Loading...
PC 04-17-78 ~ i CITY OF CUPERTIJIO, STATE OF CAI.IFOR'IIA PC-279 . 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Page 1 Telephone: 252-4505 MIWTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR PLANNING COI~`ifISSION MBETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1978, IN THE LAW LIBRARY CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Ch. Blaine called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL - Co~, present: Koenitzer, Markkula, Ch. Blaine Comm. a6sent: Adams, Gatto Staff present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Engineer Whitten Associate Planner Piasecki - APPP.OVAL OF MIN[1TE5: None. POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS Since there were no cov¢nents from the audience, it was 7-TM-78 continued moved by Co~. Markkula, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer to to PSay Sth continue application 7-TM-78 to May 8, 1978, upon request _ of the staff. Motion carried, 3-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Mrs. Carruthers regarding agenda item 5. Letter from Mr. Braddon regarding agenda item 6. ORAL COMM[INICATION There were none, PC-279 MINUTES OF APRIL 17 , 1978 AD.; . PLA,4NING COMI~SISSION MEETING Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application 3-Z-78, 2-TI?-78 and 1-U-78 of DOMUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: REZONING 1.79 acres from R1 (Residential, single- family) and R3 (Residential, multi-family) to P(Planned Development with single-family residential c3uster intent) or whatever zone may be deemed anpropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to divide said property into 21 single-family cluster lots and 1 lot to be held in co~ton ownership; USE PERMIT to construct 21 townhouses. Said property is located adjacent to and northerly of Stevens Creek Blvd. approximately 100 feet east of Randy Lane. First Hearing. The Assistant Planning Director located the subject property on the overhead map, on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd., directly across from the Custom House. It is contiguous with singla family homes on Wheaton Drive. He stated this was the second application the City has received for housing along Stevens Creek Blvd., the other being in the Town Center, which is still being studied by the City Council. The staff has suggested the Planning Co~ission focus attention on design concept. The General Plan allows 16 trip ends here. This application is consistent with the General Plan in type of use and intensity of land use. One of the questions was the compatibility with other properties along Stevens Creek Blvd. The Assistant Planning Director reviewed the site plan, architectural renderings, etc. The staff was concerned about the proximity of that portion of the 2-story townhouse project that caould be over- looking single family residences. The staff was also concerned about the building mass adjoining single family residences to the rear. The staff's suggestions were consideration of: breaking up oi the Luilding mass, elimination of the privacy problem, and relocation of the recreation area. Mr, *Sax Woo, 11333, 181 Second Avenue, San Mateo, said the units are 1300 and 1500 sq. ft, in size. There is extensive landscaping throughout. They are quite concerned about the privacy between this project and existing single family homes. He said they put the pool closer to Stevens Creek Slvd. rather than closer to adjoin3ng homes, which also brings the units farther from the noise and pollution of Stevens Creek Blvd, He said the mass is broken up with the indentation of walls, hollow balconies and juggled in-6-outs of the units, MIYUTES OF APRIL 17, 1978, ADJ, PLANNING CO:fi4ISSI0N '.~LETING PC-279 Page 3 Comm. Koenitzar questioned the need for a swimming pool with such a small development. Mr. tdood said the "package" requires a common tecreation area, Comn. Koenitzer said it could consist of a tot lot, BBO pit and a couple o: tables. This would allow moving the project forward, away from the single family homes to the rear. Mr. Wood concurred. Cou~. Markkula asked if this proposal meets the Parking Ordinance. The Assistant Planning Director said it is within 1 or 2 spaces of the reauirement. Also, the Planning Co~ission may want to consider decreasing the parking tequirement along busy Stevens Creek Blvd, The Associate ~ Planner said this is PD, not R1C, so it does not have to con foxm to R1C Parking Standard. Ch. Blaine asked the Co~issioners to discuss allowing housing along Stevens Creek Slvd. Comm. Koenitzer said this may be necessary because of the lack of available land. It could be successful residential if accoustical problans are solved. Mr. Woo answered Co~. ?farkkula that these units will run $90,000 to $110,000 each. - Comm. Markkula said he is generally in favor of allowing residential along Stevens Creek Blvd. for convenience. The things that worry him are the kinds of people who will be living here....probably no children because there is no place to p1ay. The cost is high. He worries about the viability of finding a marketplace here because they will have to be so expensive. Ch. Blaine acknowledged there isn't much land left for housing. Judging from the accoustical studies, this could be suitable for residential. She would prefer to see residential rather than strip commercial along Stevens Creek Blvd. Mr. Woo said that even though they have not even started marketing this, they have had 4 phone calls about the projec and he doesn't even know how they got his telephone number. Ch. Blaine said one nice thing is the property is very deep, so it is not too hard to work with. Co~. I~ enitzer said in regard to the privacy problem, moving it forward some 20 feet after eliminating the pool should take care of it. It will also allow moze landscaping in the rear. Mr. Woo said he is also considering eliminatin the balconies facing the residential to the rear. i ~ i i PC-279 MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 1978 ADJ. PL,~]NING CO*ASISSION MEETIVG Page 4 Co~. Markkula asked if any thought had been given to a driveway along the periphery. Mr. Woo said there is not enough room, Mr. Woo answered Ch. Blaine that the o*aners will have the option of patio or balcony, Coffi_ Markkula agreed there is a big building mass, but could see no alternative at this density. Co~, Koenitzer agreed it was a problem, but was sure an answer could be worked out. The Assistant Planning Direccor suggested considering taking Unit 1112 out of the mass and placing it in the pool area. Ch. Blaine suggested using evergreen rather than deciduous trees for screening. Ch. Blaine asked for co~ents from the audience. Mrs. Pauline Lee, 2~104 Wheaton Drive, said this large building mass will be 4~ to 60 feet from her home. She is concerned about looking at 2 stories of solid wood, She and her husband like the idea of residential here: They like the idea of the swimming pool. A slanted roof would be much more appealing to her. Mr. H. Bustawante, 10105 Carol Lee Drive, said he has a large pool in the rear yard and does not like the idea of losing his privacy. He suggested moving the large building to the right and continue the street around the 6ack of the property and have parking in the rear, He was told this could create more problems. Mr. Tom Siron, 20064 Wheaton Drive, said the intent of the developer is to make money. His home sits some 33 feet back from the fence line - a 2-story home. He sees no reason to put these 2-story residences within 15 feet of the fence. He askad if they have considered putting single story in the rear. He felt this plan needed more study. Mr. Woo said all bedrooms are upstair: I° they eli.minate the second . story the people will have no place to sleep. He is willing to elimi- nate all balconies upstairs. The units can be moved 30 feet forward and more trees can be planted to protect privacy. Concerns: privacy, setback, balconies, building mass, whether or not a pool, and whether housing is a viable use along Stevens.Creek Blvd. 3-Z-78 and Moved by Cov~. Koenit2er, seconded by Co~, Markkula to continue these 2-TM-78 and 2 applications to 2iay 8, 1978, 1-U-78 continued to May Sth Motion carried, 3-0 i . I MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 1978 A?T. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I PC-279 _ ~ PaRe 5 2, Application 7-TM-78 CONT INIJED , 3. Application 5-V-77 - Revised - of GRIFFIN & M_URREN COPISTRUGTION: VARIANCE from Section 7.1 of Ordinance 780 (Ordinance regulating single-family zones) and Section 66.1 of Ordinance 220(g) (Height Ordinance) to permit a portion of a sinp,le-family home to be con- structed with three staries (i.e., two stories of living areas over a garage) in lieu of maximum of 2 stories normally permitted. Said property is located adjacent to and easterly of Crescent Road opposite the intersection of Crescent Road and Hillcrest Road. First Hearing. The Associate Planner reviewed the April 7th staff report and the site plan for the variance request of the height limitation. He said the proposed house meets a11 of the other requireanents, as well as the overall height limit. A previous request on this property was for a 12' rather than 20' front yard setback. Due to high land costs and cost of ' improvements, the applicant is requesting 2900 sq. ft, house The staff agreed that this plan provides a unique building form and that the variance request is reasonable. The Associate Planner answered Comm. *farkkula that grading will be required for the garage area. Colored slides of the site were shown on the screen. Mr. Dennis E. Griffin, 1255 Kentwood Avenue, San Jose, said the garage doors are offset. There is a lot of space in this lazge home. ine Assistant City Engineer said this is an existing legal lot and must be allowed a driveway, but it probably would be safer to have the driveway on the opposite side of the lot. He added that further engineering is going to be done on thi intersection. Comm. Koenitzer said this was a very ingenious design to fit onto this difficult lot. Ch. Blaine asked for comments from the audience. _ ~ PC-279 'MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 19;8 ADJ. PL,~NNIVG COMMISSION "IEETING Page 6 ~ i Mr. Virgil Turner, 10131 Hillcrest Road, Cupertino, said he lives at the corner of Crescent and Hillcrest, He is glad to see that house going in there. He asked the staff for an explanation of the building code. The Associate Planner briefly e~cplained the Height Ordinance and the R1 Ordinance. Mr. Willis T. Parrish, 10141 Hillcrest Road, Cupertino, asked what the City is planning to do with that intersection. The Assistant City Engineer said when the weather gets warmer they are going to lay another coat of asphalt, If this does not solve the problem, then there is a more expensive remedy. The letter from Patricia M. Carroll, Amelia Court, objecting to a 3-story home on the basis that it would set a precedent, was entered into the recotd. 0'Patty Brisco, 22140 Orchard Court, *Sonta Vista, said that anything built up there would sell and get a good price. It is a top quality area, She asked what the setbacks are on the side yard, from the white house. Sha was told it was 9'. There is a 20' front yard setback. Brisco recommended a smaller house on this lot. It was leatned the sidewalk will be deferred. Brisco was concerned about sight intrusion on eacisting homes in the area. The developer pointed out the overall height of the structure is 18'. The garage area wi11 be dug into the hill. Mr, Don Gaubatz, 14033 Hillcrest Road, Cupertino, said he lives down the street a co~ple of houses from this lot. He feels this is a considerable improvement over the proposal last December. If the garage were up at the level of [he house it would make such a steep driveway. If the house is built as shown now, the driver would have 50 to 70' visibility; if the house is reversed on the lot it would greatly increase visibility. He suggested a stop sign at Crescent and Hillcrest. He said he had some ob- jection to the size of this home, and to all the new homes being built up there. Mr. Bob Shurr, 10151 Hillcrest Road, cited safety as the issue to be addressed and asked for a point of reference for the garage. He said the school bus won't run up there because there is na place to stop and pick up the children, Moved by Co~, Koenitzer, seconded by Corom. Markkula to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried, 3-0 % MIWTES OF APRIL 1', 1978 ADJ. PLANNING COtQfISSION MEETI:IG j PC-279 _ i Page 7 i ( Co~n. *iarkkula reviewed the requirements for a variance. ~ Comm. Koenitzer said he had no problam with requirements A I or C, but there was some problem with B. The Assistant City Engineer said the driveway cannot go in at that slope, up to the level of the house. Cou¢n. Koenitzer did not see the variance as necessary in ' order to put up a 2900 sq. ft. house. Ch. Blaine did not think we had much to say about the size of the house as long as it meets the setback requirement. The Assistant City Attorney advised it should be considered whether this is a reasonably necessary variance. Moved by Comm. Marklaila, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer, to 5-V-77 recov~end approval of application 5-V-77 subject to the approved 14 standard conditions and condition 15 in the staff inemo. Motion carried, 2-1 Comm, Koenitzer dissented Findings: There are special conditions or exceptional characteristics in the nature of the property to be affected, - and its location or surroundings are such as will permit the I Co~ission to make a determination that a literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships and the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial pioperty rights. The hearings show that the granting of the application will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property which is the subject of the appli.cation, and the use of said property in the manner in which it is pro- posed to be used wi11 not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of pronerty or im- pr w ements located in said surroundings. It was noted this would go to the City Council ;~fay lst. Ch. Blaine called a recess at 9:20 PM. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 PM. 4. Applications 8-TM-78 and 2-U-78 of SOBRATO-BERG PROPERTIES: Tentative Map to divide 3.59 acres into 2 parcels consisting of 1.53 acres to acco~odate an e~cisting shopping center and a 2.06 acre industrial site; Use Permit to construct a 30,300 sq. ft. single- story industrial building. Said property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bandley Drive and Va11ey Green Drive. First Hearing. ~ ~ PC-279 MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 1978 PLA.'~7NING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 The Associate Planner located the property on the site plan and reviewed the staff report. Additional landscaping is suggested by the staff to screen the tank farm and this project from the adjacent vacant property. The present two-way drive at Bandle~ should be relocated further away from the intersection of Valley Green Drive and Bandley Drive. The applicant has a deficiency of 4.6 trip ends. He intends to transfer trips from the Falk property or from his own undeveloped property, Mr. John Sobrato said there presently is a 10' monolythic side- walk along Valley Green Drive which he proposes to cut down to 5' to allow for more greenery. Condition 16 The applicant agreed to provide reciprocal ingress/egress. He strongly objects to the requirement of a driveway between the shopping center and the Mariani property to the south. He suggested a pathway so people can walk there. He does not object to the reciprocal easement, As to the Use Permit, t4r. Sobrato said he does not believe they should pay for improvements on another's property. They have no control over the development of the adjoining property, and he does no[ believe he should be required to construct concrete walls. :Sr. Sobrato said he would ba willing to sign a statement that if a traffic problem develops he would be willing to close up the proposed driveway. It will cost 4 times as much, but he is convinced it will work. Mr. Sobrato said they no longar need a 20' high fence around the tank farm 14' is ample, Mr. Harry Falk, 754 Mora Drive, Los Altos, said he owns the property but Sobrato-Berg is the applicant. He does not want to have to pr wide a bus to bring people back and forth. He does not want to have to pay any part of the fence between this and adjacent property. Prasently, the employees of the co~ercial development park in the area where a joint easement is proposed. Mr. Sobrato answered Comm. Markkula that he has "learned to live with" the van pool condition. Since there were no further comments from the audience, it was moved by Co~_ Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. 1".arkkula to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried, 3-0 i I i t4INUTES OF APRIL 17, 197fl P,DJ. PLAbINl?vG COAL"fISSION MEETING PC-279 - Pag~ 9 Comm. Koenitzer said he feels strongly that if the pronerty to the south develops commercially it will require the reciprocal driveway, In regard to the driveway opening onto Bandley Co~. Koenitzer does not see any reason for putting in a driveway at the intersection. He also feels it is important to screen the tank farm, Coffi. Markkula said we will have to take a look at noise of the blow-off in ralation to the tank farm. Pir. Sobrato said that in order to keep a low profile, they are going horizontal rather than verticaL It was Comm. Markkula's opinion that the property to the south would go industrial. If it does go residential, we will have a lot of-12' walls [o worry about. It was pointed out that the problem at Vallco was not the blow- off valve on the tank farm but rather the noisy trucks making deliveries at 2:00 AM. Ch. Blaine would like to add a condition that if the property develops residential and it is determined the noise level ~ could be a problem, that steps be taken to alleviate the noise. Mr. Sobrato said we are putting a cloud on Mr. Falk's property when we require the easement. Ch. Blaine said she would like to add a condition to the Use Permit about noise from the tank farm. She would prefer to have the driveway at Valley Green Drive. She noted there was additional parking along the street. She agreed with the requirement of reciprocal easement and to leave in the existing sidewalks. ?Soved by Coarm. Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Markkula to re- 8-TM-78 commend application 8-TM-78 to the City Council with the 14 approved standard conditions and conditions 15 and 17 in the April 17th staff inemo. Condition 16 shall be modified by deleting "industrial or office use". Motion carried, 3-0 The Planning Commission made the following findings: 1) That the proposed aap is consistent with the general and specific plans. 2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the general and specific plans. 3) That the siie is physically suitable for the type of development. PC-279 ~ MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 1978 ADJ. PLANNING COt"MISSION MEETING Page 10 4) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or sub- stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Moved by Comm. Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Markkula to recoimnend to the City Council approval of application 2-U-78 with the 14 standard conditions and conditions 16 through 19 in the April 14, 1978 staff report, deletion of condition 20, 21, 22, 23 and addition of condition 24 - that the operation of the tank farm shall not produce objectionable noise in present~or future residential areas in the neighborhood. The concern is for sudden impulse~noise. The City shall retain the ability to review this use pexmit, should the noise level become unreasonalile. Motion carried, 3-D The Planning Commission finds: 1) That the use or uses are in conformance with the general plan and are not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically per- mitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to accom- modate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use will not generate a level of traffic over and beyond that of the capacity of the existing street system. 4) That the proposed use is otheraise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use not injurious to property and improvements in the neiehborhood. The Sobrato-Berg applications will go to the City Council May l, 1978. 5. Applications 6-Z-78 and 6-TM-78 of PININSULA CAPITAL GROUP, INC-.: PREZONING approximately 11 acres from Santa Clara County A(Exclusive Agricultural) and A1-1 acre (Agricultural/Residential, 1 acre minimum lot size to City of Cupertino R1C (Residential, single-family, cluster) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Convaission; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately 11 acres into 36 single-family cluster lots plus one lot to be held in common ownership. Said property is located at the northwest corner of California Oak Way and Stevens Creek Blvd. First Hearing. I ~ ~ ~ MINt1TES OF APRIL 17, 1978 ADJ. PL?~VING C0.`'L"1=SSION MEETi;IG ~ C-279 _ age 11 The Assistant Planning Director located che property on the aerial photographs and descri~ed the relationship of thi.s property to the General P1an - details in the 6pri1 12, 1978 staff report and attachments. The plan for these 11 acres call for 36 ownership dwelling units. Zn terets of the General Plan, it is scheduled for 38 units oer the slope/density,formula. The proposal includes construction of che trail on the existing ~ roadway west of the railroad tracks, Zn terms of overall traffic plans, the City is still working with Kaiser-Permanente people in a committee studying alte:nate means of access. Ther is the possibility of a secondary road naralleling the railroad. West of Foothill Blvd., it is planned to have 60' roadway on Stevens Creek B1vd. There are 2 minor cut and fi11 areas. The Assistant Planning ?irector said it is important for future owners to understand the possibility of expansion of the P.G. 6 E. facility. There would be 10' space betwaen curb and barrier wall and 5' of landscaping. It is important to get the sound barrier on the highest portion of the property. These units will be very similar to Rancho Deep Cliff_ The applicant - Mr. Howard Brown, 164 Main Street, Los Altos, said his Civil Engineer, Sound Engineer and Architect were all present. They would be very interested in learning what P.G. 6 E_ is going to do up there, Ch. Blaine asked if PG & E must come to the City for any review of improvements of their proper y. Comm. Koenitzer asiced about the mechanical eauipment on the roo . Tha Architect said that is all on the back side of the struc- ture, toward the railroad spur. Ch. Blaine asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Elmer Erin, 23585 Summit Road, Los Gatos one of the representatives of Kaiser Cement, said they object to this project. There have been many objections from De Anza Oaks residents in regard to their trucks, etc., which have been usiag these roads for years. Mr. Norm Gilbertson, 1323 Nelson ~day, Sunnyvale Kaiser's representative on the Noise Study said the Committee has eliminated the alternate route, and there are 1400 trucks per_ day going down Stevens Creek Blvd. Southern Pacific has not agreed to the proposed trail system along their property. Mr. Brown said he has no objection to dealing With the noise problem as noted in the staff report. ~ PC-279 ".fINUTES OF APkIL 17 , 1978 ADJ, PLA'iNItiG COM.~fISSION *~ETING Page 12 Comm. Koenitzer said Kaiser is considering shipping the cement out i by rail. ~ Mr, A1 Kruger, 10~62 Mossy Oak Court, Cupertino, cited the traffic conditions now and what would hanpen with more homes uo there. He appreciates one-story structures and retention of the large trees and the brook. He objects to the second entrance on Brook and would opt for the second entrance on Stevens Creek Blvd. The . Assistant City Engineer said 2 entrances on Stevens Creek Blvd, had ~ been proposed; however, the City prefers one, for safety reasons. California Oak would be widened to 40', curb [o curb. Catharin Graham, 10016 Spanish Oak Court, Cupertino (Westridge) said she is concerned with the traffic back-up at Foothill and Stevens Creek Blvd. People are cutting throu~h her complex to avoid that busy intersection. 0'Patty Brisco believes we should not be encouraging further development in that section until we decide what we are going to do with the truck traffic. PSr. Wiegert, 10009 Ridgeway, said they have crnae up short on the parking in De Anza Oaks. The Assistant Planning Director said this development yields 4.5 parking spaces per unit whereas De Anza Oaks yields 3 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Mike Bullock, 21831 Heraosa Avenue, Cupertino, agrees with Brisco that Cupertino has a responsibility to the people to not add to the pollution problem. He beliaves it is time for the City to encourage alternate modes of travel, These homes will sell for about $150,000, and these people would be living far- from their jobs. Mr. Paul Dueclmian asked about the beneficial effect of the pro- posed development. Mr. Pa~~l Oliphant, President, Acoustical Consultants Inc., ~ said the alternate solution is to utilize site planning and site ~ grading; single story homes, shallow barriers, secondary barriers around patios, etc. There are sophisticated integrated systems to substantially reduce the noise problem. Increased mass of the structure teduces rattling of windows, doors, etc- He firmly recommends trains to not~haul cement because of the vibration problem. He answered Ch.~-Blaine that hauling coal by train would be less of a problem. Ch. Blaine asked if the acoustic proverties would be affected if the wall had jogs and plantings. He answered in the negative. Moved by Co~. Harkkula, seconded by Comm. Koenitzer to close . the Public ftearing. *totion carried, 3-0 - , i MI;.UTES OF APRIL 17, 19i6 ADJ. PLAN;VIHG COrTMtISSION _*1EETING ~ PC-279 . ~ ~ °age 13 I Comm. Koenitzer commented that this development is very nice, but it is sandwiched between train and truck traffic. The trains going up hill will make more noise. However, the property owne= has the right to develop his property, We must make sura the people know what they are buying. Comm. Markkula agreed. Ch, Blaine said the problem will come with resale. She has a real probl~ with the proposed wall. She wants to make sure H-Control is made aware of this ~aall. She - is concerned about the railroad, but unless we come up with soc~e other use for the land, we cannot keep the owner from usi.ng his land. Moved by Co~. Koenitzer to recoimnend approval of 6-TM-78 with the 14 standard conditions and conditions IS through 19 in the April 7, 1978 staff zeport. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Cormn. Koenitzer, seconded 6y Covmm. Markkula to reopen the public hearing. Motion carried, 3-D Moved by Coarm. Markkula, seconded by Co~. Koenitzer, to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 3-0 Moved by Comm. Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Markkula to 6-Z-78 recommend to the City Council apptoval of application 6-Z-78 approved with the 14 standard conditions, conditions 15-20 in the April 7, 1978 staff report, condition 21 modified to be a minimum of LS rather than 20', and ccndi*_ions 22 and 23 per the staff report_ Motion carried, 3-0 Moved by Co~. Koenitzer, seconded by Coffi. Markkula to 6-TM-78 recommend to the City Council approval of 6-TM-78 with the approved 14 standard conditions and 15 through 19 per the Apri1 7, 1978, staff inemo and attached exhibits, Motion carried, 3-0 .l I PC-279 ~ MINUTES OF APRIL li , 1978 1D.I. °LA.YVT_"_ZG COMMISSION "SEETING Page 14 The Planning Co~ission iinds: 1) That the ptoposed map is consistent with the general and specific plans, 2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the general and specific plans. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access throagh or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Letter of opposition from Mrs. Carruthers was entered into the record_ The approved applications will go to the City Council May 15, 1978. MINUTE ORDER: Moved by Comm. Koenltzer, seconded by Comm. Markkula to notify the City Council of the Planning Commission's concern about the design of the acoustic barrier of this project, It should not look like the one in Los Altos on Foothill Blvd. Motion carried, 3-0 Ch. Blaine called a recess at 12:10 AM. The meeting reconvened at 12:12 AM. UNFINISHID BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS ~ 6. Stevens Creek Blvd. Plan Line: Street cross-section designs for interim improvements for Stevens Creek Blvd- between Orange Avenue and Bubb Road. The Assistant Planning Director said the City Council wantad to convey that we don't want to close our options for 2 lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd. However, they did not go along with 4 lanes. Staff was instructed to come back with alternate suggestion for improvements for Old Monta Vista Aiea. ~ MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 1978 AD1. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING jPC-27° ~ - ~Page 15 - _ i Stevens Creek Blvd has been divided into 3 reaches: 1) Downtown Orange to Bubb I 2) Orange to Janice 3) Foothill west i For ~1 the pavement is already there. The improvement of the grade crossing will take place this next year. The staff recommended building roadway for 4 lanes but stripe for 2 lanes The'Assistant City Engineer said we have almost total financingl from outside sources for the railroad crossing improvements. Safety is the most important factor here. Mr. *Sike Bullock said the City Council deleted the action plan. It looks like the Planning Co~ission is suggesting the first phase of ttiat action plan. The railroad crossing is extremely ~ important to the residmts in the area who like to walk down to the shopping center. Ch. Blaine believes something has to be done with the railroad crossing. Mr, Bullock feels the safest place to cross the tracks is on the north side of Stevens Creek Slvd. It was pointed out to hi.m that this is illegaL ~ ~ Mr. Bullock said the entrance to Monta Vista as it presently is serves a useful purpose in that it slows down fhe traffic. You need that transition away from the downtown area, and it makes 3t easier on pedestrians. He contends that asphalt speeds up traffic and lessens the pedestrian mode. Comm. Markkula said we should opt for safety first. Right now~ that is a very dangerous crossing. Comm. Koenit2er said that since the present roadway is almost ~ t!:e right width for Reach Ul he is in favor of it. i i Due to the late hour, it was moved by Comm. Koenitzar, seconded SCB continued to by Co~. Markkula to continue this ites to April 24, 1978. ~ April 24th Motion carried, 3-0 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION None. f ~ i PC-279 MIYUTES OF APRIL 17, 1978 ADJ. PLFL~INING COAIMISSION ??EETING Page 16 REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR The Assistant City Engineer said he attended a recent Transportation Seminar. One of the points brought out is that you may change the automobile but you are not going to get the people out of their car. ADJOURNMENT + . Ch_ Blaine adjourned this meeting at 12:55 AI~!, APPROVED: ~ ~i Chairwoman ATTEST: ~ City Cler ~ `