Loading...
PC 03-09-81 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFOfu1IA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC-3s2 Page 1 MINUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGUlAR PLANNING COMMISSION NEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7 : 30 P. M. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Adams Commissioner Binneweg Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Claudy Chairman Koenitzer APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 23, 1981 were approved after the following corrections: Page 2, under Written Communications, the first paragraph, first and fourth lines and second paragraph, second line, "Mrs. Prior" to be corrected to "Hrs. Krier". Page 2; under Oral Communications, first paragraph, and also on Page 3, eighth paragraph, "nul" to read "nulltl. Page 4, fourth paragraph to read: "COM. CLAUDY questioned the Assistant City Engineer on what was happening along Foothill Boulevard near Alpine Road." Page 9, second paragraph to read: "Com. CLAUDY observed that when privat property rights began infringing on public rights, then the line should be drawn." Page 9, ninth paragraph, fifth line, the sentence to read: flIt was stipulated in City ordinances that a cut slope could be 1 ft. vertical for 1.1/2 ft. horizontal and a fill slope 1 ft. vertical for 2 ft. hori- zontal.1I Page 11, under Unfinished Business, second paragraph, sixth line "instal" to read II install" . SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams to accept the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 23, 1981 as corrected. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 HOTION: POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS ITEM #4 had been misadvertised and postpone~ent was .proposed, at Staff's request. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine until March Com. Claudy to postpone Item #4, Application 9-U-70 23, 1981 MOTION: PASSED 5-0 PC-3s2 Page 2 MINUTES ~~RCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A letter from Elliott and Ellen Bond concerning Item #5', to be entered into the Record during tnat Hearing.* ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #1, Applications l-TM-8l and 2-U-8l of 540 EL CAMINO LTD.: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately 7.7 acres into 3. parcels equaling approxi- 'mately 6,500 sq. ft. each; USE PERMIT to construct 37 single-family homes and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Voss Avenue and Lockwood Drive in a P (Planned Development with residential 4-8 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - March 16, 1981. COM. CLAUDY said tnat inasmuch as he lived adjacent to the property, had purchased a home from the Merritt Company, and was a neighbor of one of the applicants, he was abstaining. Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report, detailing the property on an aerial display on the board. It had been zoned a little more than a year ago for a range of 4/8 dwellings per acre, gross, because of the slight mix in land uses around it. The applicant was requesting 37 dwelling units on 8.6 gross acres, with zoning based on gross and including credits for half-streets around tne perimeter, the actual density being 4.3 units per gross acre. He advised that when zoned, four conditions had been set up. The first was the need for a perimeter park road, the intention being that the cost of the entire perimeter road installation be borne by developers of the property to the west and north. He felt this should be inserted into the Conditions. The second condition was that the lots backing up to Carolyn Gardens be of a detached, single-family building style, the third that development be compatible with the neighborhood and the fourth that privacy intrusion be minimized with regard to the northern proper~y line. He noted that single-family development was compatible with the neighborhood and that the applicant was proposing to comply with normal R.l zoning setbacks of 25 ft. for a two-storey structure. Al~Ot there were large trees in the rear yards in Carolyn Gardens. The applicant was proposing to honor setbacks, though side yard flexibility was being requested. He had been advised that there must be 5 ft. from building to property line, and this had been stated in the Conditions. The applicant was also asking to come within 10 ft. of the rear property lines on lots 33 and 34, but Staff felt that variation to be inappropriate. Two side issues had come up; the concern of residents over the loss of tennis courts and the concern with parking. There was a small parking area proposed for Manta Vista park, though it would not be constructed immediately, but there were no tennis courts planned. He advised that anyone concerned with * See Page 16 MINUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING the tennis court issue should address City Council and the Parks and Recrea- tion Commission, and that any parking problems should be evaluated if they occurred, when appropriate measures could be taken. PC-3s2 Page 3 He suggested that a Condition 19 be added,requíring that full street improvements for the perimeter park road be borne by the developer, and adding that the cul-de-sac adjacent to Foothill Boulevard have the approval of the Public Works Director. COM. ADAMS inquired whether the homes were arranged to take maximum advantag of southern exposures, as he felt he cou¡d concede to flexibility in set- back lines if the houses were built for use of passive energy. Associate Planner Piasecki advised that Staff had suggested the street go all the way through so that lots could be arranged east/west, and this situation could be taken advantage of for solar energy. Don Beardsley, Ruth and Going, Inc., representing the applicant, said they had read the Staff Report and had no comments. The Conditions were agreeabl COM. BLAINE wanted to know what type of fencing was between the older homes and proposed houses, and if new fencing would be installed. Jack Chamberlain, San Carlos Homes, the applicant, said that a new wood fence would be installed along the bank. There was some discussion on the side and rear yard setbacks on Lots 33 and 34, and it was established that the rear yards were oriented to the sides of other ~ots. COM. BINNEWEG was concerned with privacy for the older subdivision, because of the large houses on relatively small lots being proposed. She also was concerned about side-yard privacy. Mr. Beardsley established that every lot met the setback requirements, and that the garage of one unit was oriented to the side yard of another. COM. BLAINE questioned the number of units backing up to the older subdivisi n that were one-storey. Mr. Beardsley advised that two were one-storey and the rest two-storey. Assistant Planning Director Cowan commented that Staff had recommended to the applicant that the basic setback parameters be established, and that the developer be allowed to sell individual designs to homebuyers. Mr. Chamberlain confirmed that this was planned, though in some cases layouts were locked in. They had asked the architect to design houses to minimise on visual intrusion and to have some variety. COM. ADAMS addressed the question of taking advantage of passive -heat~ng. to the applicant. PC-3s2 Page 4 MINUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO~1ISSION MEETING Mr. Chamberlain advised that there would be sufficient area to provide passive solar heating of water, which required only a couple of panels. One thing being considered on tois project was to superinsulate a struc- ture, as to provide a passive solar design required architectural treat- ment of the structure which was difficult to work with. He noted that people basically liked traditional houses, though they wanted as many conservation features as possible. COM. ADAMS, noting that most proposed houses had a predominant wall facing north, and some facing south, wondered if there would be much glass on the south walls. Mr. Chamberlain said that this could be incorporated, though he believed they could accomplish the same thing by using different insulation and thicker walls. There was also the problem of visual intrusion. COM. ADAMS wanted information on the size and price-range of the houses. Mr. Chamberlain stated that they would be approximately 2600 sq. ft. and would be in the range of $250,000/$285,000, Cupertino being an expensive place to live. MOTION: Com. Adams to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED Com. Claudy abstaining 4-0 CHR. KOENITZER expressed his concern with the size of the houses versus the lot sizes. He recognized a trend towards smaller lots, but the trend was for bigger houses also, and he was not sure it would be beneficial to the neighborhood. He suggested more single-storey homes along the northern boun- dary, and asked Staff if the Commission did not normally set the plans for R.l tracts, which plans would go on which lots? Assistant Planning Commissioner Cowan replied that on conventional R.l tracts the Commission had established footprints only, and did not get involved when the lots were 6500 sq. ft. and over. COM. ADAMS observed that he would like to see more single stories along the northern boundary and was in favor of reopening the Public Hearing to ask the applicant to look at it. COM. BLAINE agreed and said that having more single stories would be more in keeping with a policy of minimum privacy intrusion. MOTION: Com. Adams to reopen Public Hearings. SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED Com. Claudy abstaining 4-0 Mr. Chamberlain suggested considering a salt-box colonial design, with no windows on the second level at the back. He explained the floor plan layout and how it could be accomplished on lots 2,7,10 and 14 with which the Commission was concerned. MINUTES ~IARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-352 Page 5 The Commissioners approved of this suggestíon. COM. BLAINE pointed out that the problem was not necessarily that one house could be viewed from another, and that backyard privacy was also a problem. Mr. Beardsley stated that there were very few windows looking out onto rear yards, and they were in rooms with minimum daytime use. Mr. Nick Vriones (phonetic) 22722 Medina Avenue, wanted to convey to the Commission that if somehow they could raise the minimum lot size to 7500 sq. ft. it would help the privacy issue and upgrade the level of the development to the development recently finished at the end of Voss Avenue. COM. ADAMS questioned Staff on the density. Associate Planner Piasecki said that the average lot size was 7275 sq. ft., net, due to the large lots in the center of one cul-de-sac. He advised that the applicant had revised his former plans to continue the street through at Staff's suggestion, providing better access to the park, and may have lost acreage in the process. CHR. KOENITZER conceded that there was much perimeter road for the area. MOTION: Com. Adams to close Public Hearings SECOND: Com. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED Com. Claudy abstaining 4-0 COM. ADAMS wondered if there should be a Condition that certain lots had different roof lines. It was agreed to make this Condition 21. COM. BLAINE wanted to address the issue of lot size, explaining that it had been a decision of the City Council that 6500 sq. ft. lots would be allowed in the City. Whilst this development was in the same neighborhood as the development at the end of Voss, the topography was quite different, being flat, and therefore such large lots were not needed. COM. BINNEWEG felt another consideration was easy access to the park, and a feeling of open space because of the park. MOTION: Com. Blaine to recommend the Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review Committee. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 4-0 Com. Claudy abstaining MOTION: Com. Blaine to recommend approval of l-TM-8l, Conditions 1-14, Condition 15 as in the Staff Report, Condition 16 to read: "The full cost of the street improvements to the perimeter park road will be borne by the developer of both of the full streets adjacent to the park." Condition 17 to read: "The cul-de-sac adjacent to Foothill Boulevard will be located to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works." Findings and sub-conclusions as in the Staff Report. PC-3s2 Page 6 MINUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO!1MISSION MEETING SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED Com. Claudy abstaining 4-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine to recommend approval of 2-U-8l, Conditions 1-14. Conditions 15, 16, with Condition 16B second line reading 10 ft. instead of 60 ft. (typographical error) Conditions 17,18,19, the cost of the full street improvements to the perimeter park road will be borne by th~ developer of both full streets adjacent to the park. Condition 17 to read "The cul-de-sac adjacent to Foothill Boulevard will be located to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works." Condition 21 shall read that lots 2, 7, 10 and 14 shall provide a rear roof line treatment to minimize privacy intrusion, and the buildings on lots 4 and 11 shall be one-storey. Findings and subconclusions as in the Staff Report. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 4-0 Com. Claudy abstaining. ITEM #2, Application 2-Z-8l of SWINTEK ENTERPRISES, INC.: PREZONING approxi- mately .3 gross acre from Santa Clara County ML (Light Industrial) zone to City of Cupertino ML (Light Industrial) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environ- mental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the south side of Lomita Avenue approximately 60 ft. westerly of Imperial Avenue in the Manta Vista neighborhood. First Hearing. Tentative City Council Hearing date - April 6, 1981. Assistant Planner Piasecki outlined the Staff Report, using a view graph to display the location and show how the building was situated. He explained that the request was being made to avoid a procedural requirement at County level, and that it was a straightforward prezoning request with an appropriate use. COM. BLAINE asked if United Cable Television was going to remain in the building. Associate Planner Piasecki informed her that they had a two-year lease only. The applicant, Bill Swintek of Swintek Enterprises, said they planned to occupy the premises eventually as the lease on the building they now occupied would expire> in three years. They were a light manufacturing business making communications gear for the motion picture and television_industrY. He pointed out that the yard was completely isolated from the street by fencing, and the building had been painted and renovated since they bought it. CHR. KOENITZER asked where the outside storage was presently located. The applicant replied that his understanding was the cables only were in storage now, and these were inside the building. However, sometimes things were stored in the yard. It was established that there was an American Legion Meeting Hall next door and a triplex to the west. MINUTES MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTIOi'<: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLA.'NING COMMISSION MEETING PC-352 Page 7 Com . Cla',dy to close the Public Hearing. Cont. Adams PASSED 5-0 Co~. Ada~s co çccert the Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review Committee Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 Com. Adams to recommend approval of 2-2-81, with findings and subconc1usions as in the Staff Report. Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 ITEM #3, Applications 24-U-80 and l7-TM-80 of SHUTTS AND SCHWIMMER: MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP to eliminate the requirement for an emergency access road along the westerly side of the property adjacent to Regnart Creek and ENVIRON- MENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the north side of Orogrande Place approximately 450 ft. westerly of Stelling Road in a P (Planned Development with single-family intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - March 16, 1981. Assistant Planning Director Cowan outlined the Staff Report. He advised that the matter had been before the Commission for two years, initiated by the request of two owners to seek approval of a 10-unit planned development on approximately two acres. They had later decided to build separately, and Mr. Sargeant's request was to delete the requirement for an emergency driveway and joint bikepath on his westerly parcel, due to the cost involved in protecting those improvements from eventual creek erosion, and his feeling that the facilities would adversely affect the market values. However, the matter was complicated. The two acres had been zoned PD* with two conditions, the eventual construction of Festival Drive and that there be public access adjacent to the creek. The applicants had decided to develop separately, Mr. Whaley receiving approval for as-unit development, contingent upon Mr. Whaley giving access rights to Mr. Sargeant. Staff's idea had been that the State would give. the City an encroachment permit to build within part of the West Valley Freeway right- of-way, and that access would be gained from both properties. However, the State would not give this permit. Mr. Whaley had then asked the City if he could utilize an easement that paralleled the creek and gave access from Stelling. The Commission and Council had approved that request, with a condition requiring Mr. Whaley to give access rights to Mr.Sargeant Unfortunately, there was no provision within the easement for Mr. Whaley to give access to Mr. Sargeant. As this fact had been discovered, it was felt ehat~the request to delete the emergency access roadway would not work, though Mr. Sargeant's architect was here to describe a flág lot solution. Staff recommended denial of Mr. Sargeant's request, as it was the only access he had and because it was contrary to the public access intent, which the Planning Commission and Council had in mind when they approved the project. PC-3s2 Page 8 INUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGUlAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I CHR. KOENITZER wanted confirmation that the easement across the freeway right-af-way was written in a way that Mr. Whaley could not permit anyone else to use it. Assistant Planning Director Cowan stated that both attorneys involved, Engineering Department and the City Attorney had agreed on that concept. COM. CLAUDY wondered if the Whaley project was being developed now. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that permits had been issued to lots fronting Orogrande, but that Staff was not going to issue permits on lots 1 and 2 until they had confirmation from the State that rhey could pave the private driveway; the State did not want any encumbrances on their right of way. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said it was a concern that an all-weather surface be permitted for emergency vehicles. It was established that there was a pre-existing easement on the property when the State acquired it, and the State had no choice but to permit it to continue. COM. CLAUDY asked Deputy City Attorney Foley whether it was correct that if one had an easement, the surface could not be improved without permission from the owner. Deputy City Attorney Foley thought that for road purposes, the point could be argued. Phil Schwimmer, the applicant's architect, said he would try to clarify. Firsly, they. did not want to limit public access to the creek, but if the 12 ft. driveway was public, any vehicle could use it. They had accepted the widening of the bikepath from 6 ft. to 12 ft., as it had seemed a reasonable approach if bollards were put in so vehicles could not use it. Secondly, the issue of just using it for emergency vehicular traffic was a change in the basic ground rules, and whilst the bike path was stable, it was not suitable for cars. Also, the units along the front were to have their backyards facing the creek, and though the fact that people could walk and ride bikes through could be tolerated, vehicular traffic desrroyed the value and liveability of the houses, he felt. The emergency access was not needed, as there were full ^facilities for serving these units without additional fire protection. The Water District had accepted this as a private drive in this location, but they saw problems with bringing vehicles so close to the creek. COM. BINNEWEG wondered if it was possible to put the last house on a flag. Mr. Schwimmer said it was, but that it took away from the project, and would leave a smaller useable lot. COM. BINNEWEG established that the applicant wanted to postpone developing the third lot and eradicate the driveway. Mr. Schwimmer confirmed this, saying that it had hindered the original project,but had been the only access. However, the other side was now being developed and there was a fire turnaround there, so they felt the project could go ahead. MINUTES, MARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-352 Page 9 COM. BLAINE enquired if Mr. Schwimmer had had discussions with Fire District, as there was a notation that they preferred the access road to be completed. the Central emergency Mr. Schwimmer said that he had spoken with them several times, and it was only recently that the Fire Marshall had sent in a new idea. They were originally very happy with the present fire turnaround, and it was well within their standards. COM. CLAUDY had a question in that looking at the conditions for approval of 17 TM 80 dated September 8, 1980, there was an 18 ft. private driveway mentioned, and interpreted that it was clearly part of the condition of the Tentative Map tüat there was no change in putting in an emergency access and private driveway on these properties. Mr. Schwimmer stated that it was a mistake on the Tentative Map that nobody had picked up, and it was supposed to be put in as an emergency access. COM. CLADDY explained that putting it in as an emergency access did not change what was approved originally, that there was only emergency access over the private drive. Mr. Schwimmer said that only a portion was a private drive. The wording was wrong, and he did not think it had been understood by anybody. The Use Permit for 24-U-80 was referred to, listing a 12 ft. bike and emergency access path. It was determined there was a difference between the written words and what was on the map. Assistant Planning Director Cowan clarified that the first part of the easement on Mr. Sargeant's property was 18 ft. wide, with a transition down to 12 ft., the intent had been only that there be some kind of fire access. Mr. Schwimmer added that in negotiating with Staff, the path was made to be 12 ft. public path with no vehicular useage, since they did not have the righthand units planned. The area was still to remain open, as the Water District had required an easement back to the edge of the units. COM. CLAUDY remarked that it was clearly never intended that there should be any normal access, and that it was intended to be a bike path and emergency access only, with the back unit gaining access over the Whaley proper ty . Assistant Planning Director Cowan wanted to make the point that what the Fire District was essentially saying in their letter was they did not want to depend upon the turnarounds being clear, and they would as soon have a complete fire access adjacent to the creek if the situation permitted. Mr. Schwimmer pointed out that the present fire access was totally within the requirements, and whilst it was nice to have additional safety ~actors, it should not be to the detriment of the project. Assistant Planning Director Cowan stated that this condition was in the original conditions of approval for the project. PC-3s2 Page 10 MINUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COM. CLAUDY assumed that Mr. Schwimmer was basically asking that the Commission should change the 12 ft. bike and fire access path to a 6 ft. bike path, taking out 6 ft. of paving and thè fire access. Mr. Schwimmer confirmed this, and said another factor was that it was to be used as a public road. He referred to the third page of the application under "Further Findings" where it was stated: "The applicant propei"!:y owner does not have a gua~anteed short term access across the private driveway connecting his and his neighbor's development. Therefore, the 12 ft. wide bike path and emergency access must serve a third function as a private driveway.1I COM. CLAUDY pointed out that this was not the same thing as a public road. Mr. Schwimmer replied that as it was a private dr, ±veway if anybody got hurt on it, the owner would be responsible. The public path they wanted to keep was not on anybody's property but the City's and Water District's. If it was to be made a public/private road, he wondered how it would be controlled. COM. CLAUDY said he now appreciated the problem, and suggested that they might be separated. Mr. Schwimmer pointed out that there was no room for this solution. Assistant by having bollards. situation Planning Director Cowan suggested that the matter might be resolved an emergency gate, allowing pedestrians and not cars, or maybe He felt the applicant's concerns could be met,but the drivewayc made it difficult. COM. ADAMS suggested that Mr. Schwimmer could work on the matter a little longer for something that might satisfy his needs. Assistant Planning Director Cowan thought Mr. Schwimmer needed a little more direction. CHR. KOENITZER surmised that if the applicant could not obtain access to the east out to Stelling or over Festival Court to Orogrande, he was left with two options; either to use it as his private driveway, when it was going to hav~ to be developed to those standards, or to try to convince the Commission that a flag lot to Orogrande was acceptable. He felt the applicant might try further with the State for an access over the freeway easement to Stelling. COM. CLAUDY asked Staff whether a subdivision map could be approved which, at the time it was filed, provided no access at all to a lot. He noted that Þk. Schwimmer was proposing that the back lot be held in abeyance until such time as they could get access from the State. Assistant Planning Director Cowan thought the lot could be encumbered with some type of covenant, or deed restriction, or it could be eradicated in the interim period Barry Scott, owner of the adjoining property, observed that this was a very complex matter. They certainly had always had the intent that the adjoining property owner would share, but they legally could not give access across the MINUTES ~lARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-352 Page 11 easement to another owner. It burdened the easement, which would then dis- appear~ so whereas they had granted rights in the Final Map under the Owners Certificate to Mr. Sargeant or the adjoining property owner, they could not legally do this. However, lIalternate access" meant access to' the back two lots until such time as Festival Drive was put in, which could be done as soon as an encroachment permit had been received from the State. He had a copy of a letter from the S tat_e to the City favoring the issue of such a permit, but stating that toe Highway Commission had to issue it. It was the City's job, and not his job as a developer to work with the State to give an encroachment permit to the City. At this time he did not know the statu as it was the City's responsibility. He stated that the Architectural and Site Control Committee had proposed to eliminate the bike path on his property, as they wanted to leave the creek in its natural state, thougo he had not seen the final decision. COM. BLAINE enquired if Mr. Scott had discussed amending the easement with the State. Mr. Scott explained that it was not something given by the State, but by the previous owners, and rights had never been acquired by the State. The State owned the underlying land, but not the rights. Deputy City Attorney Foley thought his lawyers had probably advised that he could not let somebody else use an easement that he owned for road purposes, because the easement became burdened even further. Mr. Scott gave a reason the State had thought it might take some time to get the encroachment permit. Apparently, there was a property whose drive- way crossed the right-of-way, and they had simply leased the land from the State. He commented that if it had been done in this case, he did not see why it could not be done for another property. Deputy City Attorney Foley asked if there would be any objection to a continuance for two weeks. Mr. Scott said he would not like to answer for Mr. Sargeant, but his feeling was that he would very much like to have a reading on the status of the encroachment permit, as they would like to go ahead with Festival Drive. COM. BLAINE asked Staff if the City had applied to the State for the permit. Assistant City Engineer Whitten replied he did not know at this point. There had certainly been discussion with State Staff, but it had to go to the Highway Commission. Mr. Schwimmer stated that they wanted a decision at this time, if possible, In the past year or so, Mr. Sargeant had dedicated approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of land in order to allow Mr. Whaley's project to go ahead. They only wanted mixed public and private usage stopped, and it did not take away from safety, as everything conformed to all standard requirements. COM. BLAINE pointed out that there was one lot without any access. PC-3s2 Page 12 MINUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLfu~NING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Schwimmer concurred that there was no access at this time, but observed that it seemed simpler to allow them to wait on the use of the third parcel. CHR. KOENITZER stated that, unless the Deputy City Attorney could point out something, he knew of no way to grant the applicant a parcel on this condition. Deputy City Attorney Foley said she would not recommend it, and would be in favor of a short continuance. Mr. Schwimmer wondered if there was any other way to grant that everything could go ahead, contingent upon clarification of the right-of-way, as Mr. Whaley's project was allowed to go ahead under these terms. CRR. KOENITZER explained that there had been a firm legal position on Mr. Whaley's property, that if they could not use Festival Court, they could use the easement of record. However, Mr. Sargean~'s propërty had to be considered a landlocked piece of property, and there was no way of condition- ing the Tentative Map. Assistant Planning Director Cowan suggested continuance, probably to the first meeting in April to give more time to advertise This could be done in a broad way so more options could be considered, i.e., a flag lot, or reconfiguring the subdivision. COM. BLAINE felt continuation was the only way, and also suggested discussing turnarounds, etc., with the Central Fire District. COK CLAUDY felt that, if it was the City's obligation to request an encroach- ment permit, they had been remiss; these applications Þad been around for two years. He suggested that Mr. Sargeant put as much pressure on the State as possible to grant a second easement across State property. Mr. Sargeant said that he had talked to his attorney, and their feeling was that the responsibility of providing the access was Mr. Whaleyts, and not theirs, as it was something given to them in exchange for dedicating a 9,000 sq. ft. strip of land, in return for which he was to get the access. He felt the burden was on the wrong person. Permits had been issued to Scott and Whaley to build, yet they had not fulfilled the Conditions of the Use Permit. He had dedicated a large piece of land to the City, and had got nothing for it, and now he did not have an access road. He felt it was grossly unfair. COM. BLAINE felt the whole thing should be settled and asked Mr. Sargeant if he would be willing to accept a continuance to see what other ways could be found. Mr. Sargeant was agreeable to this suggestion. Mr. Schwimmer wanted to clarify a point, in that one of their early plans had called for a cul-de-sac, but the City had wanted them to put in Festival Drive, and one of the requirements of the Use Permit and Tentative Map was that the City would condemn if they could not work out an agreement between the property owners for the 20 ft. access strip from Orogrande. They had filed all the MINUTES MARŒi 9, 1981 REGULAR PL&~NING COMMISSION MEETING PC-352 Page 13 eminent domain procedures, but they were able to work out an agreement with Mr. Sargeant that for a fairly substantial sum of money he would dedicate the land to the City, so there had been money involved. ~IT. Sargeant argued that the portion of land referred to that was sold was something the City found they could not condemn. This had been sold to Mr. Scott and Mr. Whaley, but the rest, out to Stelling, was dedicated to the City. MOTION: Com. Claudy, that the Public Hearing be continued until April 13, 1981. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: CHR. KOENITZER suggested that Staff make application to the State for an encroachment permit on Festival Drive. ITEM #4, postponed until March 23,1981. ITEM #5, Applications 3-Z-8l and 3-U-8l of CO~wmNITY HOUSING DEVELOPERS: REZONING approximately 1.25 acres from CG (General Commercial and Rl-lO (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to P (Planned Development witn residential, 10-20 units per gross acre intent) zone or whatever zonedmay be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERHIT to construct 24 residential dwelling units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVïEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located approximately 150 ft. soutn of Stevens Creek Boulevard and 280 ft. east of Stelling. Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - April 6, 1981. Assistant Planing Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report which was distributed to the public. He described the location, at the terminus of Bianci Way, opposite the Key Chevrolet facility and in the general area of De Anza College. The request was to rezone the property from single family residential and commercial to RlO-20 and to approVe a design for a 24- unit development, necessitating the removal of some older single family structures. The density range was consistent with the General Plan. It was established that the entire area back to the Union Church property, nad been zoned RlO-20 since 1978. Slides were shown of surrounding propertie and· struètures to be removed. Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that in this instance -the density would be 20.5 units per acre, but that the General Plan contained a policy enabling the density to be increased up to 10% in some instances. de observed that this project was the first publicly assisted housing project in the community, 20% of the units being provided for the handicappe and the rest for families. A private, non-profit community developer would be completing the project, and there would be Section 8 funding so tenants could underwrite the cost of renting. Under State law, it was illegal for Cities to discriminate against these types of projects, and the Commission could evaluate as a land use and design matter only. He advised that Staff had been in touch with the Cupertino School District, who were ço~çerned about· the application in terms of the saleability of PC-3s2 Page 14 MINUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGUlAR PLAi~NING COMMISSION MEETING Faria School land, should it later be sold. He had promised to convey the reactions of the School District representatives to the Commission. However, Staff felt the school ground was public property, and in any case, the Board's fear of detrimental effects were unwarranted; it was clear that the project would be an asset to tae community. The units could probably be shifted forward a little, making more landscape-type screening possible. Staff had also had contact with residential property owners, who were concerned that the density might eventually be applied to the cEaria. School Site, as all elementary schools in the community were master-planned for public use if sold, residential use being compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. He observed that the first sale of a school site aad been dealt with tonight, and he hoped the public had realized their concern. He felt that during t~e course of the discussion the school site zoning question might be brought up. COM. BLAINE enquired when it was proposed that the Commission would be pre-zoning school sites. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that all school sites were essentially zoned at tne present time, and tnough the City Council had favored pre-zoning, tne City Manager had felt the General Plan was adequate. Mr. Stuart Ricíl, representing Community Housing Developers briefly described the dwellings. He said that families earning less than $19,000 and handicapped students would primarily be eligible for renting. Mr. Mike Moyer, architect on tae project explained the design concepts. The site was ideally suited for solar because of its southern orientation, and there was an active solar hot water system servicing all water needs within the project and active solar collectors on the buildings, with a passive system for space heating. There was to be a tot-lot for young children, and trellises were to be used for extra privacy, with deciduous trees to shade in summer, but to enable the heat to enter in winter. There was an interesting architectural variety in tae site design,making use of shadow interest and horizontal siding material. COM. ADAMS observed that there were large existing trees on the southerly border, and wondered how the solar utilization was planned. Mr. Moyer conceded that this was a problem, and they hoped these might be thinned eventually, being on the school site. COM. BLAINE asked if Community Housing Developers would be managing the project. Mr. Rich explained that they were a projects, and intended to implement they were not managing any units. fairly new organization with· three a spin-off corporation to manage. other Presently, COM. BLAINE wondered if the intention was to sell the units. Mr. Rich explained that_ their corporation was set up with the intention of providing and managing subsidized housing in Santa Clara County and were non-profit. They had a contract with HUD~that the project was to remain for the public use for 30 years at least, and had executed documents with the * ".lPl"'I 7r~_.~.:__ __.1 TT._L__ .....____~, _____ MINUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGUlAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City of Cupertino to the effect that if, for any reason, the units should turn over, the City could purchase them. PC 352 Page 15 CHR. KOENlTZER wanted to know how the priorities had been set for rental. Mr. Rich stated that it was primarily an internal decision, and that they were limited by the types of unit HUD*made available. However, the project would be best suited to tenants that could utilize De Anza College. CRR KOENlTZER observed that there had been serious concern at Goals Committe level about providing housing to attract students from outside the district. CO~¡. CLAUDY said that the De Anza College handicapped program had already attracted students from allover and out of the State, as it was a very well-known and large program. CRR. KOENITZER said he certainly had no objections to providing housing for the handicapped. Mr. Ricn ~ted that only six units would be for the De Anza College handicap ed, though the town-house units that had downstairs bedrooms could be given to families with handicapped members as citizens of Cupertino. COM. ADAMS wondered if it had been taken into account that costs would rise over a thirty-year period. ~tt. Rich explained tnat on a periodic basis HUD would increase the fair market rental to keep maintenance on-going. COM. BlNNE'..IEG wondered who would pick up the bill if funds were stopped. Mr. Rich said that one HUD had committed funds they were permanent, and funds were already in the pipeline. COM. CLAUDY observed that the handicapped parking seemed to be inconveriient¡ situated. Mr. Moyer said tnat they had put the parking as close as possible to the units, but that the placement of the tront door had to do with the solar design. COM. CLAUDY felt it might be possible to install backdoors to enter the bed- rooms. Parking access and unit entrances were discussed. COM. ADAMS wondered how the operation would be financed if approval was given. Mr. Rich said that this was set up under the Section 8 New Construction Program, and monies were to be made available to the City of Cupertino for site work and architectural drawings. They were in the process of putting * HUD - Housing and Uruaù Development PC-3s2 Page 16 MINUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING together a proposal for HUD~and usually the process took between six and nine months. COM. ADAMS: observed that construction would probably not begin for a year. Mr. Rich. said it would be nine months to a year before ground was broken,. but it would be advantageous to submit their application to HUD as soon as possible to obtain a firm commitment. It was determined that the existing Section 8 program had not been closed and HUD;~as advertizing for new construction. Also, that funding for rental certificates was separate ~nder Section 8. Mary Jayne Moffatt, 20954 Pepper Tree Lane, wanted the letter from the Bonds ** to be read into the public records. She pointed out that on the central diagram two of the 2-bedroom units had not been shaded in, making it appear tnere was more open space area. 5ae was concerned about density and questioned whether garages or car-ports were provided. Toe tot-lot seemed extremely small, and she wondered who would maintain the grounds inside the little patios and around the perimeter. Mr. Rich stated that the maintenance of any open areas not fenced would be the responsibility of the management, and the patios would be the respon- sibility of each tenant. Ms. Moffatt observed for comparison that there were some townhouses on Elaney that were 10-12 per acre, and this seemed quite dense enough. CHR. KOENITZER summarized the letter from the Bonds**who were concerned about the number of cars, if rented to college students; trip ends; over- crowding~ access to school grounds~ the possibility the school grounds might be zoned for a similar density; and lastly, that the Blaney property at 10-12 per acre was quite dense enough. for Cupertino. They had suggested denial on the grounds of density. Mr. Robert Childs, 10152 Barbara Lane felt one of the major responsibilities of the Planning Commission should be with overall area planning and the relationship betwen various areas. The Staff Report had ignored an entire residential district of large single-family housing and a commercial ~rea, and ae felt the natural application of this area was towards commercial. He advised tùat the school was an alternate school for the entire district, and was the only scrrool in the district with an increasing enrollment; he felt it might have a negative impact from this proposal. The number of units truly adapted for the handicapped of De Anza College were only six out of twenty-four, and the real need was to have an extensive amount of such housing situated on the campus. He felt that reverse discrimination was being practised here, in that the proposal was aimed at getting a substantial amount of tax relief and Federal and local government funding. Edward Britt, 20850 Pepper Tree Lane, appreciated the need for housing and the approach being taken, but felt the density would degrade the general housing quality in the surrounding area. He felt it would be imprudent to undertake the project at this time, in case funding did not come through, ** See page 2 tiT1D - Housiuº" and Urban DeveloDment * MINUTES ~1ARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO~!MISSION ~ŒETING P.C-3s2 Page 17 and observed tàat there was no guarantee of on-going funds for maintenance. He felt the fate of Faria School would be affected if the project was approved, and the school had already indicated its concern for increased vandalism. The monterey pines on the school site would affect the solar design adversely, and he felt they would remain and would be encouraged to grow as large as possible, for the sake of privacy. He wondered if Com. Blaine might abstain from voting, since he felt she had a Digh degree of special interest in the matter. COM. BLAINE wanted an explanation, as s~e had no financial interest. Mr. Britt referred to her involvement in the site selection Committee and advocacy for tile project itself. COM. BLAINE explained that there had been a Committee made up of Commissione s, Council members and members of the community and she had been involved in th aspect of selecting possible sites. She had not drawn up plans, and had made no decisions, except as a member of the Environmental Review Committee, and she had no part in the application. CHR. KOENITZER confirmed that Com. Blaine had been appointed by the Council as one of the members of the Committee to look for sites. Mr. Britt said he was not alleging any impropriety, but wondered whether Com. Blaine would be pre-disposed. COM. BLAINE saia she was known as being in favor of providing this type of housing, and woòld be making her decision based on the public hearings and the presentation. COM. CLAUDY added that he also had been on the committee, and they had rejected many sites as being too close to R-l districts, but this site, more than any other in Cupertino, was isolated from R-l development, yet it had good access. Mr. Britt was nö~ opposed to the location, only the extreme density, and he felt that access to De Anza College for the handicapped would be difficult from this location. CHR. KOENITZER observed that they .could use the entrance near Flint Center quite comfortably. COM. ADAMS wondered how many in the audience had participated in the General Plan Hearings in 1978 when many open sites had been reviewed for density. COM. BINNEWEG observed that the densities had been changing on big parcels, and many had dropped since 1978. COM. CLAUDY informed the audience that the highest existing residential density in the City was 16 units to the acre in the Glenbrook Apartment complex on Mary, and that the apartments in Town Center were to be 32. He pointed out that the units in the proposed project were considerably smaller than anything developed for many years. PC-3s2 Page 18 MINuTES t~CH 9, 1981 REGUIAR PLANNING COMMISSION ÞŒETING CDGB* Coordinator, clancy Hendee addressed the question of land ownership, advising that the City received block grant funds and was essentially passing them on to Community Housing Developers. The City had added an option to repurchase if necessary so that the land could be landbanked, but did not own any at this time. COM. CLAUDY added that the block grant money was distributed to the City on a population basis, to be used solely for housing and neighborhood rehabilitation. It was tax money paid to the Federal Government, who had decided it was to be used solely for this purpose. Karen Jachens, 10488 Barry Drive, observed that, due to vandalism the School District had limited after-school usage of the Faria Playground to those with adult spervision. If the City applied for special dispensation for this project, she felt it would have to include everybody. She did not see that a handicapped person would rent a unit where he had access to only half the living space, as in the townhouse units with a downstairs bedroom. COM. BLAINE confirmeá with Staff that there was no direct access to the school. lk. Wesley Phillips, 20739 Scofield Drive, addressed the fire access problem, stating that a burning car at the end of the cul-de-sac could present a great problem and in the case of a burning building there would be no way out, especially for the handicapped. He questioned the ability of a two-year old company that had never actively managed rental property to make a success of it. Glen Stuart (phonetic) 10430 Cherry Tree Lane, Chairman of Cupertino Access Committee, said the 2,800 handicapped people at De Anza College needed a project like this, and he hoped it would be the first of many. Addressing the concern of patio maintenance, he did not feel it would be a problem as other members in the family could maintain them. Leroy Johnson, 10155 Weston Drive, wanted clarification on the separation between the site and Faria School. l1r. Rich commented that the intent was to provide a 6 ft. high opaque fence. In regard to the item mentioned in the Staff Reportof an agreement with the School District to provide access to the schoolground, they had met with the School District and it was mutually agreed that there would be no direct access because of safety and liability concerns. Sonya Norton, Santa Clara County Adult Independence Development Center, said her organization dealt with physically disabled people needing resources in the community. She received an average of three calls a day for housing, but made only two successful referrals a month. She felt the project was vital for the community, having so many handicapped. Addressing the comment that there would be too many cars, súe felt this would not be a problem, as typically the handicapped could not afford transportaion to suit their needs, and often they did not have any. Mr. Robert Kretchman (phonetic) 20568 Blossom Lane observed that as a former president of the De Anza College Disabled Student Union, he knew handicapped * CGDB - Community Development Block Grant MINUTES MAR~d 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO~lliISSION MEETING PC-3s2 Page 19 people had a problem in that they could not come and go as they pleased because of the sc~edules of the disabled vans. With this project, six, maybe more, would be independent of the vans, improving their quality of life. Mr. Adam Whitapee (phonetic) of Scofield Drive was concerned about the management of the project. because of' some he had' seen in Oakland. Bernice Lavin (phonetic) of San Jose said her dream was to be able to live in Cupertino to take advantage of the program at De Anza College for the handicapped, but she could not afford it, and would like to see the project approved. Sue Binge (phonetic) of Cupertino said the handicapped were not being objected to, only the density. CHR. KOENITZER was concerned about access, and wondered if there was a way to have at least anot~er pedestrian access. Mr. Moyer advised that the Fire District had assessed the project closely and had approved it, after incorporating two hydrants. Assistant Planning Director Cowan felt the Fire District was strict, but if the Commission required more detail, Staff could get it. COM. ADAMS questioned Staff if Conditions of Approval could be written in a way that if the project was started and then sold, it could be reassessed or reviewed by the City. Deputy City Attorney Foley thought the Use Permit could probably be conditioned, but not the zoning. Mr. Rich referred the Commission to the contract between the developer and HUD* and observed that the City did have the option to re-purchase. With reference to the long-term management of the project, whilst their corporation was young, they were an off-shoot of Housing Action,a large, umbrella group of many social agencies with representatives of many professions on the Board of Directors. However, they were primarily relyin on outside consultants to provide the initial expertise, and they had contracted with the Mid-Peninsula Housing Corporation of Palo Alto which had been in existence for 15 years, developing morè than 200 units, and als with Affinity, a private management company in San Jose. They had also contacted the Housing Authority, which had a tremendous amount of experienc They had contacted these groups early on so that management considerations could be addressed early in the development, and it was their intention that the management plan would have the participation of the tenants. COM. ADAMS wanted an exp.lanation of tÍ1e solar storage in the carpots. ~Œ. Moyer described the active domestic hot water solar system with collectors on the roof and a storage area for Í1eated water behind one of the carports. COM. CLAUDY noted the fact that though the northerly-most unit would be the least impacted by tree shado« there was no solar collector on it. * HUD - Housing and Urban Development · PC-352 Page 20 ~ilNUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PLA~NING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Hoyer advised that the shadowing on the collector surface was not a concern, though the shading of the passive solar design was. The solar collectors were located on tûe southerly buildings to be closer to storage) cutting down on heat loss, as it was intended to be a total heating system, though there was a central hot water heater in the storage area. He then addressed questions raised earlier , that the design of the carports incorporated flat roofs and· solid rear walls, that the tot-lot space was roughly 1600 sq. ft., that the length of the recreation areas was 50 ft. by 30 ft., and that open space was 31% of the Dotal lot area. Regarding the requBst to move the carports northerly, he favored avoiding creating narrow pockets adjacent to the fence, as they tended to collect debris and garbage and encourage vandalism. He pointed out that Item 18 in the Staff Report, providing extra trellis for privacy protection, would not fit in with the solar design concept, and they hoped this condition would not be passed on with an approval. COM. BINNEWEG wanted to know the ratio of green areas, asphalt and deck, and was advised by Mr. Hoyer that there was 31% open space, 29% paved area and about 30% building area, approximately. Patricia Hasley, 20865 Pepper Tree Lane, wss concerned with density and also wit~ the noise factor, as prevaïling winds tended to blow sounds in her direction. Mr. Britt wondered why the density was being proposed and also why the project was not for handicapped only. Mr. Rich, addressing the last question first, said tile reason was primarily one of unit allocation by HUD*, also, land costs in Cupertino were enormous and there had to be a sufficient amount of units to justify this. Alice Jarrett, 20668 Scofield Drive, said the Union Church was having a problem with vandalism, and wondered what provisions were being made for the older children, and if there would be supervision, as if they were hurt in the church parking lot, the church would be liable. Mr. Rich said he had spoken with Rev. Zimmerman of the Union Church, and they had agreed there be no direct access to the church from the project, and that Community Housing Developers would look into the possibility of providing fencing for privacy of the project and security of the church. There had been discussion of a cooperative daycare center to be formed in the project as a limited solution to supervision. COM. ADAMS asked Mr. Rich about the effect on the project of ~ reduction by two units, and was advised that if the land cost per unit was increased the amount to be spent per unit on construction decreased. COM. CLAUDY observed that the City was providing the money for the land, so it seemed only the construction of the units was being financed by the developer. Mr. Rich wanted to correct this, saying that over $240,000 of the land cost would be put into the mortgage, and that in addition there were several ineligible costs that could not be assumed by the block grant funds. HUD - Housing and Urban Development · MINUTES MARCH 9, 1981 REGULAR PL&~NING COMMISSION ~ŒETING PC-3s2 Page 21 Patricia Hasling suggested that the project be designed for students, single people and couples, eliminating families. COM. CLAUDY explained that HUD* money could not be obtained unless the project was for families, and some handicapped was being slipped in because of community need. Ms. Hasling wondered if the aim of the tfeeting was not to grab some HUD* money. She 'did not like HUD's* rules, and thought maybe the height could i crease. COM. CLAUDY replied that tne aim was to have a hearing and to try to meet a social need of Cupertino for moderate income housing. There was no other way of doing it, except through HUD* as if the units were built privately the rents would be unaffordable for people of moderate income. COM. BINNEWEG remarked that this last point raised the concept of the appropriateness of the whole program in terms of the laws of supply and demand. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams to close the Public Hearing. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 COM. ADAMS welcomed public input covering pro and con on both sides, and observed that other HUD* projects in the east had not turned out very wel However, because of the need for low income housin8, he would consider approval. COM. BLAINE had been looking into the density, and, given the size of the units, there would probably be the same number of people per square foot, and the square footage of building per acre would be about the same. Cupertino was becoming a community of older, wealthy people, afraid of having children in the community, though they complained when schools closed. She did not see how 24 units could ruin a neighborhood it ~vas not contiguo s to, and though she had some concerns about the plan, she was not concern d about the use and the type of people,and the children could play in Memor'al Park. She was concerned about handicapped access to the garages, and was glad there was no access to the school site or the church. If the Central Fire District was happy with the fire turnarounds she felt they must be suitable. Looking at some of the "other concerns, i.e., maintenance of landscaping, she felt this project was being treated like an expensive condominium development,próbabl~ because it had been so long since an apartment complex was built, in the City. She was in favor, and relatively pleased with the way the plans had come n. COM. CLAUDY felt this was a socially desirable use of the land on one of the best possible sites in the City for it. He felt the zoning was consistent witn the General Plan and agreed with Com. Blaine on most things, but did not t~ink there was sufficient space for recreation, and wanted to see tåe density reduced by two to four units to provide more open space. * HUD - Housing and Urban Development PC-352 Page 22 HlNUTES HARCH 9, 1981 REGUlAR PLANNING COMHISSION ¡'IEETING COIl. BINNEWEG felt the zoning was maybe consistent with the plan, but not with the current philosopny of tße City. T~e layout needed more work with regard to parking and t~e tall trees completely invalidated the solar aspect. She was not in favor of tûe philosophy behind the project, bad always been against social engineering, and resented tne idea tnat this was tax money coming back to be invested in the community while layers of bureaucracy took out chunks. She was not amenable to tùe program at all. CHR. KOENITZER felt t~ere were not encugû facilities for children, even with units taken out, and while Memorial Park was close, it was across two of the busiest streets in town. In regard to density, 20 units per acre would be pretty close to this. In tne 1978 General Plan Hearings, areas had been found in the City where low and moderate income ilOusing could be placed. As not many people could afford to" repurchase the houses they were living in, there was a real problem for people with incomes of $20,000 or less, and though this project had its faults, it would meet this need. He felt t~le buildings, though moderate in size, t,¡ere fairJ:y nice and were not tiny. Better access and somewhere for caildren to play could be wished, but on tne whole it would be a plus for the community and would fulfill some objectives of the General Plan. MOTION: Com. Blaine to recon~end the ~egative Declaration of the Environm~ntal Review Committee. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: PASSED Com. Binneweg voting against the motion. 4-1 HOTION: Com. Blaine to recommend approval of 3-Z-3l, conditions 1-14 and condition 15. SECOND: Com. Adams COHo CLAUDY ascertained tnat t"e zoning pertained strictly to whether 10/20 ~nits per acre were appropriate on the site, and had nothing to do with the project. VOTE: PASSED Com. Binneweg voting against the motion. 4-1 COHo ¡¡LAINE wanted discussion of Com. Claudy's suggestion of dropping the number of units. COM. CLAUDY wanted a continuation so the developer could redesign, dropping the number of units, putting in new entry doors to the backs of the handi- capped units, and redesigning the parking. COM. BLAINE did not think the extra doors were necessary. CHR. KOENITZER observed that the only way to get better parking access was to move the units northerly, extending Eianci Way, and a lot of space saved would go for more street area. MINUTES HARCii 9, 1981 REGUlAR PLAN;-/ING CONNISS ION ~!EETING PC-352 Page 23 COM. CLAVDY wanted to see táe number of units set at 20. COM. dLAINE did not taink dropping four units would make much difference. The project provided tlle type of ;lOusing needed, ,;ith smaller units and less amenities. COM. CLAUDY reminded the Commission that in the BHR* program it was required that the units not be appreciably different. Even the external amenities here were less than in other places. CdR. KOE;-/ITZER pointed out that the Bèffi* units had to match with the rest of t~e units in tne particular development, with the idea that nobody could tell whicn they were, but in this case they were all in -the same plac , though he did not think this was a justification for not producing decent units. He felt that not much wuld be gained in deleting four units, and consequent financing problems could ma~e the whole project infeasible. COM. ADAMS felt 24 units to be acceptable as filling the need for lower income rental housing. MOTION: Com. Blaine to recommend approval of 3-U-8l, Standard Conditions 1-14, Condition 15, Condition 16, Condition 17, Condition 18 dropped because of proolern with solar, Condition 19, Condition 20, that the second access to each of tne one-bedroomed handicapped fla ts would oe .added to enable tnem to have oetter access to their garages. Findings and subconclusions as in the Staff Report. SECOND: Com. Adams COM. CLAUDY stated he would oe voting against the motion because he thought it too dense. VOTE: PASSED Com. Hinneweg and Com. Claudy voting against toe motion. 3-2 ITEM #6, Application 6-U-73 of Vt~LCO PARK, LTD.: REVIEW OF A}ŒNDNENT OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERHIT to amend Condition 30 pertaining to restric- tion of truck traffic along the westerly perimeter road of the Vallco Fashion Par~ Site. The subject property is located on the west side of Wolfe Road bet,,,een Rigí1Way 280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Tenta ti ve City Council hearing uate - March 16, 19&1. Associate Planner Piaseck outlined the Staff Report. Vallco had requested an amendment a year ago to allow the signing of tLle perimeter road to prohibit truck veilicles. Mr. Sisk had sent out a letter on February 2Stá a advising property ownerS adjacent to the road that the Commission would be reviewing the effectiveness and that they could call in their comments if necessary. They had received two phone calls supporting the continued proßibition of truck traffic, as it see@ed to be working. Hr. Hard, representing Vallco Park, Limited, said warnings ~1ad been issued to trucks violating the signs, and tnough there was some noise from t~1e bus station, no problems had been called in to the office. He wanted to support t~e Staff reco~nendation to continue the signing with Vallco security personnel enforcement. O. . BHR - Belm., 'hrl:ÇlI' 'Q,~t-<:> ·-~r\1,c:::;,..,çr PC-3s2 ;e 24 MINUTES ~1ARCíi 9, 1981 llliGULAR PLANNI"G COMMISSION }IEETlNG MOT 10" : SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine t? close the Public Hearíng. Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 HOTION: Com. Adams to recommend ti1at the Commission notify the Council tüat the signing program was working and that it be continued. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 NEW BUSINESS ITEM #7, Five-Year Capital Improvements Program - review for 'consistency witn the General Plan. COM. ADAIIS questioned tne amendments, ànd a $75000 item for planning Mary Ave. Assistant City Engineer Wt1Ítten stated that they ,,,ere in the 1981 budget already, and that tne additional monies going into the budget were spread over the next five years. The Mary Avenue item was an unprogrammed amount for construction of the Nary Avenue overpass and landscaping, which was just an unprogrammed contingency in today1s dollars. COM. BLAINE felt all was consistent with the General Plan. SECOND: VOTE: Corn. Blaine to refer the Capital Improvements back to tl1e City Council as being consistent with the General Plan. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 MOT ION: REPORT OF TiiE PLÀJ.~NING COHHISSION CHR: KOENITZER reported on the Mayor's Heeting. The latest software for the traffic light computer had arrived; the City Manager had said that the tax problems the State was having were not caused by Proposition 13, but by indexed income tax and changes in the business inventory tax¡ March 28th was the Three Oaks Park dedication date. REPORT OF THE PLÀJ.~NING DIPÆCTOR !1EETING ADJOURNED 1:13 a.m., March 10, 1981. ATTEST: ¿~~ APPROVED: ~!/l~}