Loading...
PC 07-09-79 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-313 Page 1 MINUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 SALUTE TO THE FLAG CALL TO ORDER 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Gatto Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Koenitzer STAFF PRESENT Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki Assistant City Attorney Aiken Assistant City Engineer Whitten APPROVAL OF MINUTES of previous meetings, May 14 through June 18, 1979 was deferred pending Staff Review and con- solidation for presentation at the Meeting of July 23, 1979. ITEM If 5 I I I Applications 10-Z-79 and 12-TM-79, MAY INVEST- ¡ MENT, INC., REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP and ENVIRON-! MENTAL REVIEW CONTINUED FOR ONE MONTH AT THE RE-¡ QUEST OF APPLICANT. I POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that a letter , had been received from Jo Ann Goltzen regarding Item #10; other items of communication were a part of the Packet. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ch. Gatto said that nO new items would be started after 11:00 p.m.; and he invited members of the public who wished to speak to any item appearing late on the Agenda tn <in so. PUBL-IC. HEARING: AGENDA ITEM #1, Applications 5-Z-79 of CHARLES & SHIRLEY SNYDER: REZONING Approximately .7 gross acres from Al-43 (Agricultural Residential 43,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size} to Rl-10 (Residential single-family 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) or whatever zone may be deemed appro- MINUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/PLANNING COMMISSION PC-3l3 Page 2 priate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to sub- divide approximately .7 of an acre into two parcels equaling approximately 15,000 sq. ft. each and ENVIRON- MENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recom- mends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located at the terminus of Mount Crest Place. First Hearing continued. City Council hearing 8/6/79. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the content of the Staff Report and reminded the Commissioners that a postponement from the previous meeting had resulted be- cause of confusion relating to ultimate land use decisions involving the larger geographical area. The problems posed also were division of 3/4 acre site into two par- cels of 15,000 sq. ft. each, the relationship of this property to adjoining ones to the south, and access to a lot through a semi-improved rear driveway. He pointed out the alternatives, 1) approval on merit contingent upon a geologic report with owner agreement to participate in improvement of driveway; 2) Applicant to remove application pending a review of land use intensity to resolve the issue of 1/2 acre lots and criteria for hillside properties (a study limited to character analysis in this instance; and 3) the applicant's election, if the application is turned down, to participate in area-wide discussion, scheduled for early fall, and comìng back to the City later. Ch. Gatto inquired of the Applicant if he understood the options through conversations with the Staff. Mr. C. K. Synder, l1244 Miramonte Road, Cupertino, said that he was aware of the options. He said he had one question regarding the second option; and since a time factor was involved, he asked how long he would be de- layed. * Assistant Planning Director Cowan indicated a character analysis of degree of driveway approach (excluding highly technical considerations), and sensitivity deter- minations could be ready for the first meeting in September. Com. Koenitzer, who had asked at the last meeting about hooking into the driveway, was told that there was an easement available. Ch. Gatto wanted to know if there had been expectations of it becoming a public street. Mr. Cowan said that the 1967 Policy of the Hillside indicated five lots or less comprise a driveway. Any more than five lots would re- quire a public street. Assistant City Engineer Whitten stated that Mr. Boghosian had offered dedication on a small portion of roadway. MINUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Claudy asked Mr. Snyder Lf splLttLng the lots would create lass that 15,000 sqa ft., as required, lots; and, Mr. Snyder cited 1965 Zoning supporting his situation of splLttLng the parcels. Mr. Snyder said the primary access to the lot had always been through the private driveway (road) and he felt that the application satisfied the intent of the General Plan. Density requirements were consistent with the character of, the area. And, he added, considering the hillside devel- i opment from a slope-density standpoint and number of home~ on a private road, it didn't apply. He continued that he: wished to have the application considered on merit, hopin~ the Commission would label the situation unique. Because the number of homeowners involved would require a long time to resolve the problem, he said he would prefer Option #1. And he turned over a signed petition from residents in the area showing their approval. , i I Com. Koenitzer was told, in response to his question, thaq presently six houses were on the map, and he was shown i the driveway that would become a public street -- a cu1- ' de-sac. Assistant Planning Director Cowan pOLnted out that the policy of the City and the Staff indicated pub1i4 street use since 1966. I Com. Adams asked if the signatures on the petition repre-! sented any residents on Lindy Lane. Mr. Snyder said two I of the owners did not wLsh to sign the p~tition; however, he understood them to approve. And, he continued by I saying that the ridge separated the land geographically, I the slopes going off in opposite directions. Com. Blaine recommended, on the basis of input from the previous meeting, that the Commissioners should be given an opportunity to look at growth of the total area rather than piece by piece. She said that slopes, improvements, and densities could be determined by such a total review. I I I ¡ Com. Koenitzer noted that the lot in question was larger than the other lots so that the other lots would be the lS,OOO sq. ft.; and he pointed out that they were being asked for a decision on something they had turned down twice before. It was his hope, he said, that an overall development plan would be pursued for a public street. Com. Adams asked Staff why the problem of access vs. public road had not been evaluated in 1965 and 1966 when the first development was put in. It appeared to him that the variance was permitted at that time, possibly because there was no intent to subdivide. Com. Blaine mentioned that the easement might possibly indicate some forethought in the matter. Com. Koenitzer said it meant to him that maybe the inten was to go up over the saddle to a public road through there. PC-313 Page 3 PHC-5-0 * PC-313 Page 4 MLNUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/PLANNING COMMISSLON The Commission concluded that possibly the easement only represented a mode of operation for the early developments. MOTION: Com. Blaine, Denial of Zoning, 5-Z-79. Second: Com. Koenitzer AYES: UNANIMOUS 5-0 To CC 8/6 VOTE: 1. oo..oo........ .. PC-309 PHO Ch. Gatto advised Mr. Snyder, the Applicant, that the issue would automatically go to City Council on August 6, 1979. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that if the City Council agreed with the Planning Commission, the urgency would be removed, and the Staff would discuss a Work Schedule at the July 23, 1979 meeting. Or, he said, the applicant could come back within the same time frame. ¡AGENDA ITEM #2, Application 9-TM-79 of MARTIN HALL/JAMES ¡BOGHOSIAN: TENTATIVE MAP to modify property lines for ,three existing parcels consisting of a total of approxi- mately .8 of an acre. No new lots are being created. In- dividual modified parcels will consist of approximately 10,000 sq. ft. each; and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The En- vironmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located at the southwesterly terminus of Miramonte Road approximately 350 ft. easterly of Stevens Canyon Road in an RI-IO zoning district. First Hearing continued. City Council hearing 8/6/79. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report in detail and gave the Commissioners a Condition Paper. He said that because the work was incomplete the map could not be recorded. A Policy decision was required to refigure the configuration of the lots. Grading, because of slope; and relative to the width of the 40 ft. street, setbacks would be decreased. Sidewalks would not be re- quired because of the rural character of the neighborhood. Mr. Cowan said there would be minimum disturbance of ex- isting trees. A further problem was the uncertainty of the legal status of the roadway, which could be solved by abandonment of the roadway by Mr. Bratten and future par~ cel owners. Com. Koenitzer noted that a cul-de-sac would take the best of the building sites and he suggested possibly it could be located at the intersection of Miramonte & Ricardo so as not to interfeIEcwith buildings on the northern side of the road. Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that the City wished to keep cul-de-sacs as short as possible; and in response to Com. Blaine's inquiry about road surface, he reviewed hillside road standards on asphalt swale. Minimum stan- dards for such areas would still require curbs and gutters to control drainage. MiNUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/PLANNING COMMISSION (Allied Engineering), Mr. Ken Iwa~aki, representing the owners, said he felt the Assistant Planning Director, Mr. Cowan, had presented i the applicant's cause very well, and he said he had littlei to add. The original subdivision was for better lot lines ' and patterns; one object now being a shorter cul-de-sac. I I I PC-3l3 Page 5 Mr. Ransom Bratton, 10965 Miramonte Road, Cupertino, an adjacent property owneü said that most of the problems he had brought up in a letter to the Commissioners at the last meeting had been mitigated. However, he said, the original plans had changed, and the property owners were not aware of the change on the width of the roadway. The width of the roadway would take out trees lining the road. He identified, on the map, a tree that had been damaged during the last development, and said that $300 expense I' had been incurred. Pipelines going through would cause further damage. Overall, he said, a major concern was th~ diminishing of the rural, country atmosphere. i Com. Gatto verified, through Mr, Cowan, the Assistant I Planning Director, that the roadway right-of-way had to b~ there along with the widths, curb and gutter; and, he 1 suggested the mechanics of the roadway be worked out asid from the Tentative Map. . Com. Adams was advised that Ricardo Road is an asphalted 1 private road with the terminus going to the point at whic the slope goes to 45 degrees (60%), walking it being impossible. I Mr. Ernest Baxter, a neighbor, whose driveway was between I the Bratton's and the Whittaker's driveways, said that having moved to the country in 1962 to escape concrete, curbs, and the rest of this, complained that this sur- prise had been "dumped" on them suddenly. He wished to state that the roadway was much too wide. * Com. Koenitzer inquired about improvement plans for Steve s Canyon & Miramonte Roads, and Mr. Whitten said that the ultimate changes would be similar to the improvements at Rancho Deep Cliff. Com. Blaine was advised, by Mr. Whitten, that a full, hal - street improvement would be required on the subdivision. The intent would be to have a full 50 ft. width -- 30 ft. curb to curb, with parking. The Commissioners discussed road surfaces, and also the necessity of insuring against drainage damage on the slopes involved. PHC 5-0 The Commissioners had a lengthy discussion of parking on the roadway, the width of the roadway, and agreements on further improvements for completion of the roadway and th scheduling for completion. PC-313 Page 6 2. 3. IMLNUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MKETING/PLANNING COMMLSSION· , Assistant Planning Director Cowan said he wished to point out to the Commissioners that although they had been talk- ing about less than ten lots, but that in fact there Were fifteen lots of record on the road. He added that the Council had indicated full improvements were possible,and he requested that the Commissioners make a Finding to that effect if they wished to deviate from the policy. He read the policy ~oncerning public and private construction maintenance costs, character, vehicular traffic (both ¡public and private), pedestrian safety. Essentially, he ¡concluded, there were three areas pertinent to a Finding. I iCh. Gatto said that with all due respect to Public Works, ¡'the area being unique and one of few rural areas left, and '¡had in addition been one area to have come up with a well- developed street pattern, he would, even considering maybe Itwo or three more homes, be willing to call for ultimate ¡right-of-way with Deferred Agreement. If the neighbor- hood became Rl-lO, then improvements would go in -- the Deferred Agreements would be called. Com. Blaine was informed that because of the inflation ¡element, it was not usual practice to have the developer post a bond. Com. Claudy asked Ch. 130 ft. roadway on the Iments for future curb Gatto if he expected rolled road with developing lots and Deferred Agree- and gutter and sidewalks. [ I ¡Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that they proposed ,¡fUll width in front of the developing lots -- a full half- street improvement on subdivision. The intent, he con- [tinued, under the General Plan, would be for 50 ft. width; 130 ft. curb to curb, with parking. I Com. Koenitzer proposed a change of wording on Condition #17 on Page 2, 9-TM-79, sentence 2, ...."the intent is to lencourage minimum 20 ft. setbacks of core curved drive- ¡ways, which allow setbacks of 15 ft..." !Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked the Commissioners ito indicate a point at which the Deferred Agreement should ~e called in. Suggestion: considering three homes present- ¡ly, six out of thirteen would be reasonable a3 a time at ~hich the work should be scheduled. ~h. Gatto explained that he was reluctant to establish a ¡time; however, he suggested that possibly development of Ithe northside of the road could trigger the Deferred (Ago:-e,ement. i MOTION: I Com. Blaine,: to on Application III through 1114; #15, road sections to be amended; rEcommend a Negative Declaration 9-TM-79 with Standard Conditions MINUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE: #l6, #17, as recommended by Com. Koen1tzer; #l8, 19 ft. r1ght of way 1mproved by Appli-- cant at his expense, dedication of rema1n1ng 5 1/2 ft. in front of parcels A, B, & C, to be dedicated but not improved at th1s time. Under Deferred Agreement a 19 ft. improved, and additional footage for 40 ft right-of-way to be dedicated with a 5 ft. easement outside the roadway inclusive, under Deferred Agree- ment. #19 deleted in consideration of the Com- missioner's finding that the situation and area is unique. Condition #20 to become Condition #19, as recommended by Staff. SECOND: Com. Adams AYES: Com. Blaine, Adams, Claudy, Gatto NOES: Com. Koenitzer ABSTAIN: None PASSED: 4-1 Ch. Gatto advised the Applicant that the matter would go to City Council on August 6, 1979. AGENDA ITEM #3, Application 9-U-79 of HASSAN AMER: USE PERMIT to construct an 11,300 sq. ft. office building in a P (Planned Development with commercial and office use in- tent) zone and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed hence no act10n is required. Said property is located on the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bubb Road. First Hearing continued. City Council hearing 8/6/79. Assistant Planning Director Cowan listed the concerns for the Application that had been thrashed out at the previous meeting, and he identified the modifications to the Applicant's plans, which represented considerable input from Staff to meet the Commissioner's standards. He called attention to the elevated section of the drawing that created a transition from Stevens Creek and Old Monte Vista; and, he pointed out the areas where setbacks had been incorporated into the plan by the cantelevering of some of-the second story. The three-story tower, being a design device, was not intended for occupancy. Assistant Planning Director Cowan outlined the requirement of the General Commercial Ordinance for 5 parking spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. of floor space, and noted that the plan as revised had 10,900 sq. ft (down from 11,300 sq. ft.) and increased parking spaces to 49 spaces (from 46 spaces). Because of the mix of office and commercial the Appli- cant's request was for 1 space/233 sq. ft. average (a 1 space/200 sq. ft. for commercial being usual. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reminded the Commissione s that Cupertino's ratios of parking to space was out of kilter with the other jurisdictions around them. And, he said that since Cupertino had used large complexes to es- PC-3l3 Page 7 ? To CC 8/6 ....... . PC-309 ¡' MINUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/PLANNING COMMISSION PC-313 Page 8 tablish standards, it might be necessary to rework the in- formation they had been using against what should be used for future developments. Com. Claudy said if he understood correctly, 2,500 sq. ft. was commercial and 8,500 sq. ft. for office use, which caused him to compute a sum of 69 spaces required for the building. Mr. Cowan advised that using Town Center as criteria, this project would have vacant parking spaces. Com. Koenitzer stated that 1/150 might seem extreme, but the lack of on-street parking at the location had to be considered. Commissioner Blaine asked staff if possible vacancies in the Town Center 4. Complex were responsible for the apparent excess parking at said complex and she asked Staff to check out the vacancy rate at the complex. It was explained that one end of the scale was 1/180 and other ends of scales went to l/200; therefore, the 1/150 ratio was reasonable because of lack of other parking space in the area and it also was a median ratio between the two extremes. PRO Com. Koenitzer asked how tall, from grade to roof, was the three-story section; and, Mr. Malic, the Applicant's architect said he would like to address the Commissioners. on the height and the parking requirements. Mr. Malic, architect for the Applicant, said the second floor area was substantially more than the first floor area, which would tend to increase parking. And, indeed, he said, it was in line with parking in surrounding cities. The three-story section was 35 ft. high -- a design feature like a mezzanine; and, although it was about 400 sq. ft. with room for maybe two desks, it was not additional space for leasing purposes. He pointed out that the building tower was visible from the Freeway and also created an interesting and attractive focal point for the melding of the two areas, Bubb Road and Stevens Creek. Far from being bulky and forbidding, he said the design was airy and light and would have vines growing on some of the sections. Com. Adams inquired as to whether or not the mezzanine, which he now understood to be l50 sq. ft. was to be used Ifor storage or warehousing; and, he said he wished the ¡record to show that Mr. Malic had denied such a use for the area and that the area was not to be used. IMr. Malic located the air conditioning area for Ch. Gatto. ¡Mr. Herman Raynes, consultant to the Applicant and a leasing agent for the proposed development, said he was attempting to locate appropriate tenants for large blocks of space on the second floor. Along Stevens Creek he said he was attempting to find walk-in business -- shops of single sale variety and small professional shops to gener- ate walk-business. Mr. Raynes said that he felt large MINUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/PLANNING COMMISSION offLce space would be 3,000-4,000 sq. ft. as opposed to say 1,200 sq. ft. PU~LIC HEARING CLOSED, Com. Koenitzer & Com. Adams MOTION: Com. Koenitzer to support Approval of the Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review. Second: Com. Blaine UNANIMOUS i I \ Com. Claudy said he wished to be on the record as pointingl out the parking problem only. The design, elevations, I variations of planes, and the plaza on Stevens Creek were I all very pleasing. His only reservation, he said, was I that the Staff felt the parking requirement was in error . and that the ratio should be reversed. He cited the Nolte report for a I-story professional center wLth no commercial retail space. VOTE: Ch. Gatto and Com. Blaine joined in encouraging a review of parking standards in the City of Cupertino. ¡ ! ! I Com. Claudy called attention to Condition #16, noting that! the location of the building being at the end of Bubb Road! at Stevens Creek, and near an industrial area, possibly I a small restaurant could be used there. Com. Blaine said she would not object to a walk-in sand- wich shop of some sLze with no seating capacity -- a place for purchasing lunch to eat at desk or on lawn. Com. Koenitzer noted for the Applicant that he was beLng gLven an opportunLty to ask for a change of Use Permit after he had some experiences with businesses for the de- velopment. MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, Approve 9-U-79 with Standard ConditLons #1 through #14; #15 through #17 per Staff Memo Findings and Conclusions. Second: Ch. Gatto AYES: UNANIMOUS VOTE: PC-313 Page 9 PHC Cf. 4. 5 . ...... . RECESS: 9:40 p.m. to RECONVENE AT 10:50 p.m. \ Ch. Gatto reminded the audience that Items on the Agenda, J' whLch would not be taken up after 11:00 p.m.,would be on the Planning Commission Calendar and Agenda for the Regula Adjourned Meeting of July 23, 1979. i Agenda Item #9, upon request for ContLnuance by the Appli-! cant, and Item #10, by agreement of the Commissioners, I would De heard on July 23, 1979. The other Agenda Items 1 that had not come up before 11:00 p.m. would also be put ov" '0 ,.. Joly 23. 1979 M.."o, of 'h. "000'0' co..""[o. PC-3l3 Page lO PC-309 6/ll MINUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/pLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM #4, Applications 9-Z-79 and ll-TM-79 of J. Guy Farthing: REZONING approximately 1.3 gross acres from ML (Light Industrial) to R1C (Residential, single-family cluster) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to resubdivide approximately 1.3 acres into eight residential cluster par- cels and one lot 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 westerly of the southeast corner of Homestead Road and Lucky Oak Court adjacent to and westerly of the Stevens Creek watercourse. First Hearing continued. City Council hearing 8/6/79. Associate Planner Piasecki exhibited the maps of the project, reviewed the location, and noted that it bor- dered along the City of Los Altos along a private drive serving the Glenn Oaks development. He said the General Plan had just changed the range of density to the 5 - 10 range, and designated it for residential land use (Page 2-26 of the General Plan under policy on floodplain areas (under Land Use/Community Character). He reportèd that Planning Director James Sisk felt that the area, not having been part of the floodplain previously, should not now be considered as part of it. The Staff recommendation, he said, was to apply the 5 - 10 and not get involved in density credit or debit considerations (one unit would be lost because half of the area is within the 100-year event, and the other half is not). Associate Planner Piasecki advised that although the gar- ages were recessed, the total height of the structures would not exceed that of the Glenn Oaks development to the west, (24-28 ft.). Access to the area would be gained through a reciprocal agreement for easement, paving and maintenance, with an expanded access driveway, with Lucky Oaks. Dedication of the necessary space and specifics of 6. conditions and research would be undertaken on these issues. Mr. Piasecki mentioned the trails and pathways along Stevens Creek to the baylands. He noted that one large oak and an evergreen tree could be preserved and suggested eliminating parking spaces to accommodate the trees. Associate Planner Piasecki a~sed that Mr. Cotton had indi- cated there was no geologic condition preempting the devel- opment; however, geologic information and soils testing 7. should be made to determine foundation systems in piers and grade beams, which should be sunk to insure against flooding damage. Ch. Gatto inquired as to total parking prior to deletion of spaces, and he was told the ratio was two spaces/unit plus additional parking to a ratio of 3 1/3 spaces/unit. Para- llel parking was available on the Lucky Oak easement, and agreement with Glenn Oaks would be negotiated. MINUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/PLANNING COMMISSION Ch. Koenitzer's assumption that it was usual for Ownershi Agreements in formation of Homeowner Associations to be approved by the City Attorney was confirmed by Mr. Piasec who cited the Rl-C Ordinance, 13.5 & 13.6 covering all th agreements. PC-313 Page 11 Mr. J. Guy Farthing, the Appl:Lcant, said the site was an unusual one with some of the biggest trees in the area; oaks, sycamore, redwoods and one deodora. The des:Lgn was adapted to creating a park-l:Lke setting in taking advan- tage of the s:Lte. He said 76% of the trees on the site were saved and that all of the parking spaces could be re tained. In response to Ch. Gatto's concern for the roots of the trees, Mr. Farthing said that using blocks through which grass could grow and water could seep down was bein investigated, and it was felt this too, if possihle to do, would further enhance the rural atmosphere. One tree would he surrounded by an island, which would tend to break up the mass of park:Lng. He stated that discussions with the Water District, in January, dictated"the 15~foot easement for accesS to the creek. Conferences with Staff had brought about the sunken garages. Mr. Farthing said the units were about l,800 sq. ft., 2 bedroom, 3 1/2-bath, 2-fireplace prestige items and since they had had the best architect and landscape designers available they hoped to win national awards with the project. PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED: Com. Adams, & Com. Koenitzer, 5-0 MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: VOTE: Com. Blaine, Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. Second: Com. Koenitzer AYES: UNANIMOUS Com. Blaine for Approval 9-Z-79 with Standard Conditions #1 through #14, #l5 through #20 as per Staff recommendations, with Findings and Conclusions of the Staff Report. Second: Com. Adams AYES: UNANIMOUS Com. Blaine, Approval of ll-TM-79 with Standard Conditions #1 through #14, #16 through #18 as Amended, covering the ease- ment agreements with the Homeuwner Associations as Recommended in the Staff Report. Second: Com. Adams AYES: UNANIMOUS Ch. Gatto adv:Lsed the Applicant that the matter would go to Council on August 6, 1979 To CC 8/6 Ch. Gatto reminded those in the audience that matters would not De started after 11:00 p.m. Therefore, he said, Item #6 appeared to be the last matter to come up and that all other Items would be held over to the July 23, 1979 Regular Adjourned Meeting of th.e Planning Commission. MLNUTES/JULY 9, 1979/RRGULAR MRRTING/PLANNING COMMISSION PC-313 Page 12 AGENDA ITEM #6, Applications ll-Z-79, 14-TM-79 and ll-U-79 of MARTIN-HAYES, INC.: REZONLNG approximately one acre from R2-4.25 (Residential Duplex, 4,250 sq. ft. minimum lot size} to P (Planned Development with single-family residential intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide one parcel consisting of approximately one acre into five parcels and one lot to be held in common owner- ship; USE PERMIT to construct five single-family cluster homes; and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located at thA northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and McClellan Road. First Hearing. City Council hearing 8/6/79. Associate Planner Piasecki summarized the contents of the Staff Report; Findings, and Subconclusions. He passed out to the Commissioners the Paper covering the Homeowners Association and said that it was an additional consideration of the Staff. Mr, Russell Ha es, Applicant, 514 Rutherford Avenue, Red- wood City, CA, said he was uncertain as to the time being appropriate; however, he said he'd like to explain the landscaping (using the map that was posted) both outside the fence and the fencing in general. The Public Works took exception to the sidewalks he proposed because he ished to pattern them in a meandering fashion in and out along the fence line, using plantings and trees for vegetation. He called attention to the berm that rimmed the property and explained that the fence would be along the top of the berm. Fencing, which would taper down at the entrance to the area, would also provide privacy for the occupants and act as a noise barrier for the traffic on McClellan and Foothill. The Homeowners Association ould be responsiblë for maintaining the landscaping. r. Hayes responded to questions from the Commissioners. ssistant City Engineer Whitten explained to Mr. Hayes and he Commissioners that the reservations on the landscaping attern had to do with maintaining trees between side- alks -- the budget for caring for such planter strips was ·ncreasing (current level $60,000); and, in addition, he aid there was a question as to whether homeowners or roperty owners could be required to do repair work. And, h. Gatto pointed out that meandering might be just such problem too. a general discussion about the fence; the height, aterial, the necessity for or against such a fence for oise control, the 45% slope of the berm (creating a roblem of maintaining plantings other than ivy or ice lant), r. Hayes volunteered that he had a letter from a sound ngineer asserting that hA n6$ded the fence. MINUTRS!JULY 9, 1979!RRGULAR MRRTING!PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Robert DeLoz~er, 22470 McClellan, a res~dent across th.e. ~tre.e.t from th.e. property, g-ai..d h.e'd like. to h,e.ar some :l:.nformat:l:.on as to h.ow McClellan and Footh:l:.ll Boulevard wag going to he developed -- the. high gpeed traffic and heavy traff:l:.c flow creat:l:.ng hazards of street acc~dents, and also creat:l:.ng difficulty for exiting his driveway. Mr. DeLozier said he'd also like to discuss the problem of dust control dur:l:.ng construct:l:.on. He specif~cally said he oBjected to the opening onto McClellan and sug- gested that the opening into the development should be turned around onto Foothill Boulevard. He oBserved that of course one was Bad and proBaBly the other entrance was worse. Mr. E. J. Covle, 22470 McClellan, said he objected to the development on the corner solely because the traffic flow ought to be looked at first. Density in the area had increaged and would continue to do so, and the speed of traffic on both Foothill and McClellan (the latter being the only through street south of Stevens Creek) produced serious problems. Lowering speeds and a four- way stop might mitigate the problem, he suggested. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that he'd like to reinforce the remark of Mr. Whitten that the City would be reviewing, through a Public Hearing, the problems of the area -- the so-called McClellan-Santa Paula. Planline Designation issue. He promiged that notices would be sent to the residents of the neighborhood. City Engineer Whitten, in the general discussion, had explained that the traffic on Foothill was heavier, which would preclude a driveway there; whereas, on McClellan it was felt the driveway could be better tolerated. He said that they were aware of the problems and would be in the process of reviewing the total area within a short period of time. Com. Koenitzer expressed surprise that no comment had bee forthcoming about truck traffic from the quarry. And, Com. Claudy said that having lived within four blocks of the area he could testify to the fact that motorcycles were the worst offenders as noise makers. Also, he added police vehicles, fire engines, and ambulances were also bad as they went out to the dam. The Commissioners noted the fact that a large tract of land in back of the corner development would be coming up for development, probably in two-story homes, and they suggested the balcony design of the proposed structures should be refered to H-Control. On zoning, it was agreed R2, or the requested RI, would fit into the mixed neighborhood. The property to the east was called pre-RI-IO. It was agreed, after some PC-313 Page 13 PRC 5-0 * In Sept. I LNUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/PLANNING COMMISSION discussion, that the fence vs. noise decision could depend upon reports in accordance with the Standard 45 DBS-LBN, and it was also agreed that the structures would absorb some of the noise. The berms could be reviewed to determine maximum grade levels. PC-313 Page 14 Com. Claudy asked that the Applicant be advised of the problem with the Use Permit (there being no problem with re- zoning); thus providing him with the option of redoing the project, orienting an outward facing design to eliminate the necessity for street-side fencing. It was suggested he might wish to come back. ,Assistant Planning Director Piasecki said there was more in- centive for ownershíp units than single-family or rental ¡units. He indicated that unless there was concern for ¡rental vs. ownership, then thßY were only discussing a :desígn problem. j ICh. Gatto advised Mr. Hayes that, as he could deduce from ¡the discussion by the Commissioners, there was, after de- ¡liberation, no problem with zoning; however, the concern ¡over configuration and physical appearance was great. He ,said that although the two-story units were not a major ¡problem, he advised that it was felt that they could be Ihandled with some degree of sensitivity for the privacy of others in the development, and in the development that might go in behind. Ch. Gatto asked Mr. Hayes ~hat he wished to do, and explained that he had the option of going to Council for a decision; ,or, he said, the Application could be continued. ¡Mr. Hayes said he would like to hear the Commission's :recommendation. Appl. 'MOTION: ¡VOTE: ¡MOTION: VOTE: Denials MOTION: I ¡VOTE: i I MO~ION: Com. Koenitzer, Approval of Negative of Environmental Review Committee. Second: Com. Gatto AYES: UNANIMOUS Com. Claudy, Approval ll-Z-79, for and Subconclusions of Staff Report dard Condition, #1 through #14 and Second: Com. Adams AYES: UNANIMOUS Declaration 5-0 the Findings of the Stan- IllS. 5-0 Com. Claady, Approval of ll-U-79 DENIED be- cause the plan presented itself as incompatible with the neighborhood and would not be a bene- fit (fences on two sides of a major intersection). Second: Com. Blaine AYES: Com. Claudy, Com. Adams, Corn. Blaine NOES: Ch. Gatto ~nd Com. Koenitzer MOTION FOR DENIAL PASSED 3-2 Com. Claudy, Approval of l4-TM-79 DENIED as above. Second: Com. Blaine AYES: Com. Adams, Com. Claudy, C'~U!. Blaine NOES: Ch. Gatto and Com. Koenitzer MOTION FOR DENIAL PASSED 3-2 MINUTES/JULY 9, 1979/REGULAR MEETING/PLANNING I COMMISSION I VOTE: Com. C1audy, Denial of Approval of 14-TM-79, for reasons stated. Second: Com. Blaine AYES: Com. Claudy, Com. Adams, Com. Blaine NOES: Ch. Gatto, Com. Koenitzer MOTION FOR DENIAL PASSED: 3-2 PC-3l3 Page 15 MOTION: Ch. Gatto advised the Applicant that the matter would g to Council on August 6, 1979. Com. Koenitzer added that the Applicant should take not that the Tentative Map includes Condition #17 and the formation of a Homeowners Association should the Council approve it. AGENDA ITEMS #7 and #8 (along with Agenda Items #9 and #10, which had been previously voted onto the July 23, 1979 Calendar) would not be taken up since it was past the 11:00 p.m. deadline. MOTION: Ch. Gatto, to #10 (excepting Item #5) Meeting of the Planning Second: Com. VOTE: UNANIMOUS carryover Items #7 through to the July 23, 1979 Adjourned Commission Blaine 5-0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR MOTION TO ADJOURN: Com. Adams Second: Com. Blaine VOTE UNANIMOUS 5-0 ADJOURNMENT 11:20 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 'a I '. //~. .' /,0~ ''-S.,"<.¿:~<~ City Clerk" ,-,. .