HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 06-24-1974CITY 01'. C 1JFERt'tNO., 3TATU O: ;ALY'NIA
PC -159
10300 Torre Avenue, . C'upr'.rtin , California ' _ 5 to
Pole. 1
Zr
'�'P_I.ekas'.OS.:6 : 252-4505
lINUT} S OP TUE-IiECULAR MEETING OF THE PL NNINC, CO1MISSION
HELD ON JUNE 2-f, _l974, In THE COUNCIL - CH.AnBERG, CITY H& LL,
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
SALUTE TO T11F FLAG
Chairman O`Keefe opened the meetin at 7:40 p.m. with the Salute---
t.o the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Comm. present: Adams, Catto, Woodward, and Chairman O'Keefe
Co -'m. absent: Cooper
Staff present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk
Assistant City Attorney Kilian
Deputy Assistant City Attorney Wenzel.
Assistant City Engineer Phitten
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
28
Minutes cf. Regular Meeting of May 28, 1974
�
• Comm. Gatto noted the word "and" should be placed between the
s
• last two gentences of paragraph 3, •page 4.
Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Woodward, , to approve
Minutes of
Minutes of May 25, 1974 as amended.
5/28/74
approves as
Motion carried, 3--0-1
amended
Abs tain : Adams
May .�97 �
Minutes a.. Regular Adjourned Meeting of 29, ._. 7-� 1II1
of
Moved by Comm. Catto, seconded by Comm. Woodward, to continue
minutes of
approval of Minutes of May 29, 1974 until meeting of June 27, 1974;
5/29/74
continued
Motion carried, 3-0--1
Abs tain: Adams
3
PC -x.59
'Page 2.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR LANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1974
s .
POSTPONEMENTS
The Planning Director reported the applicants of items .15 and .8 had
requested a cont.-nuance to June 27, 1974 meeting to give their archi-
tects tIflhe.to consider Planning Commission concerns more fully.
Applicant of item 7 had also requested to be heard at the June 27,
1974 meeting.
It as so moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams.
Notion carried, 4-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Communications relating to items 15 and 18 had been received and copies
of these would be distributed at the time of their hearing.
ORAL. COMMUNICATIONS -• None
I Chairman OKt<ete noted that. 11 crdei tCectease the l ngti! of the
meeting,, no public hearing would be initiated af�_er 12:00 A.M.
a !
i PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Valley Floor 1. City of Cupertino: Public Hearing to consider 1973
Infilling Comprehensive General Plan.
Of Infillin.g Valley Floor. of Valle.
a. Discussion
L The Planning Director noted this was a continuing discussion, !he-
Commission had in essence approved the plan for infilling of valley
floor. A determinehad.been -ma:de on vbether or not ar. EiR would be
necessary and a Negative Decl?rationhad been filed with the County.
Resolution No. 1293 would approve work that has been done, map and.
texts, and recommend that supportive material_ be sent to the City
Cunci? .
r « r
Comm. Gatto risked if there were any changes fra:n the fourth draft.
T. Planning Director referred to a policy starem2�Zt on pr.cc'_ation
ponds, that when these areas are necessary, it would not be inconsis-
tent with the General Plac.
Atterrkey Kilian, the Chairman.
Upon recommendation of Assistant City
• opened the hearing for comments i-rom the audience on the final
draft
E for infi.l.l ng of valley floor. There were none.
I
MINUTES OF l E REGULAR PL4.ZNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, l.974
Comm. Gatto moved to. close Public Hearing on discussion. of General
Plan Infilling of Valley Floor. Seconded. by Comm, Adams.
Motion carried, 4-0
Comm. Gatto moved to recommend approval of Resolution 1293 of the -
the City p approving
Planning Commission of of Cupertino a 3rovin an. amendxnent
to the 1964 GeneralPian concerning the Land Use Element for the
Valley Floor."Infilling", as specified therein. Seconded by
Comm: Woodward. ----._
AYES: Adams, Gatto, Woodward,Chainan.0'Keefe
NOES: None.
Motion carried, 4-0
The Chairman again. complimented.the P.lanning Director and staff-
---
on the many hours of work this represented and the quality of
their report.
2. CITY UP CUPERTINO: A.o consider an amendment- to the
adopted plan line for Cupertino Crossroads/Core Area.
The Director of Planning and Development said this discussionhad.
began in January, 1974.. He went to the board and pointed out the.
plan lines under consideration.. He noted, that items 3, 4 and 5
on tonight's agenda would relate to this plan line. He explained
the present plan line and the condition, of adopted line relating
to property dedication.
Mr. Sisk noted the major consideration at the. time of adoption of
present plan line was land use. Now. things have changed. There
is a question whether a facility of that magnitude is necessary.
The question tonight is Torre Avenue extension versus Vista Drive
as a street configuration in this area.
Another question. is alignment of Valley Green Drive. Greenleaf
and Bandley Drives come out of residential area. Bandley Drive
and Valley Green Drive could provide alternate. Residential would
not have direct access into id/comm proposed for that area.
It was noted Mr. Whitten would have some corrections on the EIR.
PC -!59
Page 3
Resolution
1.293
approved
Plan lines
Crossroads!
Core Area
Pty -159 MJNUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF, JUNE'; 24, 1974
Page 4
�. 4
Chairman. O'Keefe noted he would abstain from discussion on Vista Drive
aril Forest property easterly of Stevens Creek Boulevard.
In response to Comm. Catto, Mr. Sisk said .improveme-ot:7 would be paid
for upon- development of property primarily. There no.y be some public
acquisition to south of Torre Avenue. Where the properties are
vacant, th-e improvements would be gotten -as they are developed.
Condemnation, dedication and acquisit;on of properties necessary to :.
plan, line were discussed,
The Planning Director in answer to Comm. Gatto, pointed out properties
that are inconsistent with General Plan as adopted, and generally
could have no validity at this time.
Comm. Gatto asked the Planning Director to discuss proc and cons of
Town Center area. The. Planning Director said the only thing that
carne out of General Plan discussion was that there should be public
access from Highway 9 to Rodrigues. The final alignment would depend
on over-all development in. that area.
The :Chairman clarified that when vacant properties north of yellow
Line were. developed, they would have to dedicate and improve road- -.
ways at their cwn cost.
Comm. Woodward asked if there was still a rationale for having
either of the two routes sio.ce Highway 9 commerciai. intensity count
had been graded down. severely. Mr. Sisk. said.. it seemedpro.b iuL,.there
would he some residential in this area and it would be appropriate
to have some alternate access for at least some portion of the area.
Mr. Whitten,' Assistant City Engineer, noted the primary consideration
was that Stevens Creek -Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road intersection would
break down[ with `1:990 traffic. It was necessary to get some traffic
off that intersection.
In answer to Comm. Woodward, Mr. Whitten said a. single lane of
traffic each way would take care of need. Comm. Adams said. it: was
good fox northbound traffic. mainly.
Mr. Whitten pointed out that one correction in EIR or. page 20,
peak' hour traffic should be 1116 instead -of 116. On page 21,
emissi.ornn levels on Vista Drive don't cooincide with other exhaust
levels since Lazaneo -Drive was not included. Correct figures are;
10-42.7; HC -5.6; NOX--7,l; SOX -1.O!; PB--i.a. The dba levels are
correct.
I
v
IIN°i?TES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF.JUNE 24, 1974
in answer to Comm. Adams, Mr. Whitten explained i-.d,i.ffer-ence: in peak
0f 1116 on page 20 and 710 on -page 22 was due to full extension
of Torre Avenue. Comm. Adams. ascertained on alternate 2, the
property between school and next development would not have a
connecting street.
• Comm. Gatto noted there are two kinds of impacts, depending on
alternate being considered. With alternate l,area most impacted
would be residential on easterly side of street and with alternate
2, the school would be most highly impacted.
Comm. Gatto described a configuration which combined alternates
I and 2, noting., this route would preserve the.residential integrity
and bring road past school site to remove that impact. He seemed
to remember the blue area was -better related to Town Center.
1'ir. Whitten said the primary thing -would be the cost. Another cost,
factor is every foot of Vista Drive that is duplicated on Torre
• Avenue added $100.00 per foot (this is improvement only). The
whole purpose since Vista Drive was already there was to see if
it could take the traffic, and if it did, to see if it would have
a significant impact. on neighborhood, at savings of substantial
money for other needed projects in the City. In answer -to' Comm.
Gatto, Mr. Whitten said it would make it a street just about like
Elaney-Avenue.
Comm. Woodward questioned noise from high speed curve south of
Stevens Creek Boulevard's north terminus. Ile liked Comm. Gatto's
idea for.thatreason. Comm. Gatto was. asked t -o further describe
his proposed connection of Torre Avenue with Vista Drive. He.d id sc
on the map. The reasons for his thinking were that it removed s9
negative impact onresidential on Vista Drive, removed negative
impact on school site at.Tor-re Avenue and eliminated need for
further intersections at that point.
After further discussion, the hearing was opened to comments from
the audience.
Mr. Bill Cooper, 20310 Michael Ct., Cupertino, said if Torre Avenud
should go in north of Stevens Creek Boulevard, the convent is so.
close to the property line that taking 30' would put. you in the
physical structure of the convent, also in the, baseball diamond
of the church. As he- understood -it, the' full 74' would be taken
from property on right side north -of Torre. With. regard to cost
involved, he did not feel -this was equitable. Taking full radius
from Vista Drive would only effect service portion of school
where they did the bus repairs. Comm. Gat to pointed out he was
referring to Catholic school site.
PC_7 59
Page 5
PC -1.59
Page 6
MINUTES OF THE P.? GULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1974
Mr. Harry Falk, ll':52 Mora Drive, Los Altos, pointed out property he
owns. He advised tie was an attorney, but ..was- appearing -as owner of
property.. For the benefit of the new Commissioner, he explained how
he had dedicated half an acre for improvement and put in Valley Green
Drive in return for commercial'zoning on property. He didn't want
the street, but the City felt it was necessary so they committed
$2"0,000.00 and put in street. Now he was being asked to put -in
Bandley Drive but this was economically impossible. In reliance
on City's location of the road, they had planned the property which
was consistent with the roadway as the City wanted it. He showed a
working -drawing of major conp.lex, showing how Bandley Drive extension
urould cut his property in half and make it impossible to develop. He
had been assured by Nr.Yarborough (no longer with the City` that this
would not be. On that assurance they had paid $612,500 to get loan_
c omnmi tme n t .
Mr. Falk said Mr. Viskovich had suggested Bandley Drive be put within
1.00' of road which would not affect their property. The question then
arose who would pay for Bandley Drive and who would get benefit of it.
His position is they had a moral and legal commitment from the City
when they were requested to put in Valley Green Drive. He doesn't
think it florally fair to expect them to dedicate and improve this
street too.
In ansS.ier to Comm. Gatto, Mr. Fa.i_k said when Valley Green Drive was
put in they had a=,ked f -or stop lights for ld?ft hanl fords uut t 1 .
City r,:.7_d no. He showed C1raSkilti, of project wi1i�::''i ilad been approved
by the City showing left hand turn .'Lane. Later it was suggested
traffic should be -routed down to-Greenieaf Drive and have signal
After discussion, he had agreed that eventually if traffic became
extremely heavy there should be some type of divider.
Comm. Gatto noted either. Valley Green or Greenleaf Drive could be a
signalized intersection. Traffic -wise, Greenleaf Drive seemed to
work better. If Greenleaf Drive does become median break with no
break at Valley Green, how does this affect his property? Mr. Falk
said them were two ways of traffic going north. They could go down
to signal, make a U .turn and go north or they could come down Beardon
Drive.
Comm. Woodward asked what the current. -thinking was on Highway 9 at
Valley Green Drive ;?ending development of- -lands north. Mr. Sisk
explained -plan tine -proposed to have signals at Valley Green Drive,
Lazaneo, and existing one at Stevens Creek Boulevard. It was a
matter of timing. There will have to .)e a temporary signal at
Valley Green Drive when property is developed and ultimately will be
a divided roadway.
The Planning Director noted whoever develops the property would have
the ability to mo
ve v rB5andley (rive at westerly portion.
Bandley ,
k.�d.t..Cua :N :d.F r.. r.e '...: eNW'fi"' u..... ..-A'a_ yln He...l� r� i.:.u.� r.. :F Sw+har.eu.lS'�. a dLis.s..r ...._ ... .+�,-..,.1 ,.�_< ....... . S. r.. W... -.rre. Lk. a.s:.y S4r....a4
MINUTES OF THE MFGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1974
Concerning how the roadways would be improved, the Planning
Director noted a condition of approval -had been made that more
people than Mr. Falk will benefit by Bandley Drive so more people
will be involved in waking improvement. He referred to the
assessment district.
In answer to Comm.. Woodward, Mr. Sisk said Mr. Falk had paid for
all existing roadway except for a few small pieces which he located
on the map. .
Mr. Tom Harrington, Palo Alto, referred to the statement that cost
would be shared among benefited. properties. The total estimated
cost for the road across the Falk property was $115,000.00 and Mr.
Falk's share was set at $105,000.00. As to the inappropriateness
of traffic flowing around and out, the total number of residential
properties are fairly minimal and this combination of uses of
industrial/residential when separated by a street has been done
successfully, such as at Stanford Industrial Park.
Ms. Juanita McLaren, 22101 Lindy Lane, Cupertino., said -she wanted
to discuss Torre Avenue in. Town Center. Mr. John Torre has been
working on this property for 8 or 9 years. One of her concerns
is that at the time the Biltmore apartments were built, they were
faced with request to dedicate and split property in Town Center
because that proposal for Rodrigues had been along flood control
channel. She di.splayed.a map dated June 19, 1968. The Chuck and
Torre properties have presented access problems that delayed
development. She noted Torre and Chuck property owners have
cooperated in going in on development of Town Center as suggested
in January 25, 1974 report. She said her understanding was that
the door was being left open where an architect could come in and
plan design for Town Center. If Torre Avenue was extended, they
would be working five different land owners. She asked to have
this plan reconsidered. The Planning Director referred to General
Plan hearings which said aim is development of Town Center in
concert. They cannot keep any individual from using property.
Only thing to date is nncessity for public right-of-way from Steven
Creek Boulevard to Town Center area. If Chuck and Torre properties
come by themselves they will have to evaluate probability and
desirability of that public right-of-way in that area instead of
waiting for Cali property to develop.
Ms. McLaren asked to have all of Torre and Chuck properties
recomputed as a 1.58 acre of Chuck property and a triangle of
Torre property along flood channel had been left out.
PC -139
Page 7
a
fI
PC -1.59
Page 8
MINUTES O" THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE - 24, 1974
J
A discussion was held on why it was felt necessary to have road extend
full length to Torre property. Comm. Gatto asked if there were no link
between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Rodrigues, could Town Center develop
with access off [:hem. Ms. McLaren said this was not her field, but she
thought with entrance off Stevens Creek Boulevard and with dedication
and participation .n- -getting :Rodrigues through, they would have plenty
of access.
Mr. Murl F:;_rtschie said he represented 2.7 acre lot on Vista Drive
north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. He was speaking in opposition to
To-rre Avenue.plan line. His property would be 250deep from Vista
Drive to Torre Avenue if. Torre Avenue was put: in and built. Two
streets that close together would not be conducive to residential
development. He would like to see Torre Avenue plan line from
Stevens Creek north abandoned.
Comm.. Woodward referred to alternate 1., noting EIR addressed only to
i odr.iguas.. Tvhat was traffic split on Torre Avenue, south of Town
Hall itself? Mr. Whitten said they did not have traction split on
intersection. He thought most people headed for signal at Rodrigues
and Highway 9. The biggest reason this alignment was chosen was
that a piece of.Torre Avenue existed that is worth several dollars.
They like to get away from -split intersection unless they •are 200'
gipp, apart.
In answer to Comm. Gatto, Mr. Sisk explained what action as appropriate
for the Connnission to take on the adopted plan line. amendment.
Public Heart- Comm. Adams moved, seconded by Chairman O'Keefe, to -close Public
ings closed Hearings.
Motion carried, 4-0
It was agreed that Torre Avenue would be divided north -south of
Stevens Creek Boulevard for consideration, with Chairman O'Keefe
abstainingonsoutherly portion.
Comm. Gatto said starting from southerly end of Torre Avenue, the
Torre Avenue intersection should remain where .it is now opposite. Rodrigues
intersection. One of discussions on whole Town. Center was that there
would be one major intersection and this would make -one clear inter-- -
section. Point two was that Vista Drive -Stevens Creek intersection
should remain as intersection point of extension of Torre Avenue. As
Ms. Mc.Laren had brought. out, that was the. ideal location from traffic
engineering -standpoint, time -wise and signal -wise,- and provides -for-
separate development of Town Center.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION. MEETING OF_JU1`NE 24, 1974
C:mirn. Adams then agreed with Comm. Gatto. He felt connection
between Torre Avenue and Stevens Creek should be some intersection
already maintained. Development of Chuck -Torre property access.
could be maintained between Rodrigues' and Stevens Creek. Aligiament
of Torre Avenue extension should come out at Vista Drive.
Comm. Woodward agreed also.
Chairman O'Keefe agreed that existing alignment should -be -maintain
and should follow the course outlined by other three Commissioners..
Comm. Adams said with regard to north side of, Stevens Creek, there
would be two streets paralleling which' is not good planning. There
would be fewer impacts with Vista Drive -Torre Avenue extension
alignment.
Comm. Gatto said impacts on Vista Drive will be additional to what
there are now and would gain nothing for the area. Even adding
two lanes would change livability- of residential neighborhood.
Alternative of coming across to allow border has hazards to City
in terms of cost. He asked about the possibility, of widening. . ...
Vista Drive. Mr. Whitten said widening would not -decrease traffic
flow, but would only spread it out. It was ascertained by Comm.
Adams that this would be similar to Blaney Avenue as it is now at
5:00 o'clock.
Comm. Gatto asked what would happen.if road wasn't extended north
of Stevens Creek, with respect to Highway 9. Mr. Whitten said
the intersection would break down by 1990 based on General Plan.
The Planning Director said there should be another way into Miner,
church and Mariani properties than just Highway 9. The Comrid_ss:ione
agreed that problem was to the north.
Comm. Adams noted there had to be access to backside of property
ultimately. He felt the best plan was alternative 1, page
71
Comvi. Woodward did not like to see Vista Drive extended as arterial
through residential. He would like to see it diverted where it
could be sound barriered from residential. He would go along with
alternate 1, page 21.
- Comm. Gatto said present -plan line is no longer meaningful. Alter-
nate 1 is better as things stand today. The sharp angle at Forest
is a benefit by slowing traffic.
PC -1.59
Page 9
r
PC -159
Page 10
Vista Drive
ext. of
Torre Ave.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUTE 24, 1974
Comm. Adams moved o recommend to City Council the plan line adoption
of alternate 1 as presented in EIR, page 21, that. Vista Drive would
be used as the extension of Torre Avenue. Seconded by. Comm. Woodward.
AYES: Comm. .dams and 'Woodward
NOES: Comm. Gatto
ABSTAIN: Chairman O'Keefe
Motion carried, 2-1-1
Comm.. Catto said his no vote was not negation of alternate 1. out is
meant to direct staff to take one more look at ways of adjusting
road to remove impact from residential area.
BANDLEY DRIVE DISCUSSION
Comm. Woodward said; in light of Mr. Ealk's comments, he would tend
to agree that the value of that particular drive would be to the
property north of Valley Green. Mr. Whitten said traffic will be
about 500 cars from property north of Valley Green industrial.
Conmi; Woodward said he was having trouble coping with Bandley Dri.ve
s.ervic:ing the so:al1 but viable commercial at Vallry Green Drive and
Hlglway 9: Mr. Whitten said they are talking, abut median left
turns . Median C.;..l1. go in .7.1'11 widening 7.th. tile.. L1.Ov 1O5 for left
hand turn. Comm. Woodward would like: t iam to take another lock. He
would act be in favor of readIng .500 cars past residential area.
If Bandley Drive was not there, Bearden could not.Beal' the 560 peak.
He thought impact of Beardon-Greenleaf residential would be minimal,
with traffic mosc.ly derived from industrial area.
Comm. Adams felt extension of Bandley Drive with 500 cars going through
residential could very easily be accommodated going around Bearden.
He ascertained 3 ardon was not curbed on west side. The Planning
Director answered him that. as of now Beardon has been approved for
60' width.
Comm. Gatto ascertained there was no time schedule for the 22' median
on Highway 9. In that event he would like to leave area as it now is.
Chairman O'Keefe said while 500 cars on Beardon might sound insignifi-
can:: it will be steady at peak hour and will have significant impact
onquality of neighborhood. He. felt Bandley Drive should continua as
shown on page 9 of report. He felt the intensity would warrant Bandley
extension. This would isolate residential and would handle corrarn_rcial
traffic.
Comm. Adams said at this :point it was his feeling that Bandley -should
end at Greenleaf and Greenleaf should go all the way through from
Eeardon to HI ghway 9.
7
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, 19741 PC -159
Page 11
The Assistant City Engineer said one reason for cul-de-sacing
Greenleaf was to discourage traffic from coming from Stelling
through residential areas.
Comm. Gatto said he thought. it was important that the development
that takes place in this industrial/commercial finds a way out
into itself rather than searching other means through residential.
Comm. Gatto moved the point of intersection be developed between
Beardon and Highway 9 on Valley Green Drive and that point continue
southerly to intersect the intersection of Bandley Drive and Green-
leaf Drive. Seconded by Chairman O'Keefe.
The matter of mitigating costs to one developer was discussed.
After further discussion, the Chairman called for the question on
the motion.
AYES: Cori. Adams, Gatto, Woodward., Chairman O'Keefe
NOES: . None
Motion carried, 4-0
The Planning Director. _noted. this would be heard by the City
Council and there would be a public hearing.
3. Application 19 -TM -73 of JAMES H. THOMAS & MAURICE M.
DAVIS: TENTATIVE MAP to divide 5.007 acres into_eigh.teen
lots. Said property is within a R2-4.25 (Residential,
duplex, 4,250 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone and is
located adjacent to and westerly of Vista Drive southerly
of the intersection of Forest Avenue and Vista Drive.
Second Hearing continued.
The Planning Director located the property in question., noting it
is zoned for duplex. The applicant proposes to divide into 1.8
duplex lots. There have been many changes trying to adjust to
decisions on Torre Avenue. They propose to maintain and improve
existing structure. He referred to conditions and further findings
contained in staff report.
Conan. Adams noted only one property would have access to Vista
Drive. Mr. Sisk noted that might want to be discussed with the
applicant.
Motion
19 -TM --73
THOMAS &
DAVIS
1
PC -159
Page Page 12
Public Hear-
ings closed
19 -TM -73
approved w/
conditions
C MINUTES OF THE. REGULAR. PLANNING CO?ISSION MFEn:NG OF JUNE 24, 1974
The Plann-i.ng Director said the application conforms with respect to
size of lots. The flat lot is accessible and there are less than.
7.6 units per acre.
Mr. Duke Davis, developer, said this was the best development as
far as street pattern plan and traffic flow. Theywillnot face
the sheds on Forest. These will be $85,000.00 duplexes. In answer
to Comm. Adams, Mr. Davis said they will have 2,500 to 3,000 sq. ft.
In answer to Comm. Gatto, Mr. Davis explained how one driveway could
serve two houses so there would be two distinct lots. Comm. Gatto
pointed out lot 2 and 3 backed out on blind point.
The meeting was opened to comments from the audience. There were
none.
Comm. Gatto moved, seconded by Comm. Adams, to close Public Hearings.
Motion carried, 4-0
After further discussion, Comm. Gatto roved approval of application
19 -TM --73, subject to 14 standard conditions, and -
(15) That the approval :is granted based upon Exhibit A, 1st
Revision, of 19--•TM-73, as may be modified by additional
conditions contained therein.
(16) That the Architectural and Site Approval Committee shall
review the existing structure on the site relative to
any upgrading in its relationship to the neighborhood.
(17) That the removal of existing mature native trees on the
site, with the exception of orchard trees, shall be sub-
ject to the approval of the Architectural and Site
Approval Committee.
(18) That vehicular access to Lots 2 and 3 shall be from the
cul-de-sac only and shall not be from Vista Drive.
Seconded by Comm. Adams.
AYES Comm. Adams, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe
NOES: None
Motion carried, 4-0
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING CO:CMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1974
At 10:00 p.m. a recess was called with meeting reconvening at 10:20 p.m.
The announcement was made that item 8 would be the cut-off point for
this evening and remainder of items would be heard Thursday, June 27,
1974.
r
It was then agreed to hear items 4 and 5 together.
4. Application 8 -TM -74 of VISTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: TENTATIVE
MAP to subdivide 2.58 acres into eighteen lots and'one lot to
be held in common. Said property is, presently' zoned P (Planned
Development with single-family, residential, cluster intent)
zone, and is located westerly and adjacent to Vista Drive
beginning 260 ft. north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. First
Hearing continued.
5. Application 21-U-74 of VISTA CONSTRUCTION (P.ADIN & MAC DONALD:
USE PERMIT to allow construction of 18 -unit cluster project
within a P (Planned Development zone with single-family;
residential, cluster intent) on approximately 2.58 acres located!
westerly of and adjacent to Vista Drive approximately 26 ft. Iz
north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. First Hearing.
The Planning Director said these were located south of last application.'
Application involves tentative map to create individual lots plus a
common lot. They are also applying for use permit. He noted this is a
straightforward application. He distributed conditions of original
zoning for property. If action is to approve both use permit and tenta-
tive map, it should be subject to Resolution 1250 and 1.4 standard
conditions.
In response to Comm. Gatto, the Planning Director explained condition
#16 concerning the common area for parking and traffic not exceeding
5000 times the number of dwelling units, and that the number of dwell-
ing units not exceed 18.
Chairman O'Keefe noted he was abstaining.
Parking for guests was discussed. The plan allows for 3.0 per unit.
Most clusters have 3.5 per unit. Comm. Gatto noted he did not want to
encourage parking on Vista Drive. Comm. Woodward questioned whether
12' distances on either side would be adequate.
Mr. Marty Hess, 10211 Bubb Road, Cupertino, explained reasoning behind
interspersed parking. Impact of parking on neighboring properties was
discussed. Mr. Hess said the guests would be parking in the guest
areas. He felt 34' was adequate for back-up especially with garage
door openers to encourage residents to put cars 'in garages. Increasing
PC -159
Page 13
Recess
8-T;1-74
Vista
Construction
21-U-74
Radix. &
MacDonald
PC -159 MINUTES OF THE REGU!, l PLANNING CO i f: SIO. `1 ETiNG CF JU; E 24, 1974
Page 1.4
parking area would decrease green areas. Comm. Gatto noted that 3.5
spaces per unit was not an abundant amount. This was discussed further.
The meeting was opened to comments from the public.
Mr. Don Salle, engineer on the project, said it would create safety
problem if parking were encouraged in front of driveways, Comm.
Gatto pointed out where there could be four more spaces on north
side. Th.e necessary number of additional spaces to get a 3.5 ratio
was discussed.
Public Hear-' Comm. Gacto moved, seconded by Comm. Adams, to close public hearings.
ing closed t
Motion carried, 4-0
After further discussion, Comm. Gatto moved for approval of application
8 -TM -74, suibjp,,c.t to 14 standard conditions. Seconded by Corm. Woodward.
8 -TM -74 AYES: Comm. Adams, Gatto, Woodward
approved NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Chairman O'Keefe
Motion carried, 3•-0-1
Comm. Gatto moved to recommend approval of 21-U-74, subject to 14
standard conditions and additional conditions as follow:
(15) All conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 1250 to the extent that they do not conflict with the
special conditions enumerated herein. In the event a con-
flict does exist, the special conditions as enumerated
herein shall apply.
(16) Approval is based upon the site plan labeled Exhibit A of
21-U-74, as may be modified by additional conditions
enumerated herein.
(17) Four additional parking spaces shall be provided along
the northerly driveway. A 28 -foot driveway is acceptable
to accommodate additional parking.
(18) That the landscaped strip adjacent to the southerly
property line shall be increased to a minimum of five
(5) feet in width.
(19) That the landscaped area adjacent to the westerly property
live at the terminus of the northerlymost driveway shall be
increased to a minimum of five (5) feet in width.
zonded by Conn. Adams.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING CO.tRTSSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1974
AYES: Comm. Adams, Gatto, Woodward
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Chairman O'Keefe
Motion carried, 3-0-1
It was announced the tentative map would go to City Council and
the Use Permit would be set for public hearing by City Council,
probably at its July 15th meeting.
6.
Application 16-U-74 of SOBRATO-BERG PROPERTIES: USE PERNIT1
to allow construction of a light industrial/office complex
in a P (Planned Development with comiercial/industrial
intent) zone. Said property consists of 8.5 acres and is
located in the southwest quadrant of Saratoga -Sunnyvale
Road and Freeway Route 280. First Hearing continued.
The Planning Director noted there had been a question relative to
the parking scheme. Additional work had been done on compact car
situation. The applicant was asked to present optional plan in
case the compact car proposal was inadequate but he wanted to
pursue the original plan.
Mr. Sobrato, developer, said they had taken an audit of all parking
lots cn Bubb Road. Their survey was taken on June 14 from 9:15 a.m.
to 10:45 a.m. They found. there were 32% full size cars and 64%
compact. In answer to Comm. Gatto, Mr. Sobrato said anything 16'
or under was considered compact.
In answer to Chairman O'Keefe, Mr. Sobrato said there had been no
changes in circulation. They feel this is the best solution for
the site on spec basis.
Comm. Adams ascertained triangular piece of property belonged to
another owner. Mr.. Sobrato said they had tried to buy it, but the
cost was prohibitive.
In answer to Comm. Gatto with regard to buffering, Mr. Sobrato said
there would be paving with planting pockets. He noted staff had
full landscaping plan in detail.
Chairman O'Keefe ascertained the staff felt the parking would
function.
Trip generation was discussed and found to be in conformance with
General. Plan intent.
PC -159
Page 15
21-U-74
approved w/
conditions
16-U-74
Sobrato-Bere
PC -159 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PiAHNI G COiJ5l.C�! "T �.' UP JU 2'+, 1974
2' L L.i.
Page 16 1,
Mr. Sobrato said primarily what they are doing on land saved by having
compact parking •spaces is landscaping.
In answer to Conn. Gatto with reference. to modified '`Drachm:an Plan, .Mr.
Sobrato said they had $1.0,000.00 worth of plans now and would rather
show them they could meet; City minimums. The Assistant City Engineer
said he had checked both revised plans and they would work.
Mr. Sobrato said his main concern was temporary signalization at Valley
Green Drive. Mr. Whitten said the signal is not warranted right now.
The State would have to be contacted. Mr. Sobrato would have to pint
up money now with agreement with City that after signal is necessary
some reimbursement could be had from other owners who would benefit
if they develop prior to Bandley action, and maybe some contribution
by the City. The problem is if he should front all the money and
Bandley Drive becomes reality along with signal at Greenleaf and
Mariani before signal is warranted, he would have to forfeit the money.
Mr. Sobrato said he would not mind fronting for the signal as long as
he would get his money back.. A lengthy discussion was held on how
the cost of the signal would be shared among the property owners.
Mr. Whitten said the problem is the signal is not warranted at this
time so gas tax money could not be used and the State would not
participate. He said it may become necessary, but he stressed that
•i f Bandley Drive does go through and the signal is put at Greenleaf
and Mariani prior to that warrant, the money could not be reimbursed.
Comm. Woodward asked if it was realistic to consider left hand turns
at this intersection. He pointed out it was hard enough making a
right turn. Mr. Whitten agreed, saying the accident picture at that
intersection was not good. Alternatives were discussed.
Mr. Sobrato said he thought it could he determined now how many cars
would be using that intersection prior to their starting construction.
Chairman O'Keefe pointed out this body cannot make that determination
at this point.
In response to Comm. Adams, regarding the status of the westerly portion
of Beardon, Mr. Sisk said it was improved on west side and unimproved on
east side. There is parking adjacent to development facilities on west.
The hearing was opened to comments from the audience. There were none.
I
Comm. Gatto noted it would be a calculated risk to put in signal. The
plan line could go with Bandley Drive either at Greenleaf or Valley
Green Drive. It may work out that this is the best location for signal
regardless of development. Mr. Sobrato said he couldn't stay in business
long taking $70,000.00 risks. He said if the City wanted an industrial
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR P A NI.;G COIISSION. MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1974
development in here, he was willing to put up money for signal
provided if signal is moved he would get his money back. He felt
staff should have some direction to explore this possibility.
In answer to Mr. Woodward, it was ascertained there would be no
objection to third curb cut. It was primarily an aesthetic concern.
Functionally it does not create a problem.
Comm. Gatto read condition on original, zoning regarding traffic
signal. Mr. Whitten said that works like credit on assessment
district. If you put in $100,000.00 worth of improvement, and
your share is only $50,000.00, you don't get any money back.
Mr. Sobrato would get his share of other signal light credited to
him, but he would be out the difference of what the signal had
cost him and what his share was apportioned to be of other signal
light.
Comm. Woodward questioned left turn outs. He suggested if light
is at Greenleaf Drive, the traffic could. go up one block from
Valley Green Drive, enter stacking lane and make a U-turn. Mr.
Whitten said this is a hard weave move and he would not like to say
until. the Traffic Engineer had looked at it. It could be evaluated
with other possibilities before going to City Council.
Comm. Gatto asked to see the architectural theme. Exhibit B was
displayed.
There being no further. discussion, Coinn. Adams moved, seconded by
Comm. Woodward, to close Public Hearings.
Motion carried, 4-0
Restripping policies were discussed.
Comm. Adams moved for approval of application 16-U-74, subject to
14 standard conditions; and
(15) That the approval is based upon Exhibit A, 1st Revision,
and Exhibit B of 1.6-U-74, as may be modified by additional
conditions contained herein.
(16) Upon ninety (90) days written notice given by the City,
the developer shall agree to participate in a locai
improvement district and enter into an agreement with the
City to insure participation, provided that such a local
improvement district: is required.
PC -159
Page 17
Public Hear-
ing closed
C-159
Page 18
J 6-U-74
appro-;eed w/
conditions
3--U-74
Vallco Park'
NINUTI S OF TilE REGULAR PLANNING COiMISSIO:_; NLETI' d OF JUNE 24,
1974
in the event a local. improvement district is not formed,
the developer shall participate in the cost of providing
roadway improvements and signali_;:ation to the extent that
it can be shown that the property benefits from said
improvements. The benefit shall be determined in the
same manner and assessment formula as would be utilized
in a local improvement district. Said improvements shall
consist of roadway improvements includinc si.gnalization in
accordance with a traffic circulation ele.z,ent (plan line)
approved by the City Council.
(17) In the event that a traffic signal becomes warranted at
Valley Green Drive and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road prior to
Bandley Drive and Greenleaf Drive being constructed that
developer participate in the construction of a temporary
traffic signal at Valley Green Drive and that said parti-
cipation be credited toward the participation for the
.permanent traffic signal at Greenleaf Drive and Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road.
(13) Should the design and utilization of compact car parking
spaces become a problem in the future, the Planning
Commission may, after public hearing, require restrlpiog
of the parking spaces within the parking lot.
Seconded by Comm. Woodward.
AYES:
NOES:
7.
Comm. Adams, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe
None
Notion carried, 4-0
Postponed at request of applicant.
8. Applicaticn 3-U-74 of VALLCO PARK, LTD: USE PERMIT to allow
construction of approximately 100,000 square feet of industrial/
professional office building within a P (Planned Development with
professional office/light industrial use) zcne. Said property is
located at the southwest corner of Swallow Drive and Homestead
Road and contains approximately 5 acres. First Hearing continued.
The Planning Director referred tc list of conditions from EIR standpoint.
He located site. A letter from Vallco Park was distributed to members of
the Planning Commission.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21k, 1974.
Mr. Walter Ward, General Manager of Vallco Park, noted this was to
be the AmericanMicro System's corporate headquarters building. It
will be two story with parking on two levels. He then introduced
the architect.
Mr. Phillip Dixon, architect, described the building. He said
approximately 1/4 of the building faces on Homestead Road and
Swallow Drive with bronze glass window walls. It is entirely
office space. The garage structure will be concrete.
With regard to landscaping, they have used extensive mounding to
help with appearance of parking in front of building which will
be for corporate officers and a few visitors.
The building is approximately 28' high. The mechanical equipment
on roof will be screened with similar materials as other adjacent
buildings.
In response to Comm. Adams, the site configuration, drainage system
on site and elevations of different ground levels were discussed.
In answer to Comm. Adams, Mr. Dixon said there would be no fixed
planting built in structure to provide greenery around perimeter
of parking structure, but they were considering placing some free
standing planters. He explained how the parking structure would
look.
Comm. Adams ascertained that setback from property line on
Homestead Road wiou1d •,be': 4Oe'et .
Mr. Ward explained Litronix building to west is two story. The
main problem with putting planter boxes on second deck is that
from pedestrian viewpoint they will not be seen. Architectural
treatment of walls is more important to aesthetics than landscaping.
Mr. Sisk noted this concern could be expressed to H -Control.. Ha
said the Commission should keep in mind this deck is 13' and the
main building is 27.
Comm.. Woodward asked about possibility of some type of tree to
break sight line from street itself. There are residences who
will be looking at it. The architect said lie had appeared before
H -Control several weeks ago and they had seemed relatively, satis-
fied with drawings they had. submitted showing mounding and land-
scaping.
It was noted the opening of garage. Is 31z' above garage floor *which
is approximately same level as street.
PC -159
Page 19
PC -159
Page ZO
Public Hear-
ing closed
MINUTES OF THE nEGuLAP PLANNING C0�'Ti•IISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1974
Mr. Dixon answered Comm. Gatto that all water is being taken care of
on site; there will be no drainage off site.
With regard to parking garage, Comm. Gatto suggested depressing bottom
area to minimize visual impact and taking dirt to make berm at areas
surrounding wall level of garage. He also commented that the archi-
tecture of two buildings are not compatible. He would like to see
consideration given to shingle material on canopy. Mr. Dixon said
this point was well taken.
Comm. Woodward questioned intensity of land use that needed two story
garage. Mr. Ward explained this is a headquarters building and there
will be a number of ;people coming and going. They Would like covered
V.I.P. parking.
The concern that with double -deck parking, the land might be converted
to more buildings was discussed. Mr. Ward said this would not happen.
They had read Mr. Sisk's conditions and concuzred with. them.
Comm. Adams ascertained there would be no storage. He referred to
Intersil building which has storage of raw material in parking lot.
Mr. Ward explained they are doing conversion work, and this is a
temporary situation.
The meeting was opened. for comments from the public. There were none.
Coeur.. Gatto asked Mr. Ward if they would be agreeable to lowering
bottom parking leve-1 -several feet an -d increasing mound. Mr. Ward
asked if it could be a matter of a foot or so plus or minus and if
they could work with staff on it. Comm. Gattc noted he was speaking
of 6' berm with relationship to garage floor itself.
Comm. Adams moved, seconded by Coma. Woodward, to close Public Hearing.
Motion carried, 4-0
Comm. Gatto moved approval of application 3 -U --?4, with 14 standard
conditions; and
(15) Approval is based upon Exhibit A of 3-U-74 as may be modified
by additional conditions contained herein.
(16) The applicant/cwner shall agree to participate in a local
improvement district and enter into an agreement with the
.City to insure participation, the degree of participation
to be determined at a later date.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANING COM:IT_SSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1°74
(17) No outside chemical or gas storage tanks or other outside I
storage facilities shall be constructed without review and
approval of the Planning Commission. The purpose of said
review shall be to ascertain the visibility, atmosphere
and safety impacts on the adjacent area and the reduction
of parking spaces within the site.
(18) An earthern berm, a minimum of six (6) feet in height to
be measured from the first floor of the garage structure,
shall be provided around the garage facility.
Seconded by Chairman O'Keefe.
AYES: Comm. Adams, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe
NOES: None
Motion carried, 4-0
ADJOURNMENT
Co,mn. Gatto moved, seconded by Consn. Adams, to adjourn at 3.2:00
midnight to nesting of Thursday, June 24, 1974 at 7:30 .m.
Motion carried, 4-0
APPROVED:
Is! Daniel P. O'Keefe
Chairman
ATTEST:
isi Nm.E. Ryder_
City Clerk
PC -l.59
Paige 21
3-1J-74
approved Ya!
condition._
Adjourned