Loading...
PC 01-12-81 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFOfu~IA 10300 Torre Avenue,Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC-348 Page 1 MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGUlAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER-SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Ccrnmissioner Adan;s Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Claudy Chairman Koenitzer Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki City Engineer Whitten Deputy City Attorney Foley APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of ·the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 24, PC 346, were approved after the correction on page four of the ~ second paragraph from the bottom being substituted with the following: IICornmissioner Blaine said she could not see how the school district could ignore the 600 units being considered for the town center", In the last paragraph of page 1 "advized" was corrected to "advised" and "reversionll to "revision". The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 8, PC 347, were approved after the addition under Oral Communications of the introduction of the new Recordìng Secret2ry, Pam King. POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN CO~~ruNICATIONS CHR. KOENITZER drew attention to a written communication from Council Member Phil Jonnson concerning solar energy anð solar projects, particularly as addressed to Seven Springs Ranch. ORAL CO~illUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1, Application 3l-U-67 (Revised) of KEY CHEVROLET (PAUL WEISS) : USE PERMIT to construct an auto storage yard anè p'aking- lot in conjunction wi:h the existing Key Chevrolet auto sales facility. The subject property i3 located in the northeast cor~e~ of Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard at 20955 Steveas Creek Boulevard in a GC (General Commercial) zoning district. ENVIRON~ßNTAL REVIEW: thè Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing. -:?c- 348 Page 2 21DWTES JANUARY -". L'81 REGuLAR MEET ING OF THE PLANNING COt1'1ISSION Assistant P~anning Director Cowan showed on a fairly recent aerial photograph the existiu:?; developed facility of approximately 4.4 acres. The request was to ut il ~ze a .9 acre site fronting on Stelling Road for a storage facility ~nj display area, with the apparent incent of new car storage and that cars be visible. An item of concern involved the display of cars in front of the showroom, since metal poles had been installed adjacent to the sidewalk to prevent theft. Staff desired that both que,;tions be attended to. The original site plan was not to hand, but che conditions of approval for the development did not specifically rr.ention the approved means of displaying cars on the outside of the ~ullding, though it seemed it was to be on con- crete pads in the lawn drea. Sometimes the whole lawn was used for display. Staff approvéd the concept of a storage facility, but were concerned about displaying cars with such a minimal landscaping solution. From an aesthetic point of view, staff felt this facility should match the De Anza Racquet Club across the street. It was realized that this might hinder police work in protecting against criminal activity and visibility to potential buyers, and that Mr. Weiss would hav~ to employ greater security. COM. CLAUDY inquired t<le date the photographs were taken and how many cars were on the front of the lot on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Assistant Planning Director Cowan replied that the photographs had been taken in April or May of 1980 and that there were maybe close to 500 cars. He displayed slides showing the existing facility with the metal poles installed. There was a row of cars on the driveway, making fire protection a concern. The aesthetics of expanding the facility north on Stelling was also a concern, though the property was zoned commercial, and it should be established whether the function of the lot would be strictly storage, and if so, whether the cars could be successfully screened, or wuld it.be dual purpose, with storage and display of Cq~s. Mr. Robert Oliver, Ma~k Thomas and Company spoke on behalf of his client, Mr. Weiss, who had los~ his voice. In addition to the Use Permit application, they had made an Architectural Approval application, which had been postponed f~~m the original hearing date to the 22nd because the Architectural and Site Approval Committee wanted to hear whether the Planning Commission would allow his client to use the lot for storage and showing cars. The lot was also intended to be utilized for employee parking, and it was desired to fence and pave it. He felt that the zoning, land use and topography was different from the De Anza Racquet Club facility and thesp '.Jere the reasons for so much landscap'ing there. The selling of cars was different from other commercial activities and required a tremendous 2~ount of space, which had to be utilized to the fullest ~xtent ~ossib~e. Mrs. Barbara Weiss, 00 hehalf of Mr. Weiss, explained that all cars had been removed irom the ~0t 3nd posts installed on the insistence of the insurance company, as :::.he.re ~lad been an average of at least one robbery every week. The fence was as unobtrusive as they CQuld make it. MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLfu~NING COMMISSION PC=348 Page 3 COM. BLAINE was confused on exactly what was proposed for the use of the new lot. Would prospective customers be brought to that lot and shown the cars, or did it mean the cars would be displayed to people driving by? Mrs. Weiss explained the main stock was in the storage area, so that customers would be taken there. People going by would also see the cars. COM. BLAINE established that the cars same way they were on the front lawn. were being suggested down Stelling.' would not be on display in the She wanted to know if poles COM. CLAUDY wondered how security was maintained, as there was a tremendous number of vehicles along the back of the showroom area. . Mrs. Weiss said the fence had been driven right through, inspire of ADT, guard dogs, watchmen and police patrols. Poles and chain link were being suggested for Stelling. CHR. KOENITZER said it seemed that with the combination of the drive- way in front and on Stelling cars could be driven out. Mrs. Weiss explained the driveways would have chains across. COM. ADAMS asked if the concrete block wall went across the northerly portion all the way to the street. Mrs. Weiss said it did, and that criminals went over it sometimes. COM. BLAINE asked if the new storage area would mean there would be no storage on the front lawn. Mrs. Weiss explained that cars on the lawn were there as part of a merchandising technique. COM. ADAMS commented that there were lights over the rear storage area but there were no lights in the unpaved area. He wanted to know if lights would be put there. Mrs. Weiss said that this was not one of their first priorities, but if lights were required they would install them. COM. ADAMS recommended to CHR. KOENITZER that the hearing not be closed, but a discussion be held in which the applicant be permitted to engage. He saw two gates on the application, one from Stelling and one fram the main site. He suggested abolishing the gate on Stelling Road and asked Mrs. Weiss for her comments. I Mrs. Weiss said that customers came in through the Stevens Creek I entrance, but trucks entered on Stelling. The employees parked on the Stelling site, and it was hoped that some of the service business would be transferred from Stevens Creek to Stelling. The more trafficl they could pull off Stevens Creek, she felt, the better it would be. I I , I I I PC-348 Page 4 MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLili'iNING CClH}!ISSLOê; It was thought that delivery and employee parking might be adversely affected if the Stelling driveway was abolished and that delivery problems could back up traffic. COM. ADAMS sympathized with the ;'¡eiss' s on their theft losses, but wondered how many had gone out by the westerly border. He wanted to see something more pleasing than proposed in landscaping the are~, such as a low wall. Mrs. Weiss said one of the prime concerns was that police have an unobstructed view of the entire area as thefts were allover. COM. BLAINE thought that if there was a three-foot solid wall cars could not be driven out, but they could still be stripped. However, she felt even posts could not stop that. Mrs. Weiss disagreed, and said that posts allowed a clear view of someone stripping a car. COM. CLAUDY thought that an eighteen-inch wall with shrubs would solve the problem. Mrs. Weiss said that the insurance company insisted on a fence. Also, people could trip over an eighteen-inch wall. COM. CLAUDY commented that in his opinion, Key Chevrolet was ugly, and was one of the least attractive areas in the whole City. In this application there was little to make Key Chevrolet more attractive, and he felt there were ways to accomplish this. Mrs. Weiss pointed out that most of the present landscaping was exacted by prior Committees, and that at least it had been kept up. CHR. KOENITZER voiced the desire for more landscaping on Stelling Road. COM. BLAINE pointed out they ~ad not talked about a sign, and questioned whether it was part of the use Per~it also. CHR. KOENITZER said the Use Permit did not necessarily include a sign, though there could be a sign pointing out the Key Chevrolet Service Entrance. COM. CLADDY brought up the point chat the landscaping was entirely 8n the right of way. COM. BLAINE poi~ted QI.!.t that ti,e '::lain "~mc~rns Twere lands.::.::.ping ::nc. architecture, and thougnt mdYO~ t~is .should go co H. Control. COM. ADAMS observed tbat on:=.-t:h::';::-d to half the c.'lrs were facing ~3':2.'JeDs Creek Boulevard, and suspec :¿d :~le the::t p::oblem was partially :)'~th areas, yet there was no fencing on the easterly border. MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING CO~lliISSION PC-348 Page 5 The slide was put up again, and it was established that there was an eighteen-inch guard rail in this area. COM. BLAINE said she did not have any problem with the fence. COM. CLAUDY suggested sending a Minute Order to H. Control expressing their concerns. COM. BLAINE wanted to know more about what was originally intended for the front parking area, and Assistant Planning Director Cowan said staff would make an aditional effort to locate the file. COM. ADAMS suggested giving Mr.and Mrs. Weiss a choice to come up with something more appealing, eliminating the driveway on Stelling, and at that point taking it to H. Control. COM. BLAINE did not see the necessity to continue for another month, and wanted to list the concerns and see what should be added. Land- scaping, she felt, should be put on a Minute Order to H. Control. CHR. KOENITZER did not think 25 feet of landscaping was needed. There was a requirement to look into the property. A discussion on fencing and landscaping ensued. City Engineer Whitten was then called upon for his comments. City Engineer Whitten observed there was some extra width on Stelling at that point. He did not have any real concern about the driveways, but was concerned with the parking on the driveways inside the lot. COM. CLAUDY asked Mr. Oliver whether the gate illustrated was at the end of the lot. Mr. Oliver said it was, and that the cars were required to be parked vertically, and customers and employees could park vertically there, and would move directly into the lot where the service facility was. Mr. Weiss thought this could be the best solution. He noted he had put down a 28 ft. driveway instead of a 32 ft. driveway, in error. City Engineer Whitten said he would prefer to have the service traffic entering on Stelling Road rather than Stevens Creek for safety reasons COM. CLAUDY said he had no real problem with the driveway on Stelling. CHR. KOENITZER had a question of staff on the Sign Ordinance, and wanted it clarified in regard to a sign on Stelling Road. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said as they had two frontages they couldhave a sign if they wanted. The size would be up to H. Control. CHR. KOENITZER explained to Mr. and Mrs. Weiss that a decision could be made, and if they did not like it they would have five days to appeal the decision to the City Council. PC-348 Page 6 MINUTES' JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR ~ŒETING OF THE PLANNING CO~!MISSION COM. CLAUDY AND COM. ADAMS stateà that 15 feet would be the absolute minimum of landscaping. COM. BLAINE said that 15 feet was reasonable to her. She was concerneà about going to 25 feet because of security. CHR. KOENITZER stated that there was a consensus on 15 feet, and asked Mr. and Mrs. Weiss if tÎley ~'l-ished a vote to be taken at this time, or if the Commission should study it. Mrs. Weiss said they would like the vote, and they would still have five days to appeal. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised her that they would have to ref ile . Mrs. Weiss said they had not seen all this in writing and had only had a telephone call from Mr. Oliver on the matter. Mr. Oliver explained that he was in touch with Mr. Piasecki the previous Friday. A price interpretation on the landscaping was lacking, and since no figure was mentioned, he had assumed it was the same. The'''' also went over the othec items, and he in turn reported to Mr. Weiss. CHR. KOENITZER said that if a continuance was asked for it would be at least two weeks and maybe a month. A vote now would mean the matter was essentially settled and there would not be five days to appeal, but that after H. Control on the 22nd they would be ready to go. Mrs. Weiss agreed to the vote. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine to close the public hearing. Com. Adams Passed 4-0 COM. CLAUDY suggested that in condition 16 parking by employees be permitoeà. Mr. Oliver observèd that there was no easement for the bus shelter and that it was going to be built on City sidewalk. City Engineer Whitten wanted to leave in the easement, as there v,las a question about the size of the shelter. MOTION: Com. Blaine to recommendation Com. Claudy Passed support the Environmental Review Committeets of the granting of a Negative Declaration. &ECOND: VOTE: 4-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine, reccmmend aDproval of 3l-U-67 (Revised) subject to Standard Conditions 1-14, condition 15, 16, landscaping shall be 15 feet in depth, said landscaping and fencing should ce subject to approval by H. Control. that condition 17 be deleted and to condition 18 be added the wo.rd tlpromotionalTt display of vehicles shall be limited MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING CO~illISSION PC- 34 8 !1age 7 SECOND: VOTE: to the sales facility on Stevens Creek Boulevard only no "promotional" display of vehicles which is visible Stelling Road is permitted, etc. Conditions 19,20 and Com. Claudy Passed and along 21. 3-1 COM. ADAMS said he had voted against the motion because of the land- seap ing issue. to express concern with the fencing, that it should be aesthetically pleasing and as minimal as possible. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 MINUTE ORDER TO H. CONTROL: by COM. BLAINE SECOND: VOTE: ITEM #2, Application 48-Z-80 of ANTHONY COCCIARI & C. YANCEY: REZONING approximately .84 gross acre from Ri-lO (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 square feet minimum lot size) zone to Rl-7.5 (Residential, Singl - family, 7,500 square feet minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRON~ŒNTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Ne~ative Declàration. The subject property is located on the south- east corner of McClellan Road and John Way. First hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - February 2, 1981. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said this was basically a request to rezone so that the property could be subdivided into three lots. There was quite a variety of lot sizes in the neighborhood, and staff recommended the Rl-7.5. There was a short discussion as to whether there were any existing buildings, and to clarify how many lots could be obtained. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com Adams to close the public hearing Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 Com. Claudy to accept the Environmental Review recommendations for the granting of a Negative Com. Adallt6 Passed Committee's Declaration. 4-0 Com. Claudy to recommend approval of 48-Z-80. Com. Adams Passed 4-0 ITEM #3, Application 23-TM-80 of TERRY BROWN (MONTA VISTA PROPERTIES) : TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately .80 acre into four parcels ranging in size from 7,500 square feet to 8,900 square feet, and ENVIRONMEO~TAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located at the south- westerly terminus of Madrid Road approximately 75 feet southerly of McClellan Road in a Rl-7.5 (Residential, Single-family, 7,500 square feet mlnlrnum lot size)zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - January 19, 1981. PC-348 Page 8 MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR PLfu~NING COMMISSION MEETING Associate Planner Piasecki said the legal description explained the lots. Madrid Road opened into McClellan next to Manta Vista High School. COM. CLAUDY established that the request was to increase the number of legal lots by one. Associate Planner Piasecki said there were presently four homes, and this number would remain the same, the old ones being removed and new ODes erected. There was still some question as to the precise location, because of neighboring properties. The conditions provided flexibility in this. CHR. KOENITZER wanted to know if the other properties around the property in question had access from Madrid Road. AssociQte Planner Piasecki said this property was the only one. COM. BLAINE thought there would be a problem with the intersection, as people turning off McClellan cut the corner. Had staff looked at -this? City Engineer Whitten felt it was probably amatterof having too much space to make the movements involved. COM. CLAUDY saw no problem with the rezoning. Mr. Arnold Nite, 22000 McClellan Road, had questions for the applicant in that he lived across the street from the corner of McClellan and Madrid and wondered what the dimensions of the cul-de-sac were. He had a ßwimming pool where the cul-de-sac was located which was already installed when he bought his house. Associate Planner Piasecki said the conditions provided some flexibility for the staff to work with both property owners. The bulb was 64 feet in diameter and could be swung to the east to avoid Mr. Nite's property. Mr. Brown had plenty of land available. COM. BLAINE asked if the map was approved by the Commission,did that mean the cul-de-sac was being approved in the present psotion? City Engineer Whitten thougr1t there was a possibility that a restri~tive easement could be placed and the full bulb would not be needed. COM. ADAMS observed that all four driveways would be in the cul-de-sac area, and with a rest~ictiv~ park~ng easement in that area, the Fire Department could still turn their trucks around by driving part-~~ay in~o the driveways. City Engineer Whitten noted there were ,two driveways only in which this could be worked, but if 20 feet of the total 30 feet were paved the turnaround could be operated. MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO~illISSION MEETING PC-348 Page 9 Associate. Planner Piasecki said the road would only be constructed as a half street plus 10 feet at this time. There was a separate lot at the rear of Mr. Nitels property, and if this were developed at some time a dedication could be obtained there. Mr. Brown, 10400 Pharlap Drive, the developer, felt there was adequate space without affecing Mr. Nite's swimming pool or house, and he would work with staff. CHR. KÐENITZER was concerned about the lack of on-street parking and felt some of the parking problems should be solved, as the houses would be large, with two or more vehicles for each. Assistant Planning Director Cowan felt it would not be a major problem, as Mr. Nite's property was valuable and would probably be developed within five years, possibly involving the development at that point of the full street. CHR. KOENITZER observed that even if the full street was developed, there would only be six places. COM. CLAUDY suggested taking the right of way at the end of the cul-de- sac bulb and making spaces for 3 or 4 cars. COM. BLAINE felt the design of the home fronts could incorporate some parking, i.e., circular driveways. CHR. KOENITZER said that Com. Claudy's suggestion of parking at the end of the bulb seemed the best solution. MOTION: SECOND:+ VOTE: Com.Adams, to Com. Claudy Passed close the public hearing. 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: Corn. Claudy, as no environmental review was necessary, to recommend approval of 23-TM-80, subject to standard conditions 1-14, conditions 15 and 16 per the staff report. Com Adams Passed 4-0 MOTION: CHR. KOENITZER informed the Commission that he had just heard the applicant in ITEM #6 had asked for a two-week continuance. It was established that nobody in the audience wished to speak. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine to continue ITEM #6, 3l-U-80, for two weeks until January 26th. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 MOTION: ITEM #4, Application 28-U-80 of VALL CO PARK, LTD: USE PERMIT to construct an industrial facility consisting of approximately 495,000 square feet and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the south side of Pruneridge Avenue approximately 500 feet westerly of 'Tan tau Avenue in an MP (Planned Industrial Park) zoning district. Frist Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - January 19, 1981. PC-348 Page 10 MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Assistant Planning Director Cowan showed a map illustrating the site in question,. the so-called Watkins-Johnson site of about 31.3 acres. The map also diagramed two sites indirectly involved, as the applicant was requesting the transfer of development potential from the hotel site to this part of the property. The Staff Report conditions of approval provided the trip accounting for the transfer concept. The request was to construct 495,000 square feet to be used for general office and research and development. He called for any questions on the trip- end process before continuing. COM. CLAUDY wanted to know how many trip-ends remained and if the hotel would be "killed!'. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that this transfer would cancel the trips for the other properties, but that Vallco Park had a great deal of confidence that the Planning Commission and City Council would change the General Plan. He then continued by pointing out that the Staff Report emphasized that the site plan proposed 598,000 square feet of space in four building envelopes, but the application limited the building area to 495,000 square feet. The ultimate aim was to build the first amount. This would mean the typical building ratios in the city would change throughout the industrial parks, or that there would be another adjustment of building intensity in Vallco Park. They wanted to have the flexibility now to build the full 598,000 square feet and staff agreed with that concept. There was a possibility that some areas could be shaved off by approximately 100,000 square feet if Vallco were limited to the 495,000 square feet. The Commission wuld be approving the basic outer building envelopes, circu- lation system and parking ratios. Staff had discussed the concept with the applicant and felt satisfied. He pointed out the main intersection on Pruneridge by Hewlett-Packard, where more stacking capacity was needed. necessitating deletion of 30 spaces, and some elevations showing how it would look from freeway 280. Staff felt that building intensity could be transferred from other sites to this one.. In terms of housing/ jobs imbalance and traffic, these were not issues, as other potential in Vallco Park was being transferred to this site. CHR. KOENITZER said that it was not mentioned in the Staff Report how many parking spaces were being planned for 495,000 square feet and where the spaces would be. The site plan analysis indicated that 1982 spaces were required. Would a structure have to be built? Assistant Planning Director Cowan replied that each parcel could' function independently in terms of parking,and the legend on the map described the ratios, based on gross square footage. There was more than adequate parking on each individual parcel. He thought that if the applicant opted not to build parking structures and used surface parking only, the requirements would still be met. This had not been tested, but he had discussed the matter with the representative from Grosvenor International and felt the parking structure would be built. The applicant could be questioned on this. Staff was only con~erned with a certain ratio of spaces to building area. MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PC-348 Page 11 CHR. KOENITZER was concerned that the application for a Use Permit read more like a conceptual development plan. Ther was not much detail on the size of the buildings, or the number of parking spaces. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said, regarding parking, that staff felt this plan ought to work for 495,000 square feet, as it had been designed for 598,000 square feet. The basic site layout would not change, accesses had not been changed, and buildings would be similar to those proposed in previous drawings, though there might be a minor shifting of envelope lines. The applicant would like to have more flexibility, and since the General Plan was being reviewed in the spring, they would like the assurance of being able to build to a larger envelope if the City approved it. Staff felt the plan was hard enough. CHR. KOENITZER wondered if the 100,000 square feet reduction would be achieved by shaving off some of each building, or by not building one building. Assistant Planning Director Cowan suggested that the Commission might want to have a range, maybe diminishing a particular site by 50% of its value, if it was concerned about leaving one site vacant. CHR. KOENITZER questioned if the other three sites would have to build their parking structures in those circumstances, or could the vacant lot parking area be used for the other three? Assistant Planning Director Cowan replied tht each particular area should be able to function independently. CHR. KOENITZER said that this should be put in the conditions. COM. CLAUDY observed that the facility was shown as four separate parcels, for foreclosure reasons, but really it was only one,~and if it was the desire of Vallco to subdivide the property each new lot would be required to function independently. COM. ADAMS, when told that this site would generate 2,000 plus cars, said they would all be concentrated in the center, and though he had no qualms about transferring trip-ends, he wondered if the right thing was being done here, as there might be a bottle-neck later. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that using Hewlett-Packard as a model, building area to land area ratio in Valleo Park was about 33%. In this particular concept, the building area to land area ratio was about 36% at the 495,000 square feet level, which was about 3%, or 40,000 square feet, more than would normally be expected. The traffic assumed for the site would not overburden Prunèridge and the traffic engineer felt the need for additional stacking eapacity only. CHR. KOENITZER felt that Wolfe Road was an extreme problem,as was Homestead, and there would be another 2,000 cars in the morning and af.ternoon peaks. PC-348 Page 12 MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO~lliISSION MEETING Assistant Planning Director Cowan said the traffic intensity performance standard had a series of improvements based on a four-stage development within Vallco Park. Two points to be made in regard to that study were that development had not occurred in the sequence envisioned, and that the 1973 traffic study had overstated the traffic problem. Though the critical link with Pruneridge Avenue had to have sufficient width to handle Vallco Park, the critical concerns were \Volfe Road/28G interchange and that type of problem. The conditions of approval required that Valleo Park agree to participate in the local improvement district to construct the necessary improvements to be installed when saturation was reached. The City would instigate this with a 90-day advance notice. Staff felt this development was not the trigger for this, based on the study done so far. Public Works Director Viskovitch was of the opinion that Vallco Park could be completed, based on the 1973 build-out inten- sities, the 33% ratio, and still work. One thing to be tested in the General Plan was a greater intensity within Vallco, the Town Center and De Anza Boulevard, so staff was not concerned about this development building at 36%. City Engineer Whitten noted that the volumes and problems anticipated in 1973 had not occurred in Vallco Park. There were several improve- ments anticipated that had not been needed to this point. Va1lco had been very cooperative in forming assessment districts to provide funds for various improvements to facilitate their development. This particular development had been reviewed by staff and no problems were seen with Pruneridge or any of the surrounding streets triggered by this development. COM. ADAMS wanted a measure of what tBaffic had been anticipated, versus what we had now. City Engineer Whitten did not have the figures to hand, but he noted a great deal of work had been done on them. CHR. KOENITZER wondered if there were specific points, such as the number of cars per hour using the Wolfe Road overpass, that trigger ed the widening of the Wolfe Road Overpass on 280. If so, what was that number and where were we presently. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said the construction phase was very simplistic, having a series of four phases. He was not sure how closely the City had worked with Val1co when this was prepared, but the sequencir.g> of construction within Vall eo was estimated and the City had said when these facilities were constructed certain improvements had to be installed. What had happened waS the sequencing had gone awry, and there was no volume trip figure, wherein a number was reached and improvements were automatically required. MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO!1MISSION HEETING PC-348 Page 13 City Engineer Hhitten observed that the Public Works Department, who were knowledgeable on this, had felt that the subject would not come up in the discussion tonight, and were not at the meeting to advize on these points. COM. ADAMS said he did not see any aditional improvements, but the fact was that trip ends were being transferred to make it all work. There had to be a cut-off somewhere, and he thought it should be reaspessed. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that when staff came back with the total package on the General Plan, there would be a list of improvements. So far the Commission had talked about two improvements the unddrcrossing and the corridor. Vallco Park had hired a consultan to assesË 'their particular element. The discussion tµrned to the project analysis listing land area and building areas and coverages. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said staff wa~ more concerned with . building area as a ratio of land areas. COM. CLAUDY observed that tÌ1e actual square footage of building floor space versuS square footage of land Has about 36% on the entire site. Tile amount of usable space was being increased by building parki.:1g structure:-. COM. BLAINE noted that if the 495,000 square feet was constructed, using the trip-end sequence, there would be two open spaces left in Vallco Park. If all the hotel trip-ends were used up, there would be no hotel. She wanted to know how many parking spots came from the hotel site, and was advized it was 100. COM. CLAUDY observed that the type of hotel being discussed was a business hotel. It would have its incoming peak at the same time companies in the neighborhood had their outgoing peak. Also, in this type of hotel, people flew in and companies would have a shuttle van or meetings in the hotel, so there might be fewer through vehicles. CHR. KOENITZER wondered if any trip-ends werø left on the hotel site or the Lester property. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that the trips assigned to the hotel had all been transferred. The key point was that Vallco Park staff were ~aying there would be some adjustment and there would be some additional trips left to go to the hotel. Mr. Walter Ward, representing Vallco Park, said there were no trip- ends left in Vallee after this transfer. They had lost two prospectiv firms due to delays in getting approvals. The peaks at the intersecti ns had not increased since before the shopping center was put in. There were many factors of error in the 1973 model, and they were working on that in àddition to a new Master Plan to relocate the hotel, perhaps PC-348 Page 14 MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMHISSION to add a small fashion house to the shopping center and have some kind of people-mover within the park. Before the first building was finished, they would probably have the General Plan analysis completed. Because they had lost two firms to other cities, they needed expansion here. The proposed build-out for Vallco Park, including this 598,000 square feet, would not create bottle-necks any worse than now. There would be some signal changes, aditional turns, possibly a new southbound lane at Wolfe Road across 280, for the full development of Vallco. Their intent was ultimately to develop the 598,000 square feet. They were out of business at this time because of the trip-ends. Because of flex- time, smaller cars, less driving, more single destination trips, shopping and working together, things were different than in 1973 when the constraints were put on. The financial burden of the moratorium had been great, so while waiting for the meeting in a month or so, they had obtained trip transfers from the hotel site so they could build something, otherwise more expansion would be lost in Vallco. COM. CLADDY wondered if Mr. Ward could say how many square feet of indus"trial space was located in the area of Vallco Park already built. Mr. Ward thought it was ahout three and a half million square feet, including the shopping center, and about one and a quarter million industrial. COM. CLAUDY pointed out that this development would give half as much again. Mr. Ward responded that paper numbers were being used here. For instance, a manufacturing situation would generate less people and cars than an insurance claims processing operation. Th~y had one suggested change in the staff's reoommendations and would like to insert an addition in the middle of paragraph 19. Copies of this addition were passed to the Commission and Staff. He said it was felt by Valleo that when their Master Plan was developed,the requirements of van pooling might be removed or modified because of other devices. Mr. Frank Juszczyk, representative of Grosvenor International, said that if the General plan did not come to pass, and 495,000 square feet was the limit of the development, the two-storey parking structures would not be needed. The plan initially would be to proceed without the parking structures and add them once the General Plan was amended. They w9ùld like to commence design of the first phase at this time and would modify perhaps just two of the quadrants to a lower density. If the General Plan was not changed, it might require some slight relocation of the parcel lines to allow the proper number of parking spaces on each parcel if the parking structures were deleted. COM. CLAUDY wondered if he understood correctly that if the ªeneral Plan was approved, allowing Valleo to build out the 598,000 square feet, they would build the three parking structures. Mr. Juszczyk said the structures would be built in that case. MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PC-348 Page 15 Rosemary Callaghan of 19954 Wheaton Drive inquired how many jobs this type of facility would generate, and when told approximately 2,000 she commented that it amazed her that the problem of job/housing high density had not been addressed. Vallco had the most usable land in Cupertino, was Vallco not required to consider housing when they put in this type of development? COM. BLAINE replied that the General Plan hearing on Vallco and the use of the land and the type of office space had been discussed. It had been decided that -housing was more suitable at other sites in the City because of amenities not available near Vallee. Ms. Callaghan disagreed with these last points. She felt Plan for Vallco could be changed to require some housing. acres of the 31 acres here could be used for high density the General Maybe five housing. CHR. KOENITZER said this was a matter of concern being discussed by the City, in particular the Goals Committee. 'Ann Anger said she understood the concern for hossing, but there were quite a few d.evelopments coming in, like Mariani's with 400/500 units. Interest rates were holding housing back. COM. ADAMS said that in the last couple of sessions of the Planning Commission residential development for several parcels along Stevens Creek had been discussed and had been resisted in favor of commercial uses. CHR. KOENITZER observed that no matter what was built in Cupertino, 90% of the workers could not afford to buy here. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com Adams to close the public hearings. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 COM. ADAMS said he had reservations about the transfef of the parking, though it could not be stopped. Therefore he recommended approving the application with the suggested modification to 19. CHR. KOENITZER said that while he felt there were some areas in Vallco with residential pãtential, he did not think this one was suitable. He was concerned that not one building for parking would actually be constructed. It seemed the Commission would be leaving a lot up to staff to handle. COM. CLAUDY was concerned about the trip-ends being taken from the other sites, but felt this was Vallco's gamble, and Vallco's plans were always well thogght out. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine to recommend the Negative Decla~ation of the Environmental Review Committee. Com. Claudy Pus~ 4~ MOTION: PC-348 page 16 MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO~lliISSION MEETING. MOTION: Com. Blaine to recommend approval of application 28-V-80 subject to standard conditions 1-14, conditions 15, 16, 17,18,19 with the suggested addition inserted after paragraph 1 of condition 19, conditions 20-22, findings and sub- conclusions as in the staff report. Com. Adams Passed 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: ITEM #5, Applications 49-z-80 and 32-U-80 of CLEARLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, REZONING approximately 1.93 gross acres from P (Planned Development with Residential, 10-15 dwelling units per gross acre) zone to P (Planned Development with commercial and/or office use intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct a two-storey office building consisting of approximately 30,000 square feet and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately lOa feet easterly of Randy Lane. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - Februarý 2, 1981. Associate Planner Steve Piasecki explained that the exhibit on the board reflected the location of the property of about 1.8 acre approximately 100 feet easterly of Randy Lane. The parking aisle shown was not in the revised plan. An aerial map showing the relationship of the property to the present commercial use to the west and office building to the east was shown. An application hàd been received' on the adjoining one acre parcel which also called for the jointly used major driveway off Stevens Creek Boulevard. He went to the site plan which illustrated the building location, parking aisles, etc. and the joint ingress/egress. A dead-end parking aisle was being proposed, at staff's suggestion, to discourag~__numerous curb cuts on Stevens C~eek Boulevard. The Fire District would be satisfied with this. In the future, the property would be inter- connected with the property to the west, providing some circulation to Randy Lane. The building form was a 2-storey structure, enlarged due to an interior atrium. The placement of the rectangular shape as shown was preferable. The proposed setback was 185 feet and the staff report had suggested a minimum landscape area between the residences and the development of 15 feet. The applicant felt he could make this work if he could have one row of compact stalls and some shifting of the building. The solution would be to eliminate the pntire back row of parking stalls. This proposal did not have underground par~ing, so would be at grade and would appear lower because of the roof element. COM. ADAMS had a question as to which the row for the compacts would be and the location of the handicapped parking. COM. BLAINE said that the handicapped parking needed to be hear the entrance and of greater width. Associate Planner Steve Piasecki sai~ there were numerous solutions but that the important thing was to establish maintaining the minimum standards for the landscaping of 15 feet, that the Commission would accept compacts and how many, and accept elimination of some parking stalls to achieve the requirements, rather than ask the applicant to reduce building size. MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR MEETINGOF THE PLANNING CO~~!ISSION PC-348 page 17 COM. CLAUDY was bothered by the situ8tion with compact parking stalls, as large cars tended to park in compact spaces if convenient. AssQciate Planner Piasecki pointed out that this was an office situation, so there would be some control over parkíng. Mr. William Irvine, 10560 Castine Avenue, the architect on the project, said the changes being proposed were those negotiated with the representatives of the homeowners association. They would. prefer that no cars be parked facing their properties at the rear. COM. BLAINE established that parking needed to be moved back towards the fence in order for the changes to be made. COM. CLAUDY wondered if Mr. Irvine's preference as an architect would be to have the cars parked at the back against the building, or have the building open, the way shown on the diagram. Hr. Irvine said he preferred the way shown, but he realized there had to be compromises. COM. BLAINE said that as a compromise had been worked aut and if the parking was satisfactory, she could see no problem. Mr. Irvine said he had requested, and the homeowners had agreed, that there be two more feet of landscaping on the end of the building. There would be 12 feet of landscaping against the main part of the building. COM. CLAUDY wondered if there would be room for a sidewalk, parallel to the back of the building. Mr. Irvine did not want this, as it took away from landscaping which he considered an important buffer. Landscaping would be on a slope so that people would be unlikely to walk through it. He hoped to be a tenant of the building, and thought it would basically be a professional building. Mr. Torn Siron, 20064 Wheaton Drive wanted the Commission to give strong considèration to the alternatives they had corne up with. Behind 7-11 they had had some difficulties with late parking from the Nite Cap and some vandalism, so that was their main concern for parking up against the houses. He supported the architect's plan. COM. ADAMS questioned the width of the parking behind 7-11. MR. Siron said it was 30 feet to the curb edge and there was also a six foot sound wall. COM. BLAINE thought that the type of plantings used should be barrier- type to keep people out of the landscaping. She was concerned about the problem of cars being parked, as sounds carried at night. CHR. KOENITZER noted that a masonry wall would be required along the rear property line, as it was a commercial use. PC-348 Page 18 MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Rosemary Callaghan said the barrier-type plantings were a good idea, and she suggested Japanese-type lanterns, also, which would not interfere with the homes at the back, but would shed enough light to protect the area. COM. BLAINE suggested that Ms. Callaghan bring these points up at the H. Control Meeting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams to close the public hearing. Com. Blaine Passed 4-0 CHR. KOENITZER noted that there was no Environmental Impact Report as the corlditions would cover this. At this distance from the Nite Cap the parking should not be a problem. COM. BLAINE said that if there was a problem it had to be addressed. If it was found that people from wherever, were parking in there at night, then the owner could be required to put chains across. COM. ADAMS observed that the conditions permitted a wider landscaped area, and the specifics could be worked out with staff and H.Control. It was decided to specify as Condition 21 that compacts could be utilized and up to seven spaces eliminated to accommodate changes. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTI ON : SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy to concur in the granting of a Negative Declaration by the Environmental Review Committee. Cm. Adams Passed 4-0 Com. Adams for .approval of 49-Z-80, subject to standard conditions 1-14, conditions 15 and 16. Com. C1audy Passed 4-0 Com. Adams for approval of 32-U-80, subject to conditions 1-20 and 21 as enumerated in the discussion regarding compact parking, based on the findings and subconclusions in the Staff Report. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 ITEM #6 continued to January 22nd at the request of the applicant. UNFINISHED BUSINESS iTEM #7, Application 9-TM-79 of MARTIN HALL/JAMES BOGHOSIAN: Reque~t for an extension of Tentative Map. The subject property is located at the southwesterly terminus of Miramonte Road approximately 350 feet easterly of Stevens Canyon Road. Assistant Planning Director Cowan had no comments, other than that the Commission was to review the map to see if the applicant had been dili- gent. In both cases, it was to do with the financial climate. MINUTES JANUARY 1Z, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO~!ISSION MEETING PC-348 Page 19 SECOND: VOTE: I ITEM #8, Applications l5-TM-79 and l2-U-79 of HYMEL-HATHAWAY ASSOCIATES: Request for extension of Tentative Map and Use Permit. The subject ¡ property is located at the southwest corner of North De Anza Boulevard ¡ , and Lazaneo Drive. ! Com. Blaine that the 9-TM-79 be granted. Com. Claudy Passed request for an extension of time on MOT ION : 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine that an extension of time be granted on l5-TM-79 and l2-U-79. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 MOT ION : NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHR. KOENITZER addressed Com. Claudy as the representative to the Below Market Rate Review Committee. His concern was that the City's action had not lived up to the ideas as originally presented in the Below Market Rate Program, namely a genuine density bonus above the maximum permitted on the property. He advised the Commission that he was on the Committee to review the Architectural and Site Approval Committee, which would be meeting on the 20th, and asked for any comments and thoughts. COM. CLAUDY addressed a question to the Engineering Director. He had seen that Caltrans was putting up 8 foot walls on Foothill Boulevard in Cupertino, on th set-back area and in the public right- of-way. He felt the City should register a protest. COM. BLAINE observed that there had been a meeting at Manta Vista Elementary School the previous week, and wondered if anyone from the City had attended. City Engineer Whitten said that the City staff had nothing to say at that meeting. COM. BLAINE questioned what would be done to landscape the walls. Something had to be done before they were marked by graffiti. There had to be an immediate plan. City Engineer Whitten suggested that the Commissioners' feelings be expressed to City Council. COM. CLAUDY on another subject wondered what had happened on the house that was moved to the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Foothill Expressway, and why nothing had been done on it. COM. BLAINE said she understood that it took a long time for· it to get through H. Control and it had finally got through just before Christmas.