Loading...
PC 06-08-81 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC- 358 Page 1 MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 P.N. ROLL CALL: Present: Com. Adams (arrìved later) Com. Binneweg Com. Blaine Com. Koenitzer Chr. Claudy APPROVAL OF MINUTES Postponed until the end of the Meeting, to allow for the arrival of Com. Ada s. POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Cowan submitted a request from Staff to discuss the possibility of revocation of the Use Permit for Photo Drive-Up. It was agreed to deal with the matter under New Business. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Assistant Planning Director Cowan had that evening received correspondence from the Northpoint Homeowners Association in regard to ITEM #1, the Marian. Development, and also a verbal invitation from the American Massage Therapy Association, which he extended to the Commission. CHR. CLAUDY advised that the communication from the Northpoint Homeowners Assocation would be read into the record of the first Hearing. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM #1, Applications 8-Z-8l and 27-U-80 of MARIANI GROUP OF COMPANIES: REZONING approximately .5 gross acre from P (Planned Development with Resi- dential Single-family Cluster Intent) zone to P (Planned Development with residential, 20-35 dwelling units per gross acre iµtent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct approximately 533 condominium units within a 19± acre P (Planned Development with residential, 20-35 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zone; and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. The subject property is located on the southeast quadrant of.theintersection of Homestead Road and De Anza Boulevard. First Hearing Tentative City Council hearing date - July 6, 1981. Assistant Planning Director Cowan introduced Mr. Paul Fenner of Terrain Land Planning San Rafael, authors of the Environmental Impact Report and Mr, Martin of Richardson, Nagy & Martin, Newport Beach, architects on the project, both of whom would answer questions later.. He announced that pnblic Works Directo, Viskovich would be present at approximately 8:00p.m. to present the traff1C aspect. . PC-358 PJ!!'e 2 MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING He described the application as being twofold~ a Use Permit to construct-the dwellings and a zoning request for a sm~ll parcel of land which the Northpoint Homeowners Association had agreed to sell to the Mariani Group, and advised that because of the complexity and scale, the basic issues involving intensity and design direction only would be addressed at the present Meeting. He listed two major constraints, possible over-impaction of the road system and certain risks involved in the sanitary sewer, and said that if the Commission felt those problems could be solved, the Applicant should be directed to make some design changes, which Staff would discuss, and at a seco.nd Meeting, Staff would have Conditions of Approval prepared to enable the Commission to approve the development. He reported that the project was consistent with the Genera] Plan, where the intensity was set at 20/35 units per acre, this being 27 1/2 units per acre, but advised that the General Plan condition was that traffic would have to be assessed at the time of any development proposal. The Conditions of Approval addressed the question of traffic, and also of compatibility and sewer capacity, he said, and informed the Commission that Staff would be . having a regular monthly meeting with Mr. Fleming of the Cupertino Sanitary District the next day and would be getting an update, but that apparently 1.22 million gallons per day, unused, was allocated to Cupertino, and as the sewage plant was planned to be at capacity by 1982, there would be no reason not to allow the development to occur, based on the present General Plan, as it would generate between 107,000 and 140,000 gallons of sewage per day, which was approximately one-tenth of the final unused capacity. CHR. CLAUDY questioned whether the project would overflow the c~pacity of the Homestead main,or whether it would be made to work with the larger capacity 280 main. Assistant Planning Director Cowan answered that there was no problem with the capacity of local mains, and it would be made to work. COM. BLAINE observed that the letter from the Cupertino Sanitary District did not seem positive; in fact it sounded very cautious. The last paragraph, she felt, indicated that the rest of the area might have to be under-developed. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the District's system was based on the 1964 General Plan, and they were cautious every time a high density development exceeded it, and stated that this development and others had been addressed by the Sanitary District in the General Plan reviews of 1968, 1978, and 1979, when it had been determined that because of a reduction in nillside densities, there was a balancing concept. COM. KOENITZER wondered whether the Sanitary District could support the present General Plan if the Homestead area was built out to the highest density allowed. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said the only uncertainty was the treat- ment plan, but that in 1978 the District had said they could accommodate the build out. CHR. CLAUDY summarized that the Sanitary District had confirmed they had the capacity to service in accordance with the maximums in the 1978/79 General Plan, and that the treatment plant capacity was not a problem to be concerned with here. MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-358 Page 3 COM. BINNEWEG inquired how the sanitary sewer question related to the grading required to force run-off in a certain direction. Assistant Planning Director Cowan answered that the site would be graded so that the effluent ran towards the 280 sewer line, but that Mr. Fenner would probably be able to elaborate. He went on to report that in reference to design, there were some mitigatin measures to be taken. He referred firstly to circulation in and out of the site, and said Staff was concerned about having the main access from Homestead Road, as it would be too close to the De Anza/Homestead intersec- tion~ and it was felt that the entrance at Homstead and Blue Jay, which was to have a signal, should be the main one. It was also suggested that th cul-de-sac shown on the initial plan be compressed. The traffic enginee had agreed that it would be possible to allow a left turn in and out of the Homestead entrance on a trial basis, on condition that it could be closed if there were problems. The other design measure, he advised, was recreation space, and Staff felt, using the conservative estimate of 2.2 people per household, that 3 1/2 acres of park land would be needed, and suggested some turf area, as the design concept was for a body of water and very little play space. North- point residents were concerned that there would be a temptation of the Mariani Development residents to use their recreation facilities, he said, and Staff was recommending that the recreation center be relocated closer to the teRnis courts, and that the southern tentacles of the lake be turfed in accordance with the Environmental Impact R~port suggestion. Addressing the standard noise pollution problem in such developments, he said the architect felt this could be addressed by internalizing the living spaces, so that Staff felt it unnecessary to substantially change the design for this purpose. He advised that ASAC Committee members had wished for a further review to gain a satisfactory design solution for the edge of the development. It had been suggested that perhaps the units should be shifted away from. the roadway by s/lOfeet to soften the urban feel, and he thought the Commission might want to address that point also. COM. KOENITZER wanted to know if there was anything of historical interest at the packing plant. Planning Director Sisk did not know of anything, but said he would verify this at the next Meeting. Public Works Director Viskovich reported that the Environmental Impact Report traffic data was based on 1990 traffic modelling, and that the site development had been taken and overlaid over future projects to determine the assignment of driveways and openings. He advised that the traffic capcity of the project itself could be handled with immediate, short-term mitigating measures taken, i.e., 1. the redesign of the main entrance to be at Blue Jay and Homestead, 2(a) signalizing Blue Jay Drive at Homstead, 2(b) providing eastbound and northbound right turn lanes to improve the level of service for the intersections in 1990, and 3. providing two travel lanes in each direction. In addition, the State PC-3s8 MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ---'lge 4 was to modify the interchange, providing some left turn off-ramps to De Ãnza Boulevard and enhancing the existing signal, but this was beyond the City's control, he reminded the Commission. He observed that the developers were obligated to improve their perimeter roadway, which could alter the design and assist the State, and suggested that for the next Meeting, Staff would research which of the mitigating measures the developer was 'responsible for. COM. CLAUDY established that in Mr. Viskovich 's 2(b) the lanes would not be free right turn off De Anza onto Homestead,but would be auxilliary lanes allowing stacking for the right turn movement. Public Works Director Viskovich referred to items 4,5,6 and 7 in the traffic studies, saying that they were long term mitigating measures, and advising that if they were constructed currently, it would mean extra asphalt, unused. He recommended planting the area and finding some method for the developer to contribute to future asphalt construction. .He concluded that with mitigating measures taken, the traffic levels could improve to almost a D minus standard if double lanes were involved. COM. ADAMS wondered whether the signal at Blue Jaywould also cover the street opposite and another, one-third of a block away. Public far to Works Director Viskovich tie in with the Blue Jay on examination, felt the distance was too signal. COM. BLAINE inquired if he had spoken with Sunnyvale, as they were finding traffic generated by condominium developments to be higher than predicted. Public Works Director ViskoviCh generated through Cupertino and said he had not, as the County traffic models. figures were COM. BLAINE wondered whether Sunnyvale was using the same type of figures, discovering something different, and wanted it checked out. COM. ADAMS established that only the ramps to be widened, and suggested Staff should review should be widened. the Highway 280 overpass would when the overpass itself COM. KOENITZER established that the improvements the State was planning did not include widening the overpass. Public Works Director ViskoviCh improvements being needed; they to be approved. observed that no one plan would trigger were required to comply with land use intensities COM. BINNEWEG wondered how the 1990 traffic estimates had been measuring up in reality, as there was now some track record to go by. Public Works Director Viskovich modelling process had never come not either. stated about, that the intensities in the 1973 and the current projections might COM~ BINNEWEG observed that this followed her line of thought, and that she would not want to hold back development on the traffic basis. MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-358 Page 5 COHo CLAUDY asked whether the width reservation on Homestead meant ther.e would be three lanes in each direction between Blue Jay Drive and the entry to the Payless shopping center. Public Works Director Viskovich confirmed that it did, but that Staff did not think such a, section would be good, as there would be a merging problem, and advised that if the Commission thought that two lanes would be prudent in the short term there could be 8/10 ft. of extra landscaping ,if the asphalt was not laid. COM. KOENITZER, on flood possibilities, said the depressed section of 280 must absorb a good amount of water, and he felt the indications on the map that the area was flood prone should not be there. There was some discussion, and it was decided to leave the item for Mr. Fenner to address. COHo ADAMS, observing that the Central Fire District wanted vehicular access to the lake, did not want to see vehicular access on all four sides and wondered what distance they required from truck to lake. CHR. CLAUDY thought the request could be interpreted that there not be a barrier completely around the lake so that access would be impossible. Mr. Paul Fenner of Terrain Land Planning, San Rafael, authors of the Environmental Impact Report addressed the flood hazard potential, and agreed that the reservoir in its present state, with the level lowered, meant that the possibility of flooding was insignificant, and also confir- med that the lines on the flood hazard map were generalized, so that the risk at the specific location would be insignificant in any case. Addres- sing the question of sewage disposal, he suggested that mitigation measure no.lon page 73 could be cleared up by eleminating the words "grading plan" CHR. CLAUDY established that he was speaking of sewage, and not storm drainage. COM. ADAMS wanted to confirm that there was no question on Mr. Fenner's part in making the'main entrance off Blue Jay. Mr. Fenner agreed but observed that it had to be redesigned, as Staff had indicated. COM. BLAINE wondered if noise would be greatly increased in Northpoint with Blue Jay as the main access. Mr. Fenner said the increase would not significantly change the existing conditions, since it was presently equivalent to a collector street. Mr. Martin, of Richardson, Nagy and Martin of Newport Beach, architects representing the Mariani Group of Companies stated that they wanted to develop to 75/80% of the density suggested in the land use plan ; hence the 533 units. They wanted to avoid a rigid concept, he said,and used a diagram to express their concept for "c" shaped clusters, ,,,ith all units having their living areas on the periphery with entries and service areas in the interior of the lie". He commented that all units would be through PC-358 ~ge 6 MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING units, no units would be back-to-back, and there was a combination of twõ and three level living units, with the two level units being along the easterly border. There was á cluster that ASAC* wanted realigned, which-he agreed with, as he agreed that the main entrance should be on Blue Jay, as he felt the increase in peak hour trips would be imperceptible, spread over the three entrances. Addressing the noise problem, he said their desire was to turn the clusters so that entrances would be along the freeway side where the greatest noise level would occur, except at the intersection of De Anza and Homestead, where the living spaces would be exposed to the roadway, as this was a regular street, and people preferred to have the open space orientation in such a case. He described their concept for the major entrance, being set-off by the water, and confirmed that they had studied relocating the recreation center and establishing additional turf area, and thought the new location would be beneficial. He commented that the project was oriented towards smaller floor spaces to accommodate the entry-level professional market in the City; that it was not intended to be a family project. He advised that marketing "experience might dictate more larger units, eliminating some of the smaller units, but established that they would not exceed the number of units requested. He commented on the architectural character, that they felt it should be urban but not overwhelming, and for that reason the corners had been clipped off, and there would be variety and no continuous facade. ASAC* had suggested examining the design of the Northpoint project for compatibility, he reported, and by using earthy colors and adding some wood trim he felt they could probably minimize the impact of the project. All parking for residents would be underground, he advised, to maxirnise on open space, and guest parking would be in compounds that were observable from the interior of "the clusters, for security reasons. For this reason also, it was intended to have unmanned gate-guarded entries to the garages, So that resident parking could be controlled. Regarding traffic circulation within the project, he described an interior double loaded ring road, heavily landscaped, and he described the grading of the project as being lowered to the southwest, to give a basis for the lake, and also to get a combination of berm and wall treatment for sound suppression. COM. KOENITZER, examining the_drawings, ,observed thar the first floor level seemed to be 6 ft above grade, and asked the total height of the buildings, from grade to the top of the roof. Mr. Martin informed him that the first floors were approximately 4 ft. above grade, and the heights would be 24 ft., with the "c" units going to 30 ft. and the three-storey units to 39 ft. COM. KOENITZER questioned the parking on exhibit E, as it did not seem to fit in. Mr. Martin could not resolve the question and said he would check on it. COM. KOENITZER observed that the interior of the "c" showed some trees, and wondered where they would be. * ASAC - Architectural and Site Approval committee MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-358 Page 7 Mr. Martin explained they were in a paved court, which could have some retaining, landscaping and walkway areas, and also an entrance from th; garage. When asked, he said it would be too congested to be a social area. COM. BLAINE wondered whether there would be a view inside the underground garage, or whether there would be a solid wall. Hr. Martin told her there was intended to be a 2 ft. difference between the first floor and the top of the garage to allow for light and air, and that this space would be secured. COM. BLAINE was concerned that underground garages were a hazard to women in particular, and said she would want at the next Meeting details of security precautions, gratings used, etc. Mr. Martin said he would bring Some cross sections, and that they could only limit access and have good light in the space mentioned. He pointed out that the ascent from the garage brought people into the central court, which was observed from all surrounding units. CHR. CLAUDY summarized a Resolution from the Northpoint Homeowners Associa tion, to the effect that the Northpoint Board of Directors was agreeing to sell to the Mariani Group of Companies a parcel of land of approximately 1.2 acre, the Board desiring compatible residential use on its boundaries, and feeling that the residential development of the Mariani property, alan with the surplus Northpoint parcel, was in the best interest of the community. Further, that the Board of Directors had reviewed the Mariani plans for 533 units and found them to be compatible with the residential character of Northpoint, and that they would cooperate with the Mariani Group of Companies according to plans dated July 25, 1980 and revised February 25, 1981, the Resolution being passed on 26th May with a vote of -0. Mr. Griffith C. Murray, resident of Northpoint said that he, and many residents, objected to the density on such a site landlocked by roads and blocked on two sides by non-existing roads. He was happy that the Commission had touched on the core of the matter in the questions they had asked regarding traffic and density. It was true Blue Jay was a collector street, he said, but the addition of 2,000 cars per day in traffic would definitely make a difference. He pointed out that the Environmental Impac Report stated that if all mitigating actions were taken, the service level of the De Anza/Homestead intersection would still be at F by 1990. He did not object to a residential development, he said, but wondered why the highest density in Cupertino would be put in this particular area with intersections already distressed, especially since there was a paragraph i the Report to re~ommend two storeys only and a reduction in density_ He pointed out that the development across the street in Sunnyvale was two storeys only, and felt that a density of 15 here would be more suitable. Ms. Frances Busch, President of the De Ora Club across the street from the proposed development, seconded and endorsed Mr. Martin's comments. She was concerned about the traffic, as the Homestead entrance was very close to their property, and functions on their property added to traffic,she adv·sed. COM. KOENITZER asked the density of the Sunnyvale apartments across the street, but Staff did 'not know. Er.-3s8 MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ie 8 Mrs. Rosemary Callahan, Wheatton Drive was concerned with densities in Cupertino and had objected at the Gpneràl Plan Hearings a year ago. She brought up the question of a property behind Payless and an orchard ncross thé street·, bòth zoned 25 per aCre·, possibly generating another 400 dwellings on the intersection.She wondered if this had been considered. CHR. CLAUDY believed both were general planned 10/20 units per acre. Assistant Planning Director Cowan confirmed this, but added there was-a recommendation to go higher on the southerly property in the new General Plan Amendment, with mini-storage on part of it. COM. KOENITZER observed that all three properties were heard in the same Hearing, and that when this property had been zoned for a use of 20/35 units, the other two had automatically been taken into account. A consider- ation in zoning this particular one higher, he advised, was the larger size, which made a higher density more practical. Mr. Ed Bakewell, resident of Northpoint, wanted to support Mr. Murray and to add a thought; he wanted to know how emergency units would enter Northpoint or the proposed project in peak hour. CHR. CLAUDY announced a break, and also that the Agenda would not be finished at this time, suggesting continuing some of the Hearings, starting with ITEM #5. COM. BLAINE commented there had been a request for continuance on ITEM #4 from the adjacent homeowners association. CHR. CLAUDY asked the representative of the applicant if he wanted a continuance; he did not. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Koenitzer, to continue ITEMS 5,6 and 7,Unfinished Business and New Business until June 10, 1981. Com. Blaine P~SW 5~ MOTION: CHR. CLAUDY suggested the Commission give the applicant a sense of direction at this point. COM. BINNEWEG observed that such a large project would set a new high standard for Cupertino. She could not imagine a more suitable position for it, as the City believed there would be less emphasis on personal transportation in the future, and this was central to main transporation corridors, so that densities here had been increasing rather than decreasing. She agreed with the access and the main entrance recommendations. COM. BLAINE thought it was possible to mitigate the traffic, and wanted to know if people from Northpoint would be precluded from using Blue Jay if the cul-de-sac was moved closer to Homestead. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that an existing perimeter roadway exiting onto Blue Jay would remain. COHo BLAINE established j:hat Blue Jay was really not a cul-de-sac, having private streets coming off it, so she did not think the problem·would be as great. She agreed there should be more wood on the buildings, and wanted the matter of 11q,1"'rprn1"1(~ l"''1rl,;nO" rHsrlls~.Prl furtner ;¡t the next Meeting. MINUTES, JUNE 8,1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-358 Page 9 COM. ADAMS agreed with the Staff view~ but felt the units could be reduced, because of traffic concerns. He suggested the cul-de-ac on Blue Jay b; located further south, as it was originally maybe, if the main exodus was there. Public Works Director Viskovich felt the majority would turn at the first entrance,rather than going to Blue Jay and having to double back once within the project. COM. ADAMS recommended that a westbound left turn on Homestead should be only from Blue Jay. CHR. CLAUDY thought left turns were to be permitted on a trial basis. Public Works Director Viskovich said this point was debatable. COM. ADAMS asked Staff and the applicant's representatives to Feassess the front entrance, and suggested it might be off Blue Jay instead. He wondered if taking the third storey off each unit would make a significant difference traffic-wise. Public Works Director Viskovich observed that it would mean cutting down by 50 cars in peak hour, which, when spread over three entrances, would be minimal. COM. KOENITZER stated that in the General Plan the Commission had been asked to look at housing for all people in Cupertino, and this was one way of getting less expensive units in a place in the City where it would not have a huge impact,. and where mitigating measures would be taken in any case The density was acceptable, he felt, and suggested colors should be changed to blend better. Regarding traffic, he felt the left turn into the Homestead entrance was unacceptable for safety reasons and that, as Blue Jay was not a quiet residential street the extra traffic would not have a huge impact. He suggested some measures be taken to ensure the residents of the new pro- ject did not use Northpoint roads, though there seemed no reason why they would. He concluded that if this project was not built, another would be, as it was impossible for the packing plant to remain, so that there had to be some impact on the area. CHR. CLAUDY agreed with Staff in regard to the relocation of the recreation center and the turf area and thought that having the main entrance off Blue Jay was a reasonable idea, but suggested that a right turn onto Blue Jay from the Mariani property not be permitted, to stop them going through Northpoint. He concurred with toning down the building. COM. BLAINE wanted the noise impact on Blue Jay residents of Northpoint chec ed, with consideration being given to a sound wall, if necessary. She also wanted the residents of Northpoint taken into consideration in the positioni g of the cul-de-sac, adjusting the new development if necessary. CHR. CLAUDY did not want to see standard slump stone sound walls. COM. KOENITZER suggested investigation of adding sound walls on the east side of Blue Jay to reduce the noise level~ in Northpoint. COM. ADMIS asked Nr. Fenner where he had got the figures for assignments, and was told by Public Works Director Viskovích from the modelling prOcess in the General Plan. the traffic that they came PC-358 Page 10 MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLfu~NING COMMISSION MEETING , CHR. CLAUDY consulted with Mr. Martin on the length of the continuance,_ and a month was decided upon. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Koenitzer to until the Meeting Com. Binneweg PASSED continue Applications 8-Z-8l and 27-U-80 of July 13, 1981. MOTION: 5-0 ITEM #2, Application 29-U-80 (revised) of BARRY SWENSON: USE PERMIT to construct a two-storey office building consisting of approximately 37,000 sq. ft. and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence, no action is required. Said property is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 400 ft. east of Finch Avenue in a CGda (General Commercial, development plan required) zoning district. First Hearing. Associate Planner Piasecki described the location, across from the undeveloped portion of Vallco Park, and reminded the Commission that a prior application had come before them in December of 1980, and had been approved as an industrial office building with underground parking, but that there had been concerns about the architecture. He described the present architectural form as being more compatible with the neighboring buildings with an at-grade parking area, and advised that the square footage was consistent with the previous proposal. CHR. CLAUDY thought the essential difference was the elimination of underground parking. Associate Planner Piasecki brought up another: this was a two-storey building and the other a one-storey with underground parking. COM. KOENITZER noted that Conditions 16, 18 and 19 of the previous application seemed to be missing. Associate Planner Piasecki explained that those conditions were routinely applied to industrial developments, and the present proposal was for a commercial office building. COM. ADAMS questioned the visual impact of the two-storey building, which had been moved forward,alongside the adjacent one-storey buíldings, even though the landscaping was good. It was established that the building was set back 50 ft. from the curb. COM. BLAINE drew attention to the positive points, that it did not have parking in front, and the building was more in keeping with the area, so she felt there could be a trade-off. The Applicant, David Strong, Barry Swenson Builder, stated that the adjacent buildings were tall one-storeys, and this one was not too much taller and in keeping. COM. BLAINE established that he had read the Conditions of Approval and had no comment. MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: PC-358 Page 11 Corn. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. Com. Koenitzer PASSED 5-0 Com. Blaine, to recommend approval of Application 29-U-80, revised, subject to Standard Conditions 1-14 and Conditions 15-22 as in the Staff Report, with findings and subconclusions as in the Staff Report. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 . ITEM #3, Application 8-TM-8l of ROBERT & DIANE SCHEY: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately 1.4 gross acre into six parcels equaling approxi- mately 6,000 square feet each and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence, no action is required. Said property is located on the south side of Bollinger Road approximately 120 ft. west of DeFoe Drive in a P (Planned Development with residential 1-5 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 15, 1981. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported that he had no comments, other than that the Application implemented the PD already approved. He pointed out a minor technicality; that the subdivision plan did not reflect a 5 ft. space for utilities, and said Staff would like to see it reflected in the Final Map. Mr. Bob Schey, the applicant, said they had tried to develop a map consistent with City standards, and did not know why the 5 ft. had been overlooked, but would accept it. Mr. Hakim Mesiwala, 1545 Waxwing Avenue, Sunnyvale, future resident of Cupertino, wanted an explanation of the subdivision. CHR. CLAUDY explained that a house was to be removed and six residences constructed, the construction being previously approved. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing. Com. Binneweg PASSED 5-0 Com. Adams to 1-16, and the Com. Blaine PASSED approve Application 8-TM-8l, subject to Conditions findings set forth on page 1 of the Staff Report. 5-0 ITEM #4, Application 26-U-74 (Revised) of BETHEL LUTHERAN CHURCH: USE PERMIT to expand the elementary day school program to encompass Grades 4, 5 and 6. The existing school is limited to kindergarten through the third grade. The expansion will increase the expected number of students to approximately 150 from a present limit of 80, and include a play yard area, storage and miscellaneous building modifications and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the southwest corner Df Finch Avenue and Sorenson Avenue in a BQ (Quasi-Public Building) zoning district. First Hearing. PC-3s8 P3ge 12 MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Associate Planner Piasecki described the location as surrounded by an ~ apartment building~ duplexes, Cupertino High School a 14-unít cluster development and one single-family residence. He reported that no more square footage would be added, and though parking was now deficient by approximately 22 spaces, the expansion of the school would not affect the parking during weekdays. The primary area of concern was noise from ~he play structures, he noted. Staff had received concerns from neighbors and had suggested locating the play activities in areas providing a sig- nificant buffer with intensive planting along the property line. It was felt the Planning Commission could request these measures and require a follow up report at a later date, he advised. He concluded by reporting that the Church did not want the continuance requested in the Brookdale Homeowners Association letter to the Commission. COM. BLAINE wanted to know if there had been any complaints since the last expansion. Associate Planner Piasecki stated that complaints had been received in response to the application, and over the years concerns had been raised. CHR. CLAUDY wondered if the new play area and storage was used currently. Associate Planner Piasecki said that it was presently dirt area, so was not used in a developed fashion. COM. KOENITZER established that the fence along the southerly edge was a 6 ft. good neighbor fence, and commented that this was not suitable for sound suppression. Mr. Dave Klinger, Vice President of the Congregation, said they wanted to add 20 students per new grade, and that they ,"auld be housed in the existing facilities. There was presently no play equipment for the older children, he said, so they had tried to select a site within their parking constraints which would have a minimum noise impact on the neighbors. He pointed out that the site selected was near the neighboring driveway, not living areas, and was screened by trees. They had also tried to maximise the distance without sacrificing parking space, and had a buffer zone planned, so that items would not go into the neighbors' yards, he advised. COM. ADAMS established that swinging bars and big toys would mainly occupy the play yard, and asked Mr. Klinger whether the cost of installation was the motivation in putting the structures in that area. Mr. Klinger answered that there was another reason. They were deficient in parking, and thiø way they could get up to standard, but If there was some parking relief, he felt relocation could be acceptable. CHR. CLAUDY suggested that if the parking was expanded into the southern area, they would not lose more than one bay of parking, and said he was concerned because of discussions on the 1979 application, that organized play activities not be permitted on the southern portIon of the site. He wondered how much thought had been given to tearing out exIsting pavement and paving over the southern site. MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-358 Page 13 Mr. Klinger acknowledged there were options, and that maybe the souther~ site, which they were trying to put to use, should be used for parking. COM. ADAMS reported that he lived behind a school,did not find the noise objectionable, and had no problems whatsoever for the last 5/8 years. He wondered what the specific concerns were. COM. BLAINE felt it was time to hear from the neighbors on this point. She asked Mr. Klinger if the Church had a parking problem on Sundays. Mr. Klinger replied that all their spaces were taken, but as Cupertino High School was across the street, and the parking there was not used then, they had no problem. COM. BINNEWEG reflected on the impact of parking,instead of a play yard, on the southerly neighbors. Mr. Klinger's feeling was that a parking lot would have a more adverse effect than a play area. Ms. Barbara Myers, representing the Brookdale Homeowners Association,said that since their request for a continuance had not been granted she would read a prepared statement, which was to the effect that in 1979 several spokespersons had objected to the application for expansion and they had been told that further expansion was a remote dream. They had only a short time to review the present application, and while they had no doubt of the Church's good intentions, many questions had been generated in their minds, so that they had to oppose the revision of the Permit presently, since they were not sure they had considered all aspects. She went on further to list some questions they had: 1. What provisions would the Church make that the play area be used only in school hours under supervision? 2. How would the bordering of a play area contain the children within it and exclude them from the remainder of the south lot? 3. What would the proposed storage building look like, and would the Church stipu- late it be used only for storage? 4. How would the building be erected? 5. Would the Church now stipulate there would be no further expansion in the future? She commented in regard to question 1. that they had observed violations of the present Use Permit on a number of occasions, and felt more equip- ment would magnify the nuisance; in regard to question 2. that their recollection of terminology used in 1979 for the grassy area of the southern lot was I1buffer area" and not "undeveloped lotI! which had a different connotation; in regard to question 3, without building specifications, they could not say they would be satisfied with the building; and in regard to 4., if work was done on weekends and holidays, the Church would be a seven day a week operation. She concluded that until these questions and others coming to mind during discussion had been answered satisfactorily, they must strenuously oppose approval. COM. ADAMS asked if there had been dialogue between the neighbors. PC-358 MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION ~ŒETING Pßge 14 Mr. Emil Straka, President of the Congregation, said they had had past discussions, with Mr. Chambers and Ms. Myers especially, in regard to a painting job, and they had tried to be cooperative and not upset the neighbors. He agreed that the back of the lot was not bo be used for organized games, and said they were successful, to his knowledge, in keeping children out during school hours, but did not see how they could control it after hours. He advised the Commission that they had discussed with Mr. Chamber sand Ms. Myers the matter of expansion, but that though he had told them 'to come to him with any concerns, they had not done so. CHR. CLAUDY wanted '/> discussion on the counter request for a continuation before the Public Hearing was closed. COM. BLAINE observed that the homeowners association had made a formal request and raised questions, and she felt they should be given the right of a two-week continuance at least. COM. ADA}!S asked Staff if the custodian's shed would require a Permit. Associate Planner Piasecki answered that a Building Permit only would be required in a residential zone, but in a non-residential zone elevations had to be submitted to ASAC*. He thought that if the Commission wanted to see an elevation it would be reasonable. He advised that the way the application was written meant that if it was approved the future structure and shop would be automatically approved. COM. KOENITZER felt the homeowners had raised valid questions, and thought that a solid barrier should be considered for sound proofing. COM. BLAINE suggested that Staff address this, but felt it would not work. COM. ADAMS felt that discussion between the parties would help and suggested a continuance. r. Klinger explained that they had a time constraint, as they were holding off on the hiring of teachers, who might not be available later, and in addition, delays might affect enrollment for next year. CHR. CLAUDY suggested, as the Commission was meeting on Wednesday, June 10, that the application be continued until then to give an opportunity for the parties to examine the issues raised and settle their disputes, if possible. COM. KOENITZER's concern was that maybe the homeowners association would not e able to meet with them, and that maybe the Church Board could not commit to disbursing funds, in so short a time. r. Klinger advised that the Church had done considerable research, and had some leeway in their budget. r. Jerry Chounard, a member of the Board of the Brookdale Homeowners Asso- ciation, advised they could not hold a meeting before Wednesday night, because their bye-laws forbade it. - Architectural and Site Approval Committee MINUTES, JUNE 8, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-358 Page 15 Associate Planner Piasecki suggested, as the expansion of the school and the other issues were separated in the Staff Report, the expansion issue could be dealt with, so that the Church could proceed with staffing, etc., and the other issues could be given more time. There were several options on the site for the location of play equipment, he said, and maybe a compromise could be reached, if this was satisfactory to the homeowners. HonON: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, to continue Application 26-U-74 to June 10, 1981. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 CHR. CLAUDY noted that the Public Hearing was still open and that the item would be dealt with first on Wednesday night. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of May 26, 1981 were approved after the following corrections. Page 11, 7th paragraph, to read: "COM. BLAINE observed that right now the penalty was termed an infraction which carried a maximum fine of SSO. The new ordinance termed the penalty a misdemeanor, which càrried a fine of $500 per day." Page 7, second Motion, last line, to read: "15-18 as per the Staff Report." SECOND: VOTE: Com. Koenitzer, to approve the Minutes of May 26, 1981, as amended. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 MOTION: The Minutes of October 16, 1980 were approved after the following corrections: Page 8, fifth paragraph, typographical error,lfgrwo" to read 11 grow" . Pages 12 and 13, typographical error, substitute"Rl-6"for"Rl.6"wherever it occurs. MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, to approve the Minutes of October 16, 1980, as corrected. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 5-1 abst. (Com. Binneweg abstaining, since she was not at the Meeting). NEW BUSINESS The matter of revocation of Use Permit for Photo Drive-Up was discussed briefly, and it was decided the Staff Report was self-explanatory. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams, to request that Staff initiate revocation procedures for Application 33-U-79. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 MOTION: