Loading...
PC 12-13-76 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 13, 1976, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was opened at 7:30 pm with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL C01lllll. present: Comm. absent: Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams none Staff present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan City Attorney Adams City Engineer Whitten Deputy City Attorney Foster APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 22, 1976 Page l4: Motion for 25-TM-76 should be 4-0. First paragraph, line 9, change "to" to "toward". Page 3: Delete paragraph 5. Page 8: Paragraph 3, add -"He did not think that the Denny's on Foothill and Homestead, or on Mathilda Avenue in Sunnyvale served liquor." Page 15: Paragraph 3, last line, add "the" between "appeal" and "denial" . Page 17: Paragraph 3, line 3, add "story" between "single" and "homes II . There being no further changes, C01lllll. Gatto moved for approval as amended, seconded by C01lllll. Blaine. Motion carried, 4-0 PC-244 Page 1 Minutes of 11/ 2Z /76 approved as amended PC-244 Page 2 Minutes of 11/29/76 approved 2-GAP-76 City of Cupertino General Pl Amendment MINuTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PL&~ING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes of Regular Adjourned Meeting of November 29, 1976 There being no corrections, Comm. Gatto moved for approval, seconded by Comm. Blaine. Motion carried, 4-0 POSTPONEMENTS: Comm. Gatto moved to continue item 8, Staff Report regarding condominium conversion ordinance, to January lO, 1977, per staff request. Seconded by Comm. Blaine. Motion carried, 4-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Planning Director Sisk noted all correspondence related to one item on the agenda and Commission members had received copies of them. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CITY OF CUPERTINO: GENERAL PLAN A..'iENLMENT (2-GPA-76) Public Rearing to consider an amendment to the land use element of the general plan to redesignate approximately 9.5 acres from planned industrial/professional office to general commercial. Said property is located at the northeast corner of the inter- section of Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. First Hearing. Planning Director Sisk located property to be considered on the exhibited map of the general plan. As noted in the Staff Report of l2/9/76, the intended use would be a junior department store containing approximately 100,000 sq. ft. Mr. Sisk referred to the Staff Report's review of the three issues to be considered in making this change: community character change, traffic constraints, social/economic change. Re advised there were technical issues that would have to be addressed prior to a final decision. Before time and money was spent on these technical issues, the Commission was being asked to look at the application from a general point of view to determine the validity of the land use change. -------_._-_._-~---- ...-------..-- .--- - -.._--_. -- . . - -,------------_.... MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PL&~NING COMMISSION MEETING PC-244 Page 3 In answer to Comm. Blaine, Mr. Sisk described other land uses in this area. Chairman Adams then opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Joe Doino, Real Estate Manager for Federated Department Stores, said he agreed this approach was unorthodox. He said he took issue with some of the things noted by the staff, but he did not feel this was the time to discuss them. He had thought tonight's meeting was just for consideration of general plan use. Chairman Adams advised Mr. Doino of the many hours spent in considering the general plan before it was adopted. The Commission would need more information to convince them a change should be ~ade. Mr. Doino said they were willing to discuss the issues in depth when a decision was made to allow the change in land use. They were not pre- pared to do so at this meeting. Mr. Scott Carey, Cornish and Carey, Palo Alto, representing Mr. Lester, said he wanted to put tonight's hearing in perspective. It was to decide whether they wanted an industrial or a commercial facility on this property. In studying the uses allowed, this is an isolated site on the border of Cupertino. He said they would anticipate dealing with the issues raised in the staff report at the time the use permit was applied for. He felt they were proposing to under-develop the property. The trip ends would not be exceeded and commercial use would eliminate the heavy rush hour traffic generated by an industrial use. Mr. Carey said he would like to put site in perspective with surrounding sites. Vallco Park is ten times bigger than their site. He did not feel commercial competitiveness was an issue. Chairman Adams reviewed discussions on several levels of commercial areas for Vall co Park and Stevens Creek Blvd. which were held at the time of the general plan hearings. If this site were to be considered for an amendment, the balance of Vall co Park on northern side of Stevens Creek Blvd. should be included in the discussion. Comm. Koenitzer, referring to the detailed and in-depth study made for general plan ordinance, said he did not see any real reason for changing the general plan. Comm. Blaine agreed. She thoug~t agglomerating commercial uses in separated areas would better enable them to control traffic. Another concern she had was what would happen with traffic coming to this commercial from the nearby regional shopping center. PC-244 Page 4 ML~UTES OF THE DEC~1BER 13, 1976 PLANNING CO~~ ISSION MEETING Comm. Gatto explained how,in general plan discussion, traffic had become the leveling unit rather than land use. Another point was the amount of commercial the City could support. He was not so sure they could not re-evaluate this. Relative to character, one of the determining factors for having chosen Vall co Park for the regional shopping center was its character at that time, Comm. Gatto said, and suggested perhaps designation should be industrial/profeSSional office space/general commercial. If traffic intensity level is determining factor, it should be studied to see if it could be developed with other than professional offices. If a change were to be considered, it should be of the same character as the rest of the strip. With regard to socia/economic, Comm. Gatto did not think ten acres would make a significant impact. Comm. Blaine said she did not think it was a matter of just intensity; she felt it was a matter of land use also. Corom. Koenitzer noted the general plan had made a deliberate intent to concentrate commercial in certain areas. Chairman Adams said he agreed with Comms. Blaine and Koenitzer. It was hard for him to see a change from what they had approved previously. He would have to be sold on the merits of considering a change. Mr. Carey said a general plan is a conceptual attempt at planning a city in advance without knowing what specially the land will be used for. When a specific use is proposed, then realities can be dealt ,;ith. He said they are handicapped since they cannot tell them specifically as to use, traffic generation, etc. If they would allow an additional use to be considered, these issues could be developed and the City could decide whether a specific plan would meet traffic constraints, trip ends, etc. and either accept it or reject it. In answer to Comm. Blaine, City Attorney Adams said the commission should consider all factors that affect the general welfare of the City from a planning point of view. He said the zoning has to be consistent with the general plan and they would then apply normal standards of zoning. He read requirements for granting a use permit. Mr. Carey said the property owner was willing to spend the money to convince them this is a viable proposal and asked to be allowed to deal with a specific use. Corom. Gatto said he felt this was a logical site for commercial and he did not know why this strip should be treated any differently then the rest of Stevens Creek Blvd. and De Anza Blvd. Given constraints of intensity level, each application could be judged on its merits and impact on the community. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chai rman Adams the balance of land holding. pointed out allowing more commercial in this area causes Stevens Creek Blvd. to stay in its state of "storage" or He wondered if this were wise. Comm. Gatto noted this area had never been spoken to or looked back at since emphasis had been placed on regional center. " Comm. Koenitzer spoke to intent of encouraging landowners and developers to get together bigger parcels of land for bigger uses. He wondered what the use was for having a general plan if it were to be changed whenever a request was made. He noted a lot of time was put in in coming up with this plan. Mr. Walter Ward, General !1anager of Vallco Park, said Valle 0 Park has no interest in this property. He enumerated the assessments Mr. Lester has paid for, such as street work, putting utilities underground, cost of bridge over 1280 at Tantau Avenue. It is a little different from other parts of town where there has been no planned development and no cooperation. He noted problems they have had in Vall co Park because constraints would not allow expansion. The size of this lot does not give room for expansion and therefore would be difficult to develop industrially. He pointed out no one could afford to build homes on it. Mr. Ward said there was no room in the regional center for added commercial. Mr. Ward answered Chairman Adams they would utilize the 2 acres of this lot which were in Santa Clara. Chairman Adams said he had changed his thinking. He spoke to original concem of degree of commercialism. This size facility could only go in an area similar to Town Center. There were only a few parcels left. He thought a big element was the social/economic. He would consider suggesting to the City Council that a General Plan amendment hearing would be worthwhile. Comm. Koenitzer moved to continue 2-GPA-76 to the second meeting in January which would be January 24, 1977. Seconded by Comm. Blaine. Comm. Gatto moved to have Minute Order directing staff to indicate that the Planning Commission is split and to develop from the tape the appropriate pros and cons in asking City Council for their direction. Seconded by Comm. Blaine. Motion carried, 4-0 Vote on motion: AYES: NOES: Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams None Motion carried, 4-0 P C-244 Page 5 Minute Order 2-GPA-76 continued to 1124/77 PC-244 Page 6 MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Director Sisk said this would go before City Council at the December 20, 1976 meeting. 2. CITY OF CUPERTINO: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (3-GPA-76) Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the land use element of the general plan to redesignating those vacant properties located northerly of, easterly of and adjacent to Alpine Dr. from a density of l2 to 16 dwelling units per acre to a density designation that would permit a maximum of two dwelling units (duplex) on each vacant parcel. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan briefly reviewed background of this property leading up to this request for rezoning. He referred to diagram showing seven lots still undeveloped and their relationship on grade to adjacent properties. He noted the typography of the area has created problems. It had been proven that greater setback did not help to reduce intrusion even when grades are approximately equal. Conflicts because of privacy intrusion have been going on for a number of years. He referred to R3 Ordinance which spoke to this and noted this would be discussed later in the meeting. Staff felt the concerns expressed in petition submitted by the residents in the Vista Knoll neighborhood primarily related to only four of the seven undeveloped,properties on Alpine Drive. Mr. Cowan compared the number of tmits that would be allowed on the lots tmder the fOllowing conditions: Existing Amended G.P. '-R3 Ordinance 13 6 14 5 2 5 3 2 3 5 2 4 4 2 4 5 2 4 Mr. Cowan felt the new ordinance could control problems that both the Rl and R3 properties are presently facing. The hearing was opened to comments from the public. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLJU~ING COMMISSION MEETING PC-244 Page 7 Mr. Leland Appleberry, owner of Lot 51 on Alpine Drive, said he did not think his lot should be considered in this amendment. He gave the history of his trying to build on the lot over the past four years. He felt he had been used as a wedge to force rezoning on Alpine Drive. He felt he had been treated unfairly. Mr. Sisk clarified what had happened at the City Council meeting when Mr. Appleberry's application was denied. Mr. Appleberry said he had offered more and made more changes than anyone. He had spent $7,000 in plans which would be useless. He could not afford to build a duplex. He had come in with a solution to screen his property. He said the single family owners had been or should have been told before they bought that lot above them was zoned for multiple development. He asked that his lot be excluded for this discussion. ' Mr. Stephen Chelbay, 22378 Salem Avenue, Cupertino, said he had bought his lots from the original developers. There are no lots with less than four units except one. An amendment would be unfair to people who have lived there. There is no traffic problem. There had been no complaints from his neighbors. He did not know of any reason for lessening density. To put duplexes on these lots would be ridiculous. He had paid for a lot that allowed five dwellings and to build a duplex on it would be a severe penalty. There should be no change in what they had bought the property for. Mr. John Schryvers, 500l La Honda Avenue, San Jose, said he had bought his property because it was zoned for five units. It was lower than adjacent lot so he did not think it should be downzoned to duplex. Mr. Dan O'Keefe, 20032 Rodriques, Cupertino, gave a written copy presentation to staff to make copies for the commission members. read his reasons for requesting down zoning of these lots. of his He Mr. Chelbay pointed out there was a completely different situation on the end properties than with those in the middle area. The whole area should not be changed to accommodate one or two lots. He repeated there had been no complaints on his property. Mr. Bob Merrick, 10037 Vista Knoll, Cupertino, said he also owned the lot on Alpine Drive behind his house. The salesman had told them there would be apartments behind them so they had purchased the lot. His privacy could be invaded, too, but since they !(Ilew it was zoned that way they had screened their lot and now had no problem. He pointed out the residents on Vista Knoll had had dine years to plant and prepare for the development of the lots above them. It was unfair to down zone these lots as they had paid for and were t~d on potential of the lot. The situation should be handled on a case to case basis. He felt the set-back as included in ordinance was exaggerated. PC-244 Page 8 MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER l3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Paul Hardman, l0397 Vista Knoll Drive, Cupertino, said their concern was privacy. It had been a concern for four years. He said there are economic factors on both sides as the value of their house was decreased because of privacy invasion. Existing zoning permits up to 3 or 4 stories. Landscaping to screen is not satisfactory because there is fungus in the area that kills plants. It can't be depended on. Mr. Chelbay answered Comm. Koenitzer there is a single-family house that looks directly down on his property and the building was 20 ft. from the property line. He was not complaining although he didn't like it very much. Comm. Koenitzer said it appeared there was no concern when a single family house looked down on a multiple dwelling and he did not like that. Mr. Robert Shurr, lOl51 Hillcrest Road, Los Altos, said, he was speaking for the owner of Lot 22. This lot was purchased for investment purposes. He would like to see something done to minimize privacy intrusion. Public Hear ing closed There being no further comments, Comm. Gatto moved to close Public Hearing. Seconded by Comm. Blaine. Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Gatto noted when there is a hillside situation, it is virtually impossible to eliminate visual intrusion. Changing zone for just seven lots would be a perfect example of spot zoning. The general plan is not the way to solve the problem. A two story duplex would cause the same problem. Under the R3 ordinance, the review is such that the developer will have to solve the problem. It at least gives him the opportunity to develop. Comm. Blaine agreed with Comm. Gatto and felt the solution was in the way the buildings were designed. Comm. Koenitzer agreed. He said he understood problems of both property owners. The rights of the owners on Alpine Drive to develop their property that they had bought and paid taxes on had to be respected. He pointed out the visual intrusion problem applied both ways and should be applied to single family homes overlooking multiple dwellings also. Screening could be a partial solution. Chairman Adams said he agreed with the Commission members. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm. Blaine moved to deny Application 3-GPA-76. Seconded by Comm. Gatto. AYES: NOES: Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams None Motion carried, 4-0 City Attorney Adams clarified that since it was not approved, nothing would go from this body to the City Council. The City Council still had the right to initiate change to General Plan. This could be done through a petition to the City Council. Mr. Sisk stressed this point for the benefit of those in the audience who had presented the petition. At 10:05 p.m. a break was taken, with the meeting reconvening at 10:12 p.m. 3. Application l2-o-76 of USA PETROLEUM CORPORATION: MODIFICATION OF USE PERMIT to convert existing self-serve gasoline station to post pay design. Said property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Blaney Avenue. First Hearing continued. Assistant Planning Director Cowan gave background of the application. He noted application had been approved under Resolution No. 1559, although at that time concern had been expressed about safety hazard caused by vehicles queuing to enter the pump island area. However, since the applicant proposed to retain existing building and pump island, it was felt it would be an unnecessary hardship to require redesign of the site to allow more and safer space for waiting vehicles. The applicant is now proposing to remove existing building, but to retain same traffic flow pattern. Mr. Cowan referred to approved site design, proposed building change with same traffic flow, and to two alternatives prepared by staff which demonstrated possible relocation of service facilities. Mr. Cowan explained Condition 18 of Resolution No. 1559. He said the applicants had indicated that should substantial modification be required, they may opt to leave ex:l.sting b=~ding in place and the previous use permit approval in force. It was ascertained the applicant was not in attendance. -~.__._._--- . PC-244 Page 9 3-GPA-76 denied l2-U-76 USA PETROL- EUM CORP . PC-244 Page 10 MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETL'IG Mr. Cowan answered Comm. Gatto that he for collecting payment of gas worked. have been at the meeting. did not know how the mechanism He said the applicant was to l2-U-76 continued to l/lO/77 Comm. Gatto moved to continue Application l2-U-76 to the next regularly scheduled meeting of January lO, 1977. Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer. Motion carried, 4-0 It was ascertained there would be an up-dated staff report. 4. Application 24-U-76 of W. J. HERMAN - GATEWAY CONSTRUCTION CO.: USE PERMIT to permit an increase in the allowed height for a master television antenna from 49 feet to approximately 70 feet and increase tower cross section above the 30-foot height level from twelve-inch width to approximately twenty-inch width. Said property is located easterly of and adjacent to Stevens Canyon Road approximately 200 ft. southerly of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Stevens Canyon Road. First Hearing. Assistant Planner Cowan briefly reviewed staff report. He said the intent of the present request was to provide a single signal receptor source for the entire site, eliminating the need for individual antennae. The proposed 70 ft. height of the structure and its location on high ground near the Foothill Boulevard ent,rance to the project attempted to maximize line of sight reception of transmission from the San Francisco area. Mr. Cowan noted it was beyond the staff's scope to evaluate technical alternatives which might accomplish the aim of quality television for the residents of the Rancho Deep Cliff project. Comm. Gatto ascertained cable TV was not available. Comm. Koenitzer said there was a cable running through the City and asked about the possibility of an agreement with that company. Mr. Sisk said the City had been discussing the possibility of a TV cable franchise for several years but there was nothing to date. Mr. Cowan noted a receiving antenna could be put 49 ft. in the air without-a use permit. Mr. W. J. Herman, l0850 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, said he had received a copy of the staff report. After restricting individual antennas, they had found there was a problem with reception. This pråposàl is the best solution. He named several other alternatives which had been considered. The microwave interconnection would cost in excess of $100,000. He said they had a technician take readings and this location was the best place they could find. He pointed out there are existing telephone poles as high as the tower would be. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-244 Page 11 Mr. Bobbie R. Hill, 904 Chabrant Drive, San Jose, technician hired by Mr. Herman, explained reasons for putting tower in the proposed location. He pointed out the people of San Juan Road are already looking at telephone poles He explained why an off-site receptor station could not be used. A transparency of the tower was exhibited and Hr. Hill explained its cons t ruc tion . Mr. Hill answered Chairman Adams it would be mcunted in cement so it could not be placed on a building. He answered Comm. Blaine at a +6 db per outlet would give satisfactory reception. Comm. Blaine engaged Mr. Hill in a technical discussion on construction and performance of tower. Comm. Koenitzer ascertained readings on other parts of the site were not turned in to the developer. The difference between a SO ft. and a 70 ft. tower would be minimal. He felt the possibility of tapping into the system that serves Sunnyvale should be considered. Mr. Whitten, City Engineer, said there was an agreement that no one in the City of Cupertino would be allowed to tap into that system. Comm. Gatto ascertained the tower would be approximately 50 ft. to 60 ft. above San Juan Road. Mr. Herman answered Chairman Adams -that the tower would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Mr. Hill answered Comm. Blaine that the tower would not pick up CB 's unless they were running illegal power. Comm. Blaine ascertained there are already two cable lines in the ground. The hearing was then opened for public comment. Mr. David Stepner, 22444 Riverside Drive, Cupertino, said he had two letters from people who could not attend the meeting. Both objected to the tower. He gave the letters to staff. He said he had a 30 ft. antenna on top of his house and he could get all the channels. He saw no reaSon for a 70 ft. tower. If tower to be installed, he wanted to be assured it would not cause a ghost on his TV. PC-244 Page 12 ML~ES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mrs. Severin, 22570 San Juan Road, said she lived directly across the street and she was upset. She showed slides of the area. She said they had an antenna on top of their house and it picked up all channels. She pointed out a telephone pole sticking up in front of their picture window which was the approximate height of the tower. Their house was designed to take advantage of the view that will be destroyed by the tower. There should be some way of solving this problem without their having to look at this tower. Mr. Jack Bates, 22586 San Juan Road, Cupertino, said he had bought his home because of the environment. He said there evidently had been an error in the original planning of this project which would be corrected at the expense of the homeowners in the area and those who have lived there for a long time. Another option should be looked at. Cable TV should be explored. He didn't think enough investigation had been undertaken to insure this is the only solution. Mr. Earl Brown, 22751 San Juan Road, Cupertino, asked how the tower base would be protected. He said this looked like a nice dare for kids to climb up., He also hoped there was some other alternative. Mr. Dean Sayre, 10805 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, said he received all channels with his antenna which was at about the 49 ft. allowance. He questioned advisability of putting tower on 6 x 6 cement block without guy lines because of the wind situation in the canyon. Winds sometimes in excess of 80 mph whistle through the canyon. Mr. Parviz Namwar, 10885 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, said there was a possible compromise. He could get the same signal with a 45 ft. or SO ft. tower. He said this should be looked at and offered to discuss it with the developer. The antenna is needed but not at the expense of the adjacent residents. He would like to see the matter explored further. Mr. Sayre commented on the City dump which needed attention. Mr. Whitten said it would be cleaned up and moved out. Public Hear- Comm. Gatto moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer. ing closed Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Gatto moved to recommend denying of Application 24-U-76 on the basis that benefits granted to the residents of the Herman development are secondary to detriment in overall health and beauty of rest of the neighborhood. Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Adams ascertained the applicant had the ability to build a 49 ft. antenna in the same location. Comm. Koenitzer noted this would seem to give at least satisfactory service according to the residents of the area. AYES: NOES: Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams None Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Gatto suggested a Minute Order to City Council that when this area is developed, a master City antenna or some effort to hook into cable TV might be in order. This was discussed. It was noted that under the general plan this is a very low density residential area. 5. Application 25-U-76 of SUNNY VIEW LUTHERAN HOME: USE PERMIT to allow construction of a 100-unit senior citizens housing project. Said property is located easterly of and adjacent to Foothill Blvd. approximately 100 ft. northerly of the intersection of Cupert:l.no Rd. and Foothill Blvd. First Hearing Assistant Planning Director Cowan located site and described proposal. The project would be Federally subsidized senior citizen apartments, with incidental commercial activity. These would be a laundry facility and beauty parlor which Would be acceptable provided they are not oriented to patrons outside of the project. The 100 units exceeds the maximum density provisions but meets the goals of the Housing Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Mr. Cowan noted the importance of having public transit for the resi- dents of this project. A condition has been included requiring the applicant to explore the possibility of a bus stop/shelter for southeas bound buses. A bus stop already exists for north bound buses. Mr. Cowan spoke to staff's concern about the relationship of the build- ing mass to Foothill Blvd. He also pointed out the City should have some assurance that the project would be utilized for a low/moderate income senior citizen housing through its functional life span. Mr. Cowan referred to noise report included in the staff report and their review of it. PC-244 Page 13 24-U-76 denied 25-U-76 Sunny View Lutheran Home PC-244 Page 14 ML~UTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976, PLANNING Cm1MISSION MEETING Prior to an approval motion by the Commission, the staff recommended the application be referred to the City Council for comment since this is the first project of its kind in the community. It would then come back to Planning Commission for final approval. Mr. Jay Mitchell, 701 Welch Road, Palo Alto, briefly explained the proposal. He described site, placement and design of buildings and effort to retain trees along with other landscaping proposed. He pointed out the three story buildings would be depressed approximately 6 ft. which would diminish building height from Foothill Blvd. The placement of the buildings lrould also reduce noise. In answer to Comm. Gatto, Mr. Cowan explained reason for revision to Condition l7. Mr. Cowan said after further study it was felt the condition as stated in staff report was too restrictive. There are two options. The barrier wall along Foothill Blvd. to achieve reduction in noise level for first story and mechanical ventilation for the upper story was one option and mechanical ventilation for all stories was the second option. It was hoped that H-Control could give guidelines for design solution to protect exterior court and yet not be so rigid as to require sound barrier. Comm. Koenitzer said he had a question about long term plans for the corner of Cupertino Road and Foothill Blvd. That area is both lonR and narrow and would be ~ifficult to develop. He wondered if the space could be incorporated in this project and provide more usable space ,for the residents in the private courtyards. Mr. Conrad F. Gullixson, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, said they had carefully kept those two lots from this proposal. They hope to have a project there that will relate to uses for the elderly. There is no concrete proposal now but they would like to keep it out of the mortgage. They think they can come in with program for the elderly that will serve both the residents and the community. They would implore Planning Commission, City and staff not to impose too great a restriction. Mr. Gullixson said they would like some modification of Condition l8 which related to parking. They do not feel there is a need for additional parking and in fact, hope to discourage automobiles. He referred to report on parking in other senior citizens centers. Mr. Gullixson assured Chairman Adams the two lots would not be used for commercial uses. Comm. Gatto ascertained the "commercial activities" would be a barber shop, laundry, etc. for use of residents only. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-244 Page 15 Mr. Gullixson said his office was concerned with the language of Condition 20. He did not think it would be acceptable to HUD mortgage. He wanted them to be aware of this fact since they had had difficulty with this in another HUD development. Mr. Mort Schaffran, Sl8 El Cerrito Plaza, El Cerrito, said that HUD has accepted conditions in approval by other Planning Commission and City Councils on planned use developments where one of the 'conditions in the approval was that this be a project for the elderly and the handicapped. Where HUD draws the line is at the covenant that runs with the land. This was discussed. Comm. Gatto suggested modifying Condition 20 to read: "The applicant recognizes that this use permit is granted for a Federally subsidized low/moderate income senior citizen and handicapped housing project and that at no time in the future shall the use or occupancy be modified without first receiving approval from the City Council of the City of Cupertino". Mr. Gullixson said this would appear to be consistent with HUD mortgage. Comm. Blaine asked Mr. Mitchell about privacy intrusion on Salem Drive. Mr. Mitchell said the distance between was about 83 ft. and he felt this would be sufficient. placement of the buildings would also help. into triplexes these buildings The angular Comm. Gatto ascertained there were six units at the 63 ft. section. Comm. Blaine said one of her concerns was the wall on Foothill Blvd. One of the nice things about the area is there is some openness. She was also concerned about the three story buildings. Comm. Koenitzer said he shared her concern about the three story build- ings but noted that the revised Condition 17 gave H-Control flexibility to decide what was needed. Mr. Mitchell said that was why they had come in with 6 ft. fence which would be articulated and undulated and have plants to lessen impact. People will generally use interior courtyard so sound barrier such as 8 ft. wall would not be needed. Mr, Oliver Rudd, Administrator of Sunny View Lutheran Home, said this will be a much needed service for the elederly and handicapped. He said a count 0 f the cars taken that day showed 13 residents drove cars. There are approximately lIS residents. There is a manmum. staff of 30 on the property at anyone time. There are always extra parking spaces There will be 97 spaces and they feel this would be more than sufficien even with the new facility. PC-244 Page l6 MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm, Blaine ascertained Mr. Rudd would be agreeable to Condition 18. The hearing was then opened for public comment. Mr. Leland Appleberry said he lived on Salem Avenue. Everything they were proposing he had not been allowed to do. There was a driveway and parking area directly in back of his unit and he was not allowed to put parking to the rear. These are three story buildings which will ruin entire area. This is real devaluation of property. Mrs. Sandy France, 22462 Salem Avenue, Cupertino, said the headlights from parking area will shine in her house every time a car makes a turn. The three story buildings will really cause visual intrusion. She loves the senior citizens and thinks the project should be built but more planning should go into taking these problems into account. Mr. Lee Cumming, 22534 Cupertino Road, Cupertino, said he had no real objections to project itself but he had to question overall plan of putting project of this size facing an Rl zone. Ms. O'Patti Brisco said an original survey map should be included so everyone could understand proposals. She said the City is getting a solid wall on the hillside with single family homes in the pocket. This is a major concern. She hoped they would come in with a plan that would be compatible with what they started out with as the existing facility is fine. After a discussion, it was decided to keep the hearing open. Comm. Koenitzer said since the City Council has just denied one applica- tion with two stories and rear parking, he had to agree it should apply to this one also. It was too close and not the type of traffic they want next to residential. He wondered about the mass of three story buildings. Comm. Blaine said she would accept some mass in order to get some senior citizen housing in our City. She would like mitigation of parking next to residential. Lights and noise would be a disturbance. Comm, Gatto said if the City is to speak to goals of senior citizen hous- ing, the only way to support that goal will be with high density. The number of, units and scaling of building are okay. Siting of buildings is very good. His question on site plan was if noise is generated from Foothill why not have parking in that area , separating buildings further from Foothill, and create circulation space to Salem side. He would like to have the Planning Commission recommend to City Council to act favorably and direct them to look at more specifics of project, assuming project is acceptable as a whole. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Adams said his objections could be worked out and on the whole, he looked favorably on this project. Hr. Appleberry said he had objections to the three story buildings. He said they should use the two lots, spread out the buildings and go to two stories. Parking could be kept in front. Instead of worrying about land for a later date, worry about Salem for a change. Mr. Rudd assured the Planning Commission the parking lot would never be a raceway, especially not at night. Director of Planning Sisk clarified that the Commissioners were con- cerned about overall design as it related to Salem residences. Chairman Adams ascertained this would be back from City Council on January 10, 1977. Comm. Koenitzer suggested modification to Condition 23 which would read, "All incidental commercial activities shall be limited and oriented to the Sunny View West and Sunny View Manor projects only. No signing from such incidental commercial use shall be visible from a public street." Carom. Blaine IIDved to continue Application 25-U-76 to January 10, 1977 meeting. Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer. Motion carried, 4-0 It was noted this would be heard by the City Council at its December 20, 1976 meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 6. City of Cupertino: R3 Ordinance - Referred back by City Council for report of Planning Commission. Planning Director Sisk pointed out changes made by the City Council. Using transparency'" Mr. Cowan indicated the number of units which would be al1òWed otÌ Alpine Drive lots. Section 10.6 was discussed. After "Three Comm. Gatto said he thought Section lO.2 was too liberal. discussion, it was agreed to change it to read as follows: stories maximum not to exceed a height of forty (40) feet." PC-244 Page 17 25-U-76 continued to l/10177 (3) PC-244 Page l8 R3 Ordinance to City Council MINUTES OF THE DECENBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Thomas J. DiFranco, 10427 Vista Knoll Blvd., Cupertino, said he had been here for most of the discussion of privacy intrusion. The ordinance should be limited to two story units instead of three stories. He would hate to see three story buildings become a standard of R3 zone. Mr. Paul Hardman, 10397 Vista Knoll Drive, Cupertino, agreed with Mr. DiFranco. The basic question was what kind of character did they want for Cupertino. Two story is more in keeping with the image of Cupertino. Ordinance should be restrictive so developers would not be misled into thinking they could build three stories. The several areas in the City that could allow three story units were discussed. Mr. Merrick, 10037 Vista Knoll Dr., Cupertino, asked to have Section lO.7 clarified. This was done. Comm. Blaine said she felt there was possibly some place in the City where three stories would be permissible and she did not want to limit it to two stories. The City had a commitment to provide low cost' housing and one way to do this was to build up. Mr. DiFranco said a variance would be requested for three stories. He would rather see it handled as an exception rather than as a rule. Chairman Adams said he had no objection to keeping three stories. Comm. Koenitzer preferred two stories. Comm. Gatto said Mr. DiFranco had made a good point and he felt this ordinance was designed more for independent, small lots and not those of a size to support three stories. After discussion, it was noted the Commission was split 2-2 on whether to have two or three stories. Comm. Blaine moved to send on to the City Council the R3 Ordinance, favorably concurring with four suggested changes by City Council, with a 2-2 split on two story versus three story on Section 10.2. Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer. Motion carried, 4-0 7. City of Cupertino: Rl Ordinance - Referred back by City Council for report of Planning Commission. Planning Director Sisk briefly reviewed major changes made by the City Council at their November 15, 1976 meeting and as reported in staff memo of December lO, 1976. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Sisk indicated staff would like to include a prov~s~on to allow the keeping of equine, bovine, sheep, goat or swine through a use permit procedure. After a brief discussion, Carom. Gatto moved to forward to the City Council the Rl Ordinance, Third Draft, with the notation that the Planning Coromission was favorable to changes and the addition of Section 6.2c. Seconded by Carom. Koenitzer. Motion carried, 4-0 8. Staff report regarding condominium conversion ordinance. Continued to January 10, 1977 meeting per staff request. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PL","NING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Planning Director Sisk took reservations for the Planning Commission Institute meeting to be held in February. ADJOURNMENT At 1:22 a.m. the meeting was adjourned to the next regular meeting on January 10, 1977 at 7:30 p.m. APPROVED: /..- ".' ·-ì "1, -7~,~ / /i-/"'/ c~ k~,/; ¿ !,~-,}" " Victor }-( Adams, Jr., ,Chairman I / ATTEST: PC-244 Page 19 Rl Ordinance approved