. Abandonment of Alhambra and Peninsula Boulevard were noted as important considerations for discussion. :-!r. Eric Schmitz, engineer, 479 Del Hedio, :-[ountain View, said he had worked on the plans, and he protested the clasing of Alhambra because it would penalize ~onte Vista Inn in that residents of the neighborhood were forced to a roud-about route to get to the Inn. ~Is. ~nn Anaer, resident of Monte Vista and long-ti~e worker on the Monte Vista Specific Plans, pointed out a lack of i~?rovements on existing buildings, objected to residents being given convenient access to local bars as part of City consideration. She concluded by stati~g that she was behind any efforts to improve Monte Vista. The Commissioners discussed the various aspects Df traffic flow, ingress and egress to and from property for parking and for business, semi-blockage of the road (rec8Dmenàing closing it entirely), and recommended the Sta:r check out the use of any building (5) for dumping, and the condition. of t~e buildings. PC-319 MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING CO~MISSION MEETING Page l~ CHR. GATTO asked if workin3 in a tWO-WH" movement on Penin- sula Boulevard by moving spaces around ~nd negotiating re- ciprocal parking agreements would be ~ossíble~ MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: VOTE: RESOLUTION: MOTInN: VOTE: Com. Blaine, granting Negatève Declaration. Second: Com. Koenitzer PASSED 5-0 Com. Blaine, approval of 23-U-79 with Standard Conditions #1 through #14; 115 through #21 as per Findings and Subconclusions of the Staff Report. Second: Com. Koenitzer PASSED 5-0 Com. Blaine, approval 21-TM-79 with Standard Conditions #1 through #14; dl5 through #17; 118, delete last sentence; as per Findings and Subcon- elusions as recommended hy Staff Reoort. PASSED 5-0 Abandonment of Recommendation and 21-TM-79. Com. Blaine Second: Com. PASSED Alhambra Avenue as of Octobe~ 5, 1979 per Staff (23-U-79 Koenitzer 5-0 ITEM ~12, Applications 2l-Z-79 and 27-U-79 of MARIUS E. NELSON: PREZONING approximately .6 of a gross acre from Santa Clara County C-n (Neighborhood Commercial) to City of Cupertino pre P (Planned Development with commercial and office intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appro- priate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct a commercial office building consistin0 of approximately 7,500 sq. ft. and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~: The Environmental Revie~ Committee recommends the granting of a Negative 'Declaration. Said property is located on the northeast Icorner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and ~ann Drive. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - November 5, 1979. Staff outlined their report and pointed out that the plans were in conformance with the Monte Vista Specific Plan. Comments from property owners and business men in the ¡shoPPing center were concerned with lack of visual access to their locations and loss of direct access through Mann. Mr. Cowan explained that the decision on Mann had to do with signal lights, and he stated that the plan would be of future benefit. As for blocking visual access, he recalled the research done on Key Chevrolet, which indicated a time span of a person traveling past or through a given point was an infinitesimal loss of visual access. Accoustical ~E.:;VTSS :JCTOì3S:Z g, ~ 97 '1 REGCLAR PL.';:i:;r:~G co:·r:'!ISS :,1:; 'f~ ..-- T~'''' ..L.. _ .~. . ?C-;i.? ~a'~:e 2.3 reports nc :. s e . Whitten would he reollirerl to protect resi¿~nts ~rorn A~¿, tne a?pl~cant and Assistant City Engineer ~ere attemptin~ to avoid dedic3tians. Aspects of utilizin~ Mann Drive to extend parking bac~~? space, and Assistant City Attorney tilian said it ~i~~t be a legal question, but he felt that conditions could Je: imposed on an abandoned roadway. It was sU~8ested that since both property owners were in the audience that the~ mizht like to ge~ together to resolve ?roblems. ~r. ~arius E. ~¡elso~, Applicant, 16¿~ ~ew Castle Drive, Log Altos, co~~ented 1) the plans were in confo~~ance ~i:h th2 ~onte Vista Specific Plan, 2) the conseque~':as v. t~~ a~andonrnent of ~ann Drive had been accoœmo¿ate¿, 3) he w~3hed to cooperate ~~th ~r. Mindell, ~) he wished to a'!cid additional public hearings if ~ossible to do so. and 5) he expected that Mr. Mindell ~ight i~¿icate a ~i:_- l~;~ess to leave ~ann Drive in its ?reserrr canfi~~r3ti~n. The Com~issioners discussed the proxi~it:7 of the buildi~~ to t~e sidewalk, si~~al light installativ~, stacking tr1ffic and th¿ circalation of traffic :cr the area, shifting the buil¿ing. ~r. Harold ~inde:l, property owner, llO~ S. E.l Ca~i~o Real, Sunnyvale, said he was pleased ~r. ~elson ~as willinq to negotiate. ~e ~entioned improvements ~e'd ~ade to ~i~ property and cc~?li~ented the proposed development. Ee asked to be able to erect a sign (an¿ keep the old si~n in its present location) to compensate for 'e:'ng denied ~ corner and visual access to the businesses on his property. ~s. Ann an2er, resident, said she was ?leased and was in favor of the develop~ent coming into ~on:e Vista. Te her, it seemed, she said, that the sig~~l installatio~ WgS a very im?ortant aspect of t~e plan. Mr. Don Bectisworth, 14906 Glenwood Avenue, Cupertino attributed the loss of one business to b~ocka~e of t~le stðre fro~ view. He supported stackin~ of trart~c ~t ~a~n Drive. At the request of CHR. GATTO, ~r. Betcis~or:~! e~rlained his plan for stacking the tra::ic. ~r. Janes R. Shaw, 7~?~ Reatherwoo¿ Jrive, Cu~ertinc a~c :fr. Charles ~folinari, 1:;usinessT.en in :;:-,~ ?':'ed .;.è.i ~.ce:1': t·-: the proposed project said they were ~12~ :0 5¿¿ ~e'~ buildings and iM~rJVe~ents; yet, they k:1e~ that n0 ~~tte~ ~here the pro~c~ed ~uildin~ was place¿ !t would ~0t b~ ~,o5sible to see ::hei.r stores. The:! as>e,: :h:'.t '!éin;o. Dr:··:"õ' :-lot be closed. I'C-3l9 p ., "t~ 16 ~;I:\UTES OCT03ER 3, 19ì9 RE~UT.^R ?T.A~;~:I\C CO~¡~¡ISSION ~'. i r\··.., j .'" ','T·' CO~! ^DA~:S StJ;:ßcsted to tile Conmissiollers th3t t11ey ~tlll ov~r t ,I t_ .1, tl t .L. r Tn t n err 0 p i; c t y 0 i.v n e r s, r 0. sid en t S, d n d r! ~ vel - I' c:) : r : I ;; ',1!l t ; '1 ~'~:l G' C G n s i (1 e r;~ t ion 0 f the é1 P r 1 i cat ion. C"'f .. tP...,-....."., 0 \ d ' .. 0 0 f 11' . ( :'~ 0 :, C. ,~..\ 1 j I. ,~, ,..... to,~:~:. n I ,:. tile L lJ 'TiT~ l S S l 0 ì1 è r S 0 a t ,1 e ?;1. 2 f~ t l n ': s . ,ir:d 1.1 isc-:ssi,JI1. that L.1.d tr,"1spircd over a long period of t -L:-:-J~ 311 ,)f ~hicl1 11~d ~e2n ignor2d by 20St people until tI1is par- t: :i. C 11 1 :ì C ,1. ~ I' 1 i cat 1. ü n ".' ,'1 S r 2 c e i v (:, d . ¡Ct"'. CT.,\!_"DY '-;;'.;c,~cst2è cOF.tinuing the matter in order to provide Sùr:ìe ¡ dL (;ction to t"he dpplicdnt for v.chat the Conmissioners 'ivould: like. I Also, he said visibility \.Jas necessary for the shupping center. c 0 ~~ . h,:-,d :) t A I XEs t ,'1 t e d t 11 d t t 1-: e !J 1 ,:1 ;ì 1 i ;~ ç reservations about the rr0xi~ity S;1 e \~as Sl~t; ho~ever, to s l,~(:~·.'alk. CI~R. GATTO rc~inded the CO:1nissioí12rS that side~~31k orie~tati0n in :.[ () n t Œ Vis t a - - s t r e e tor i e n t e ¿ CO:1 S t r 11 c t ion - - '-.,' ~~ S \." h 3. t t h <.:: y had ~eQn p11~:1~:1g. 1~e recoD~ended, to ~~r. ~cls()n, t11at h2 r2;;cI1 ¡¡n .:;·r¿0~~nt ~ith ffr. ~fi~dcll on r(~CiDrOcal e~s.~~~~ts . ) 1: .~ ,- .. > 1 ~" '1':'- ('. . n ') r ) ") crt v s ~ 1 C - s u f £ í C i '" 11 t 1 y 0 ;11~ d, t ;! r L1 í n <::; i; he" ~~ :! ~ ~ :~ ; 1'1:: 1. ~~ n ~ ' . : \Î ~ 1 ~ ¡ reI wi 2 ~", : - :: (' ;~ e 0 f t ~ e p ~ ~ b 1 c: M . :<();i lO;~: .\,~;ò.:- s , 3nd 27-V-ì9 u~til Planning COITDission. to c:.)!1[i;¡\Jc 1 9 7 9 ~ ~ ,~ e t i i~ f. C', ,''0 ~1 ': y :'1-Z-ì9 or the ("(1':1 . Octc:,er ) ? - - , c'~ :-:' S ,-: C ,~ :: ,.~ : \'0 ~ E: 5 -0 i' .'.'; s.-~ 9 C~;?I~IS~{ED 3~S:\:3S ITE~! #14, Appljc~tion 24-T~1-76 of te~si2n of Tentative ~~ap. .\I... \'.4.:-: E;,:: ? c ~ 1.: ,2 S t :- () r (:...- h' :,;0'[ I O~~: CQ~o Claudy, to grant req\lest for extension of 6 ~c~:~~ Second: Corn. B12ine "'OlF: : 5-0 Y..\SS::D 1:;::=~..' :~LOS :~; E.~~S ::r?,JI~T Of ?L/-.:'~~~l~~G CU~"iISSIÜ~ ~E?ORT OF PLA~X!:;G DI~~CIOR ]_!..DJOrr:~YF~;T APPROVED: A~ Cit Clerk -d ~ \:. .