Loading...
PC 05-11-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 11, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Doyle, Harris, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Commissioners absent: Mahoney Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, explained that staff was requesting that Item 1 be continued to the May 26 Planning Commission meeting since a neighboring property owner requested that they be noticed because they have some issues regarding cost issues. Staff would also like additional time to review the improvement plans for the new driveway location that goes up the hill. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 10-EXC-97 (M) Philippe & Anne Dor Balboa Road at Stevens Creek Canyon Director's minor modification with referral to the Planning Commission to relocate Balboa Road in accordance with Chapter 19.132 Of the Cupertino Municipal Code ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 10-EXC-97 (M) Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 to the May 26, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 11, 1998 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-98 and 11-EA-98 Hossain Khaziri 10002 DeAnza Boulevard Blvd. To demolish an inactive service station and construct a new 778 square foot service station and 648 square foot car wash. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 18, 1998 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 23, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 5-U-98 and 1 I-EA-98 to the June 23, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Com. Mahoney ~ Passed 4-0-0 Chairwoman Austin moved the agenda to Item 2. Application No Applicant: Location: 5-EXC-98 AMCOE Sign Company 20400/20450 Stevens Creek Blvd. Sign Exception to exceed the allowed size of a wall sign in accordance with Chapter 17 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, explained that the application was for a sign exception to increase the maximum height of the sign from a maximum 24 inches to 8 feet, and to allow the sign to project above the roof line. He reviewed the background of the item as set forth in the attached staff report. Referring to an overhead drawing of the site plan, he illustrated the location of the proposed sign on the building. Mr. Jung illustrated various overhead photographs of the building from different resid~htial locations on Scofield, Sunrise, and Rodriguez to show the visual impact of the sign. He also showed photographs of yarious examples of signs used in the Cupertino business community depicting different methods of sign illumination. The applicant is proposing a method called reverse pan channel letters, the light being reflected off the background, which results in dark letters with a white halo on it. He showed two examples of that method now in Cupertino, one at the Home Savings and the other the Dean Witter sign. Mr. Jung distributed exhibits showing the Sun Microsystems logo on a taller building, and some examples of the reverse pan channel letters and the colors of the building. He showed an example of the sign during the daytime and one when lit up. Staff recommends approval of the sign exception. Mr. Jung reviewed the three findings that the Planning Commission needs to make, and the staff responses to the findings as outlined in the staff report on Pages 2-2 and 2-3. Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 11, 1998 A brief discussion ensued regarding the sign colors, wherein Mr. Jung said that staff was suggesting that the applicant paint the background of the sign a flat mare finish, (white tends to be highly reflective) as well as matching the color of the building itself. Mr. Steve Coulthard, AMCOE Sign Co., said that the larger sheets illustrated the color of the background of the sign, the off whito, because it is the Sun Microsystoms standard color and they would like to have that in the panel area where the sign is going be. He indicated that the blue color illustrated on the smaller card was the proposed color; a lighter shade, matted. He said that only the logo will be lit at night and not the other segments. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Harris said that she was glad Sun Microsystems was coming to town and welcomed their presence. She said she preferred the type of small logo sign instead ora large stretched out name sign, and said the sign and colors were tasteful. She said she was concerned with the unity and integrity of the design of the building as the 3 panels are seen in the daytime and they are unified. She said whatever is done, she felt the three panels in the daytime still need to look unified. She said the night appearance was suitable, the other 2 lights would go off; the logo would shine; it would be subtle and attractive, but in the daytime it needs to somehow maintain the integrity of the top of the parapet because it is so high. She said that she was not certain that staff's recommendation of making it the color of the building would result in that, or if the off whito background would do it. Mr. Jung said that the applicant could match the background color to the other panels, with the only difference being the logo sign itself. Com. Stevens said he was not concerned about the brightness of the sign at night but agreed that the daytime sign should be unified, and would like to add Condition 4 as proposed. Relative to Condition 3, Mr. Jung said that the wording could be changed to "shall match the color of the other two window panels." Com. Harris suggested that the consultant look at it and make a recommendation for the unity issue. Com. Doyle said his only concern was that the box was white and the others were glass block and they may not blend, and an attempt should be made to have a closer match. Mr. Jung said that staff would require the applicant to submit a color board of the existing color with the proposed colors on top, to allow a closer look before the sign is installed. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 5-EXC-98 with the condition that the sign background shall be consistent with the colors of the other window treatments "at that level and shall maintain the amhitectural integrity of the building, with the background c(?lor to be approved by staff. Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Chair Austin explained that the public hearing was closed; when she asked if anyone wished to speak on the item, no one came forth. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None Planning Commission Minutes 4 May I 1, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING 4 Application No.(s): Applicat: Location: 1-TM-98 Quality Design Concepts (Walgreen's) 10795 S. Blaney & 20075 Bollinger Tentative Map to subdivide an existing 4.55 acre existing shopping center into 3 parcels ENVIRONlVIENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1998 Staff presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman, Planner II, explained that the City Council previously approved the construction of a 14,000 sq. ft. Walgreen's building and other site improvements including repaving of a parking area, installation of new parking lot lighting and installation of landscaping at the All American Shopping Center. ~dqe said that the applicant is now proposing to resubdivide the existing one parcel into three parcels, in order to obtain financing to complete those planned improvements. Staff stated that in order to ensure that the conditions of approval required on the conditional use permit be implemented regardless of who owned the parcels after subdivison, they created a series of conditions of approval that addressed that issue and are included in the packet. Staff recommends approval with the conditions of approval included in the staff packet. Mr. Mike Tevis, Intrinsic Ventures, said that the bulk of the conditions for the subdvision are acceptable and noted that Tom Boyd, architect, would clarify some of his comments. He explained that there were some conditions that required work be done prior to recordation of the tentative map or at the final map, and said that they needed the final map to close escrow to borrow the money from the construction lender to do the work on the site. He questioned whether it was a logistical issue that could be worked through with the building by tying some conditions on the granting of the Walgreen's permit; perhaps by tying some conditions to the permitting of the Walgreen's, with doing the work immediately after close of escrow. He said the quandary that they need funds to do the work and they need permission from the owner to do the work and the owner won't give permission to do the work until Intrinsic owns the property. He said the installation of the gate relative to the Tin Tin Market delivery problem, which problem they will inherit, and the conclusion that was rendered several months ago was that if and when Tin Tin renewed their lease with Intrinsic as the new owner, they would enact a condition of installation of a gate which the owners would put in at their expense, but would require Tin Tin to comply with a timer controll&d gate for deliveries; and their lease expires in the fall of 1999. Short of that the city always has a right through code enfomement to take action similar to what has been done in other centers where you have had complaints fi:om neighbom and were able to bring a code enforcement action against the owner and the tenant. He said that pursuant to their current lease agreement, they do not have the right to go in and unilaterally put in a gate. He said he was not aware of what the situation is with Tin Tin's lease and so that condition would be unacceptable Mr. Tom Boyd, Quality Design Concepts, said that relative to the t~vo items currently required to be completed prior to recordation, Items 2 and 11, they would like to find a mechanism where they can tie that to the granting of the project building permit; ultimately the certificate of occupancy for Walgreen's, as opposed to tying it to an act prior to recordation as Mr. Tevis explained. He said in addition to the issue of the gate, which is language they would like to see revised to be consistent with the original approval, there is the sound wall. Currently the way it is conditioned in Item 11, the sound wall has to be installed prior to recordation, and whatever the work that may have to incur because of this new parcel Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 11, 1998 line between parcels B and C, that is currently stipulated to be completed prior to recordation; and again they would like to have both items conditioned some other way so the work can be completed on those items after recordation of the final map and as part of the construction project for the overall site. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Counsel, said that she did not discuss the two with anyone; but did discuss the sound wall and gate. She noted that they were two separate events; and noted that it was a subdivision request, not the use permit for Walgreen's and the sound wall and the gate were actually going to be on separate parcels of land if the subdivision was approved. Once the parcels are independent of the use permit, counsel's suggestion was that this was the time to get use permit control of all three parcels; which was the original suggestion. She said they were not concerned with who builds the sound wall or the gate; as these are improvements to the property, but they are now going to be off the site they are concerned with; that they do have use permit control over. She said if they don't have use permit control over parcel B and C, this is the time to get the improvements on those properties that you have required or they have to come up with another mechanism to do that. She pointed out that it is not the city's issue to deal with the applicant's financing problems; the sound wall has been promised to the neighbors, it would be a benefit to the neighbors during the construction; the paving, and the landscaping. She said she did not understand why the issue was a problem, however, there were probably other mechanisms to get it done. She said that the other things such as landscaping, paving, parking, and garbage facilities could be taken care of with easements and reciprocal agreements. Once Parcel C or B is separated, it could be sold tomorrow and the city would have no guarantee that that party would allow Walgreen's to come onto their property and build the wall. She said this was the opportunity to get some use permit control of the properties that have been problems for years; and the city has every right to demand improvements be put in. Chair Austin questioned who owned the property now; noting that they don't even own the property and they want to subdivide it. Mr. Tevis said that it was not an unusual procedure in home building and acquisitions, but a little less normal in a shopping center; and typically a developer would execute a contract to purchase a piece of property just as they had a condition of obtaining the Walgreen's approval, and also set forth a condition of recording the subdivision, and on the same day the subdivision map would be recorded, they would also close escrow on the purchase of the property; though all of this occurs simultaneously with the county recorder, at the same time they are acquiring the property, the applicant is subdividing the property. The current owner does not desire changing anything on the property or being tied with any conditions on the property until such time Intrinsic owns it; which is why they don't want to do a subdivision p~br to acquisition. He said they do not own it, but have the consent of the current owner and they are signatory to the application for the tentative map, but the recordation, the final sign off, will occur when they close escrow on acquisition of the property. He said they were not trying to avoid the issue of putting these improvements in, but trying to come up with practical ways to implement those and he recognized finance issues were not material to this group, but are a practical reality in the world. He suggested linking the permitting of the Walgreen's to commencement of the construction and the pouring of the wall foundation, which seemed to him to be a reasonable approach. He said the entire use permit ties together, and they have some site improvements to the existing center before opening the Walgreen's, and even though the properties will be separated, they are still at this point very much tied together, and any condition of approval even if they sold the property would still have to be enforced upon any subsequent owner, in order to get the Walgreen's open for business. Mr. Tevis explained that the need to subdivide the property was because different lenders want to loan on different pieces of real estate, with different types of financing. Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 11, 1998 Com. Doyle questioned what it is about Item 2 that causes the issue and the timing. Mr. Tevis responded that it is the requirement that it be completed before recording the map. The map needs to be recorded, then they will complete the work. Chair Austin opened the public hearing. Mr. Frank Fazita, said that he was opposed to the construction of the Walgreen's. He said he resided on Bollinger Road directly across the street from Parcel A. He said that when the gas station was located at the comer, they were several accidents; and when the gas station was demolished, the accident rate decreased. He said that he felt the accident rate would increase when the new Walgreen's was located on the comer, and asked that it be taken into consideration. He said there was a lot of congestion in the area, and it was very difficult to get in and out of his driveway because of traffic. He asked if there had been an environmental investigation at the location after the gas station was removed. He said that Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue were used heavily by the fire engines and paramedics and with Walgreen's there, there would b~a lot more accidents and problems, and asked if that was taken into consideration. He said he wanted his opposition to be noted on record and hoped that someone would take some kind of action to investigate it; maybe take a record of the accident rate on that comer. Com. Doyle explained that many of the issues Mr. Fazita was concerned about were discussed in the initial approval of the Walgreen's pamel. He encouraged Mr. Fazita to meet with staff so they could explain all the considerations that have been brought up before. Mr. Cowan said that a traffic study had been prepared and the cities of San Jose and Cupertino traffic staff have met and there is going to be a reconfiguration of the street at Bollinger to provide a turn lane. Chair Austin closed the public hearing. Com. Harris suggested the following proposals. Relative to Item 2, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department within 60 days after recordation of the final map, a bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be posted by the applicant at the time of subdivision. For item 11, the 8 foot sound wall is already a condition in the use permit that we have, condition 10, should be dropped from here. Revise the remainder of the language to "if the proposed Walgreen's is constructed, a gate to control delivery time shall be installed on Parcel B in November of 1999." She suggested a bond for that as well, because that is when they testify that they can get control of that lease from Tin Tin. She said she was in favor of the stricter regulation, in putting it off until the Walgreen's was build and the time the tenant renewal is up, as well as 'a' bond. Com. Doyle said that Item 2 wa~ appropriate; however, the $50,000 bond may be more than necessary, but may be a reasonable way of handling it. On the control of the gate, he questioned what the trip mechanism was, and if the Walgreen's does not go in, would a wall and gate be put up eventually? Mr. Cowan noted that the gate was not related to Walgreen's. Com. Harris noted that counsel was recommending that the gate be put in. Mr. Cowan said that the gate can be installed if the City Council determines that a public nuisance exists. He said that the proposal is to restate No. 7 on the original use permit condition in a different way, stating that they want an absolute date based on testimony heard about the change in the lease. Com. Harris said that staff wanted it now, and she was willing to wait until the lease was up, which was the only difference. Com. Doyle said he concurred with Com. Harris. Com. Stevens said although he was not on the Planning Commission at the time, he recommended a better way to go was to have the use permit, whatever segment of the use permit is on either Parcel A, B Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 11, 1998 or C, become part of the dividing of these properties. Ms. Murray reiterated that it was the opportune time to get use permit control of all the parcels, because they have been problems. Mr. Cowan said that there is a use permit for the entire center that included overall parking plans, overall landscaping and some conditions strictly related to the one lot, but the sound wall that involves two lots. Discussion ensued regarding how to ensure the sound wall would be built, and how to guarantee improvements that were promised in conjunction with the use permit once the property is divided up. The proposed bonding amoums were discussed, wherein Com. Harris recommended $20,000 for Item 2 and $30,000 for item 11. Later in the meeting, following a discussion, Com. Harris said that she was willing to reduce the bond for Item 2 to $10,000. Mr. Cowan said that the actual compliance with UBC would be more in the area of $5,000, noting that the high cost would be the sound wall. Mr. Cowan said that Page 4-10 of the staff report stated that the owners would have to build the gate when the Tin Tin lease was renewed; or if the city encountered problems in the meantime, it could document them, hold a public hearing and get public input, and the city could force it as a community nuisance problem, similar to the Lucky Store on Highway 9. He said that Com. Harris was suggesting that the language be held in, because it says now at the time of the renewal; but once the parcel is separated, the use permit is meaningless, unless sold off. Mr. Cowan questioned counsel if the obligation for the gate could be in connection with the map. Ms. Murray said that it could be a covenant and run with the land map. Com. Harris commented that there was no way of knowing what would happen in six months, and the lender may say they will finance only if the adjacent property is sold. Chair Austin said that she wanted the wall, the gate and fire protection to be bonded and run with the separate covenant. Ms. Murray indicated she would be open to any method, whether it be a bond or a deadline, if it was concurrent with the pouring of the foundation of the Walgreen's. She said she was also comfortable with a condition on a use permit. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 1-TM-98 according to the model resolution with the following changes: Item 2, Uniform Building Code be changed to read; "last part to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department within 60 days of the recordation of the final map; a bond in the amount of $10,000 shall be posted to assure compliance with this item. Item 11 to state an 8 foot high sound wall should be installed on the north property line and subject site, and the existing access court to La Roda Court shall be closed within 60 days of recordation of the final map; a bond in the ' amount of $30,000 shall be posted to assure compliance with this condition". Following Ms. Murray's clarification that Item l0 was for a reciprocal agreement and Item 11 was for the actual construction of the wall, Com. Harris added the following relative to Item 11: "If the proposed Walgreen's is constructed, a gate to control delivery time shall be installed in Parcel B in November of 1999. A bond in the amount of $20,000 shall be posted to assure compliance with this condition." Mr. Cowan clarified that it could be a generic condition for the City Attorney's office to ensure that they review a covenant to accomplish the goals stated in these conditions. Com. Harris clarified that Item 2 will state that a covenant shall be recorded to state that this requirement transfers with the land, and identical for Item 11. Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 11, 1998 SECOND: Com. Stevens The applicant was invited to comment on the feasibility of the proposal. Mr. Tevis said that the building wall separation and the construction of the wall might not be a problem, and said the bonding for 18 months for a gate may not even be necessary, if Tin Tin does not renew. He said he felt it did not make sense as they went through it with the last approval, and with the covenant that runs with the land addressing that issue. He pointed out that the issue was dealt with before and they could not change the circulation of the shopping center. He said although he respected the efforts to assign the responsibility of installing the gate 18 months from now, they were not sure what the situation would be and for them to put up a bond for 18 months did not seem fair. He said that if Tin Tin vacates, it would be an issue to address; and if they were new, they had already given the covenant that the gate would be put in. Mr. Tevis concluded by requesting that the bonding requirement for that component be deleted if the Tin Tin lease was renewed. Chair Austin pointed out that regardless of who is the new tenant, the gate may or may not be an issue, but if it is retail and close to the residents, it is a problem, and is something that was promised and still desired. Com. Hmris concurred. Following Mr. Cowan's suggestion that it could be a bond, but a lower amount, Com. Harris said she was willing to reduce the bond for it to $10,000 for the item. She said the wall would be $30,000 and is 60 days after recordation of the map; the gate of $10,000 and completion date of November 1999. Chair Austin said she would accept the reduction to $10,000. ABSENT: Com. Mahoney NOES: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 3-1-0 Com. Doyle explained that he voted no because the rules were changed, and he felt due process was not followed. Application No.(s) Applicant: Location: 4-Z-98 and 10-EA-98 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapters 2.32, 16.28, 17.44, 19.132 and 19.134 to enable the creation of a design review si~bcommittee of the Planning Commission and change public noticing requirements for fence exceptions, sign exceptions, and Community Development Director's administrative applications referred to the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 1, 1998 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1998 Staff presentation: Mr. Jung said that previous Planning Commission remarks were reviewed and comments were contained in the attached staff report. He provided a detailed explanation of Exhibit A, General Design Review Process Flow Chart, which showed the three categories of applications, which include minor applications, standards applications and major applications. He said that staff is Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 11, 1998 recommending that the minor and standard applications be reviewed by the subcommittee before being heard by the Planning Commission, and that the major applications, not reviewed by the subcommittee, go directly to the Planning Commission. The details of the General Design Review Process are outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Jung summarized that staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the 4-7-98 for this project as well. He said that it was not part of this staff recommendation, but Com. Harris asked about a separate alternative in the event the City Council prefers term limits for the subcommittee members. Staff recommends that as an alternative the subcommittee members have two consecutive one year terms with a one year hiatus before it returns as a subcommittee member, and that it be made as a separate minute order to the City Council. Mr. Cowan referred to Exhibit A and said he felt the biggest issue they would be faced with would be the sequence of events going from the standard applications, going directly to the commission or going directly to the review committee because the Commission was concerned about having two members provide some direction to an app~ant for these type of projects that might get too far, and then it get to the Commission as a whole and then have a problem. Mr. Jung said that staff was requesting that the Director be granted some discretion in terms of which process the application goes through. He cited the example of the gasoline station on the corner, less than 5,000 sq. ft., which typically would go to the subcommittee level, but Mr. Cowan could route it through the Planning Commission, get Planning Commission input on design development parameters, and route it back to the subcommittee to handle some more of the detail design work. He said that the Director may feel that a major application may warrant some design review subcommittee work, such as an industrial addition to Hewlett Packard. He said that Exhibit A was what staff came up with based on the Planning Commission input from the previous meeting. 'Major' and 'minor' have been defined and a mechanism developed. Staffis asking for reaction to their proposal. Com. Harris suggested that a box be put on the flow chart indicating that the Director does minor requests that come through the mail (minor that do not require public involvement). Relative to the box "standard applications" she suggested that the residential less than 8 units, be added "(except hillside exceptions)" because they are covered under major applications. Mr. Jung said that the residential units are a different category, noting that these are residential units that require use permits, such as planned development. Mr. Cowan noted that amenity space shifts fall under use permits. Mr. Jung said they would go under "changes in building occupancy" - use permits, in the major applications. Com. Harris said she felt tii6y were minor applications once there are some guidelines in effect; and would like to see it under minor applications. Mr. Cowan concurred. Referring to Page 5-9 of the staff report, Com. Harris suggested that the words "upon such direction" be deleted from No. 7 (top of page). Referring to staff responsibilities, Mr. Jung clarified that administrative personnel would support the subcommittee in the preparation of agenda and minutes. Referring to Page 5-17, Item B, 7th line from the bottom, change wording to read: "subject property, as well as property directly opposite subject property and the abutting properties to the left and right of that property". She noted that it appeared 12 times throughout the text. Com. Harris noted that there was no Section I listed as a heading in several places where there were Sections 2 and 3. She said she felt the term limits should be put in, and should not be as flexible as written. She said that it should be as suggested, 2 consecutive one year terms, followed by a one year hiatus, which would allow for a variety Planning Commission Minutes ~ o May I 1, 1998 of opinions. Com. Harris recommended that the architectural advisor should be selected from a firm with an AIA designation. Chair Austin opened the meeting the for public comment. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Doyle said he felt the review should cover the minor items; keep the Planning Commission for the standard and major items; one scheduled meeting if needed is suitable; not in favor of term limits; and was in favor of the expanded mailing list to match up new requirements. Com. Harris said she agreed with Com. Doyle that standard should go to the Planning Commission first and the Planning Commission would have the option to refer it back. Com. Stevens said that he was anxious to have it start and work. Chair Austin said she agreed with everyone and was supportive of having architectural advice. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to recommend the negative declaration on 10~EA-98 SECOND: Com. Doyle ABSENT: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to recommend approval of Application 4-Z-98 with the corrections and clarifications made, with term limits as stated in document, which are not limited Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to recommend a minute order that if the City Council wants to establish term limits, they be as stated in the staff report; two years, maximum of two consecutive one year terms, followed by a one year hiatus before the commissioner may serve again Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 OLD BUSINESS Selection of Planning Commission representatives to an ad hoc committee to discuss the definition of amenity space. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to recommend Coms. Doyle and Stevens to serve on the ad hoc committee to discuss the definition of amenity space Chair Austin Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes Il May 11, 1998 7. Schedule a follow up meeting to the February 4, 1998 Planning Commission Workshop There was a brief discussion regarding an appropriate date and location for a follow-up meeting with Daniel Iacafano regarding Commission training. Wednesday, June 24 was selected as the date to schedule the meeting. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Harris requested a tour related to the single story designations on John Drive, Scofield, Hibiscus, and also the street behind Scofield. It was suggested that the tour be conducted before a Planning Commission on June 4, 16 or 17 for the purpose of establishing a standard for single story restrictions, with the goal to come up with a standard set of policies that would define what is acceptable. A discussion followed about the appropriate date to schedule the tour. It was decided to agendize the topic for further discussion when Com. Mahoney was present, in order to choose a date and time convenient to all. REPORT OF ~IHE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting on May 26, 1998 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: May 26, 1998