Loading...
PC 09-22-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETLNG OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners preset: Staff present: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Roberts, ChaUPerson Hams Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Planner Il, Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the September 3, 1997 Special Meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the September 3, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as presented. Corm Roberts Com. Austin Passed 4-0-1 Minutes of the September 8, 1997 Regular Meeting: The following changes were made to the September 8 minutes: Page 3, Line 5: "ABSENT: Com. Doyle and Chair Harris" should read: "ABSENT: Com. Roberts and Chair Harris" Page 5, Item 7: The motion was seconded by Com. Mahoney: "ABSENT: Com. Mahoney" should read: "SECOND: Com. Mahoney" Page 9, Second last line of page: "previously 5, how couM it be down to 31. "should read.' "previously. 43, how could it be down to .317" Page l 1, Ninth line from the bottom of page: "Chair Harris resumed chairing the meeting" should read: "Chair Harris reconvened the mee~ting". (Prior to the recess, Chair Hams had not been chairing the meeting). Page 17, Second paragraph fi'om bottom of page: "Com. Mahoney" should read "Com. Roberts" Planning comrmssion Minutes 2 September 22, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the September 8, 1997, planmng cormmssion minutes as amended. Com. Doyle Com. Roberts (for portion of meeting he was not present) Pussed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Hams noted a letter from Linda Keamey and San Jose Police Crime Report relative to the Walgreens' application; and a memo from Freedman. Tung and Bottomley relative to the Chevron Station application. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Chair Hams noted that there was a request to postpone Item 5. AppliCanon No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-EXC-97 and 29-EA-97 Ron Dick 11835 Upland Way/Lot 2 Hillside Exception to construct a residence on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 19.40.050 oflhe Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPT. 8, 1997. REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO OCTOBER 27, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to continue Application 11-EXC-97 and 29-EA-97 to the October 27, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENTCALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Location: 2-U-72 (Mod.) Kamen Kabat 10880 Northpoint Way Modification of Use Permit to allow removal and replacement of eight trees. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Consent Calendar application 2-U-72 (Mod.) Com. Roberts Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 22, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: [ I-U-97 and 28-EA-97 Thomas Boyd (All American Shopping Center) NW Comer of Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue Use penmt to construct a new 13,383 sq. fi. retail store (Waigreens) and other improvements related to parking and landscaping at an existing shopping center; and to allow 24 hour operation at Waigreens and a drive-through window for pharmacy. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 6, 1997 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 Staff presentation: The video presentation was viewed at the previous meeting. Mr. Robert Cowam Director of Community Development, reviewed the application for a Use Permit to construct the 13,383 sq. fl. building, the application for a 24 hour operation and a diive-through window for the pharmacy. He summarized the issues of concern from the prior meeting: (1) The issuance of a liquor license. The Alcohol Beverage Control Board prohibits the sale of alcohol at, er 2 a.m.; however, the jurisdictions can have control over the hours of sale. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the issue of the sale of alcoholic beverages could be academic i£the 24 hour operation is not permitted. (2) Architectural detail: Mr. Boyd, project architect will discuss. (3) FAR: .301 for the entire center; with a compmison of other centers provided in the staff report. (4) Parking: There is a 239 space requirement, with 260 spaces provided, leaving a surplus of parking. He noted there were 48 spaces behind the building in two general locations. (5) Traffic: A report from the traffic engineer was included in the staff report. (6) 24 hou~ operation: The applicant will address the hours of operation. (7) San Jose Crime Report: The crime report relative to the 24 hour Safeway Store on Bollinger was distributed to the Plamting Commissioners. The report indicated 10 incidents at the store in an 8 month period, which is a low number of responses and not considered a problem. (8) Drive-through windows (2): Staff feels that the availability of two drive-through lanes will provide additional flexibility for customers, ptmicularly for those who are ill, disabled, or have small children with them. (9) Landscape plan: a detailed landscape plan will be shown and discussed. (10) Clock on tower of Walgreens building. Mx. Cowan briefly discussed his September 16 letter to Mr. George Monk relative to the Walgreens' application. MX. Mike Tevis, representing Inuinsic Ventures, project sponsor, said that the company had executed a lease with Walgreens contingent upon approval of the development. He said that it was concluded from meetings to discuss concepts for the property with staff, that the general direction was to revitalize the entire property. Mr. Tevis explained that the Walgreens on DeAnza Boulevard would be closed around December or January and relocating to Cupercino would provide Waigreens with a prototype store, in a freestanding configuration, with a double pharmacy pick up window. It would also provide the developer the opportunity to upgrade the shopping center which has been in a state of defen-ed maintenance for some time. He said that Walgreens has committed to a six year lease term on the property. Mr. Tevis said that relative to the 24 hoar operation, it was Walgreens' intent to support the neighborhood and in response to community input, has removed the request for 24 hoar operation and replaced it with the standard operating hours for Cupertino retailers, 7 mm. to 11 p.m. He said that the drive-through pharmacy window provided aa amenity to customers especially when families have ill children, or elderly people and Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 22, 1997 have to pick up prescriptions. He said it is not a significant component of the prescription sales, but was provided as an added customer service. In response to Com. Robert's' question whether liquor sales were an indispensable component of the operation, Mr. Tevis said that when Walgreens makes a commitment to the real estate, it is imponam they maintain flexibility throughout various economic cycles. He said at present, it was not certain whether the store would sell liquor; however, it was important for them to retain the right to do so. He said that there was a reasonable percentage of Walgreens stores opening that were not selling liquor. Mr. Tevis said the only neighborhood response was received at the hearing; there were no neighborhood meetings held regarding the l~oposed application. Mr. Tom Boyd, Quality Design Concepts, referred to the landscape plan and illustrated the location of shrubs and trees and noted those to be planted for screening purposes. He dism4buted a color board and discussed the building colors. He said that the signs would be presented at a later meeting. Mr. Boyd said that in response to concerns expressed about the clock, he was willing to modify the colors of the clock with earthtone colors, eliminate the ilh,minated side returns to the clock and have only the face internally illuminated. Responding to Chair Hams' question about the length of the stackup lane for the left hand car, Mr. Boyd said that one lane had space for one car in the lane, with three cars behind. In the other lane, there is room for one car in the lane with two cars behind. In response to Com. Doyle's questions about building height, IVlr. Boyd said that the primary height of the building was 25 feet and the building was only one story high. He pointed out that the ceilings were 12 feet high in the sales areas, with an 8 foot screen for the roof equipment. He said that the finished floor elevation was identical to the present elevation. Chair Hams opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Peter Turk, 20076 La Roda Ct., said that he was opposed to the application. He said that currently the noise fxom behind Tin Tin Market was not controlled properly; trucks unload at 5 a.m. with radios on and the track motors nmning. He said that the access to the back is a dead end and is also used for truck deliveries; therefore the assumption that parking spaces could be put in the back needed further study. He said that he was representing persons who were not able to be present at the meeting, Mrs. Rhoda Turk and Mr. Frank Frazitta. Mr. Turk said that area residents had met to discuss the issue, and he submitted a petition for the record with 90 residents' signatures who were opposed to the application for numerous reasons. He said that his wife was unable to attend the meeting, but she had been monitoring the area, and taken photographs, and had complaints about the noise in the area at 5 a.m. Ms. Billie Cramb, 20090 La Roda Ct., said that she was also opposed to the walgreens' project. She explained that there already exists a drainage problem in that area and questioned what would happen with water runoff. She said that there were concerns among the neighbors, and expressed her frustration that discussion was occurring about type of trees, building color, and whether or not the clock tower would be illuminated, when in reality what was happening was a decision was being considered whether or not to change the flavor of the neighborhood on a permanent basis. Ms. Rose Hinders, 10775 La Roda Ct., said that she was opposed to the consmaction of another building, and felt that the building looked like another Kentucky Fried Chicken building, similar to Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 22, 1997 the one on Hollenbeck and Homestead Roads. Relative to crime occurrence, she said that she had wimessed vandalism to a neighbor's home as well as her own. She said that an acquaintance serving on the SherifFs Dep~tment had relayed stories about occurrences in the Tin Tin Mmket area, that were perhaps not a part of the planning department files. Mr. Duncan Wong, 10798 So. Blaney Ave., said that he was opposed to the project, particularly the 24 hour operation. He said that he echoed other speakers' concerns already mentioned. Mr. Michael Cellim, 802 So. Blaney Ave., said that he was strongly opposed to the construction ora 24 hour Walgreens for the following reasons: (1) Increase in traffic: every morning he and his wife have difficulty getting out of the driveway onto Blaney; it is already a dangerous comer and patxons of the store would create more ~:affic and problems. (2) He said that a new drugstore was not needed in the area as there were four located within a 1-1/2 mile radius of the planned site. (3) The change in look of the neighborhood: There are not many two story buildings in the area; the store is taller than many of the houses in the surrounding neighborhood. (4) Safety issue: He said that break-ins in the area had occurred in the last two months; and the 24 hour Walgreens in Sunnyvale had questionable people haaging around at all hours of the night, and the new Walgreens would bring more questionable people to the Cupertino neighborhood. Mr. Cellini said that the school district is considering reopening Eaton School on Blaney which would create more traffic on Blaney with more children being driven to school and using bikes. He said that he and his wife feel that the City should generme revenue from new buildings on Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard where they are meant to be, and not from an area where children are playing. Mr. Paul Van Loan, 10729 So. Blaney Ave., said that he and his wife were opposed to the application for a number of reasons, mostly safety and quality of life related. He pointed out that they were not opposed to the amenity, but that it is in the wrong location. He said that the Fabricland site was a more appropriate location for the Walgreens store. Mr. Van Loan said that the traffic issues would be dealt with, and were brought up two weeks ago; but the fact that there was a non-rethoganal intersection there with cars hurt3dng left hand tums ahead of cars going straight through will be exaceabated when there will be cars pulling in and out of the two access sites. He said that he used the site plan and walked the parking lot, and pointed out that it was an erroneous statement that there were 260 parking spaces because 48 were inaccessible and probably would not be used. He said that the remaining 212 spaces were based on the assumption that the stalls would be smaller than the existing ones. Mr. Van Loan said that when walking the parking lot, the 40 parking stalls along the west rim near Tin Tin Market and the adjacent stores, he found that there was actually room for only 34 spaces. He said a reason cited in favor of the store at the prior meeting was that there would be an $80,000 increase in tax revenues; however, he said that there would be a compensatory decrease in land values on the part of the people residing around the store because of the 24 hour operation, increased traffic and increased noise. He concluded by saying that in speaking with the neighbors with the petition, he managed to speak to 36 residents, of which 100% of the 36 within a five to six block radius of the site opposed the application; and as statistics show, it means that you have a 95% probability that more than 90% of the people in the area of the building wilt oppose the application. Com. Roberts questioned if the concerns of the residents in opposition of the application would be mitigated if the hours of operation were restricted to 7 a.m. to I 1 p.m. Mr. Van Loan said that in speaking for himself, they would be somewhat mitigated, but not entirely validated, because of traffic. Planning Commission Minutes 6 Sep~¢mbe~ 22 1997 Mr. Scott Cowing, 10786 So. Blaney Ave., clarified that it was not the 24 hour operation the residents were opposed to, but the project in general. He said that they opposed the project because oftbe quality within the neighborhood. He said that another issue was to make cextain that the tanks from the prior tenant, the Chevron station, would in fact be removed. Mr. Cowing said that the garbage accidentally dropped from the Tin Tin Market would increase, and blow across the road into the residential neighborhood. He questioned how loud the speaker from the drive up window of the pharmacy would be and its hours of operation. He also echoed that the radios from the tracks delivering newspapers early in the morning were very loud. He questioned the accuracy of the traffic studies after a I to 3 year period, or a 3 to 5 year period. Mr. Cowling reiterated that with Eaton School reopening the traffic would be increased and residents have problems getting out of their driveways. He said that he had an underlying feeling about having an eye for an eye relative to San Jose putting m a Home Depot pulling revenue from the City of Cupertino. Mr. George Monk, 19985 Price Ave., addressed the problems in three areas: (I) Inconsistency with the general plan as set forth in Mx. Monk's letter (2) based on inadequate data; and (3) there are some incredible statistics used to underpin it. Relative to the inconsistencies in the general plan, he highlighted 4 of the 7 inconsistencies: Policy 2-19 requires that we "protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects for more intense developments." Policy 2-20 requires that we "keep the sights and sounds of the neighbors from intruding on residents." He said that the project is clearly a visually intrusive development with sights and sounds intruding on residents. He said he felt there was no meaningful abatement in thc plan. There are statements on Page 2-31 of the general plan "Cupertino can distinguish itself by avoiding the strip developments" and Page 2-35 of the general plan 'q"ne city is de-,mlJhasizing commercial strip developmenf'. Mr. Monk said that building the Walgreens in the middle of the site is guaranteeing it leaves no avenue for farther redevelopment other than a strip development in this location; and the city is not "de-emphasizing" commercial strip development as listed in the plan. Relative to inadequate data, Mr. Monk said that statistics used to underpin the development were based upon one traffic survey in July and one benchmark Walgreens in San Leonard, the dates and locations picked by the developer. He said that if he went before the executive committee at his place of employment with a project where we have one chance of getting it right and one we had to live with for the next 3040 years, they would require more significantly than that to underpin this decision. Relative to the statistics used, Mr. Monk referred to Table 5, Project Trip Generation Snmmary, which showed an increase of 13,833 sq. fl. in the building, a 30% increase of what is there now, and said the commissioners were being asked to assume that this 9% increase in traffic is generated by this 30% increase in floor space. He said they are being asked to believe that a popular 24 hour drug store with the only drive-through pharmacy in the area ~presents 30% floor size increase, is only going to increase traffic by 9%, and said it just doesn't add up. He said in further looking at the September 15 memo in the staff packet from Mr. Chong, they were being asked to believe that this will only generate a .5% increase in Bollinger traffic and a .3% increase in Blaney traffic, and said it is voodoo economics; it just doesn't add up. He said that the Planning Commissioners did a wonderful service to the community by rejecting the proposed development of the gas station at the Heart of the City, and asked them to be as discriminating with this development. The area cries out for a low rise town and country style development, not this huge cookie cutter, quasi-one story 24 hour day, drive-through, serving liquor. He said it was their worst nightmare, Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 22, 1997 Ms. Colleen James, 20091 La Roda Ct., said that she agreed with previous speakers, and said that according to the map shown there was only one entx~ance going into the parking lot and one coming out; there are presently six. She said that Walgreens is now more of a general store and their ads are out on Sunday. There are also two churches next to the area which hold church services on Sunday, which means a great deal of traffic congestion. She asked that those factors be considered as well as the previous ones mentioned. Mr. Doug McCormicK 19983 Lindenbrook Ln., said that if the Walgreens moves fi.om DeAnza Boulevard, it would be in direct competition with the Longs located in the shopping center on Stevens Creek, which has less traffic than before and the book store closed. He said that taking business fi.om Longs may force them to move elsewhere creating more vacancy in that particular center. Mr. McCormick asked that consideration be given to halting the project. Mr. Ken Pugh, 6848 Bol[inger Rd., said that he would not stand in the way of progress, but not in such a way that it is invasive upon the populace of the area. He said that it was the first oppommity for the residents in the area to provide input on the proposal. He pointed out that in a similar case in Sunnyvale, (over a period of 2-1/2 years) the residents accomplished through a lawsuit, to change the proposed 24 hour, drive through window Walgreens, to reduce the 24 hours to 6 a.m. to midnight, and defeat the drive through. Mr. Pugh said that there was a Wal~'eens on Stevens Creek Boulevard next to the Meridian Qnad Theaters which was opened 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, with a drive through pharmacy window. He said that there is now a resident survey taking place and asked that it be taken into account. He said that he was opposed to the application. Chair Hams entered into the record a letter i~om Ms. Lynda Kearney, Blazingwood Ave., in favor of the proposal. "As a long time resident of Cupertino since this part was San Jose, I am very much in favor of the Walgreens building in the All American's lot. This area is ba2ardous to anyone who drives by; my feeling is thai installation of the store will provide more directed paths for traffic, reduce the ridiculous amount of driveways into the lot. Many changes for the better, as it is now, I feel the area is a hazard." Com. Roberts clarified that the six curb cuts would be reduced to two only, one on Blaney and one on Bollinger. Ms. Mary Ann Overton, resident on Blaney Ave., said that cars leaving the shopping center cut across on Bollinger hold traffic up as the lanes are not set up for left tums. Mr. Eric Chung, 1085 So. Blaney Ave., said that the parking lot exits become very congested because of the number of spaces and two exits would not be adequate for the project. He questioned the proposed landscape plan for a particular area of the center; and commented on the noise fi.om the traffic as well as building alarms. Mr. Chung said that presently there are about 2 false alarms each week fi.om the Tin Tin Market. He said he did not feel the location was suitable for the proposed project. Chair Hams closed the public hearing. Mr. Cowan illustrated the location of the existing driveways in the center, and pointed out that there would be a left mm protected pocket on Bollinger Road. In response to Com. Roberts' question about what safeguards existed to enforce the hours of delivery, Mr. Cowan said that the city prohibits deliveries from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. He said that the success of the enforcement Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 22, 1997 neighborhoods; as well as a statement about snip commercial. He defined strip commercial center similar to Stevens Creek Boulevard where there is a continuous row of commercial enterprises along one street. He said that the site in question was not a strip commercial, but a neighborhood center. He said the issue was would the redevelopment of the center result in a neighborhood intrusion. The general plan anticipates that it will be a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the approval is for a building with a drive up facility, as it is possible that in five or ten year Walgreens may move and be replaced by another commercial establishment. Mr. Chong responded to Mr. Monk's disagreement of the 9% increase in traffic, stating that according to the traffic generation manual, as you increase the square footage of the leasable shopping center area, the trip generated rate is not the same; it declines. Accordingly with this particular case, there was an increase of about 14,000 square feet; the ~p generation rate dropped slightly; therefore the trips generated were not at the same as previously. He said that the potential increase for the drive-through window was not considered. In response to Chair Hams' question about the proposed landscape plan for the remainder of the center, particularly the interior of the center, Mr. Tevis said the landscape plan included the entire frontages on both Bollinger and Blaney. He said that there were no planters proposed for the Walgreens building, but that the landscape plan for the remainder of the center would be addressed with the application for the redevelopment of the existing buildings. Com. Roberts expressed concern about the 48 parking spaces behind the Tin Tin Market. He questioned how many employee parking spaces would be accounted for in the existing 45,000 sq. ff. development. Mr. Cowan said there was no ratio, except for restaurants. He said that the ratio of one space per every 200 sq. fl:. included employee parking, and that if a parking problem existed, the management could require all employees to park in the rear area. Mr. Tevis clarified that the current Cupertino ordinance is 4 spaces per 1,000; the parking area that is within the field of parking in from of the shopping center at Walgreens is parked at 3.5 per 1,000 and the employee parking which they intend to enforce, brings it to 4.5 per 1,000. He said he felt it was viable to enforce employee parking behind. He said it was not a deficient parking riel& even if there was not the parking behind. Mr. Tevis noted that there were rear doors fi'om the retail establishments to the parking lots for employees to use to get to the rear parking area. Relative to enforcement of delive~ hour regulations, Mr. Tevis said that to the extent possible, documentation could be in new agreements with tenants. He said it was his intention to work with the city to come up with reasonable conditions; however, discussion of the implementation of gates was difficult at the present time because the application presented was for the Walgreens operation and not the entire center. In response to Com. Maboney's question about outdoor displays, Mr. Tevis said that Walgreens do not have outdoor displays or garden areas. Chair Hams summarized the issues for comment, project; liquor sales; traffic; building colors; architecture; drive through (27); and landscaping. Com. Austin said that the overall project was appropriate and an improvement of the existing center. She said she felt the liquor license should be in line with the store hours of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Relative to traffic, she said both enmmces should be widened for ease of access; she questioned the safety of the left mm lanes; said she was opposed to the employees being required to park in the back of the Tin Tin Market, especially those working late at Walgreens. She said that Walgreens should have different parking area for employees; she suggested that the size of the Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 22, 1997 building be reduced; the height was appropriate. Com. Austin said that the signs and size of the clock wo~d be discussed when signs are presented for approval. She said that she was in favor of the clock. She said that the landscaping plan was appropriate, but she felt there should be some planter boxes included along Walgreens building. Com. Austin approved the use of two drive- through windows because of the convenience to customers. She said that the delivery hours should be strictly enforced, prohibiting delivery before 8 a.m. end after 8 p.m. Com. Doyle said he viewed the proposal from a different perspective. There were many past developments with residential elements close and no problems experienced. He said that the application has received a slxong reaction from the neighborhood. He said that he was in favor of redevelopment of the site, and reducing the curb cuts. He said that Walgreens was a suitable tenant, and that there would be local shopping options for the residents. Com. Doyle said that the new owners would have to prove to the neighborhood that there is a value to the shopping center, in the areas of noise abatement, traffic improvements, getting the message out about the curb changes, mining lanes, and drainage improvements. He said that the overall things that needs to happen is a reduction in invasiveness; current owners have the oppornmity to show that they do it differently than in the past and can make it an asset to the commanity rather than the community being strongly opposed to it. He said he was presently opposed to the project, and said he felt the residents and developer needed to meet and discuss the needs of the community so that they could better understand the total concept of the program and feel they had a voice in it. Com. Mahoney said that he was in favor of the project, and felt that the center needed to be revitalized and that Walgreens would help accomplish that, as long as the 24 hour operation was not in existence. He said he felt it should be a single drive-through window and more landsaping should be added around the building in the form of planters. Com. Mahoney said the curb cuts recommended were suitable; building height was suitable; liquor sate hours were appropriate. Com. Roberts said that relative to the overall project, if the understanding was that it was to be the appropriation of a portion of retail reserve to this site in order to faeilitiate rejuvenation of a shopping center, from an economic standpoint the project is a good idem He said that he concurred with Com. Doyle in the two opposing objectives, namely the economic benefit of the rejuvenation to the city and the economic benefit to the neighborhood of having a viable center, as opposed to the noise impacts, the inconvemences to the immediately surrounding neighborhood. He said that many objections fxom the residents related to the 24 hour operation and he felt the negative impact side was substantially mitigated. He said he understood the suspicions of the neighbors, because the existing center has not been managed in a way to protect them against he noise and ineonvemence. Com. Roberts said at this stage they should use whatever measures necessaty to make sure the owners are doing their unnost to protect the surrounding neighbors. He said he would like to see more give and take on that and would like to see the owners show what they can do to keep the noise impacts and off-hour deliveries under control. He said the liquor sales was apropos if the hours didn't go through the night. The lxaffic will be mitigated in part by the rationalization of the entrance and exits; he said he would like to see both exists on Bollinger widened. He added that if there was not room for a car to pass a n'uck in the driveway to the back where employees are expected to park, he would discount the 48 parking spaces. He said the colors and materials were appropriate; the clock colors the same color as the brown roof, make sure it is not illuminated and contains no garish colors. He said he felt the clock on the tower served a suitable function. Relative to the architectural details, Com. Roberts said that it appeared that there was more detail on the sides of the building facing the street, and staff could work with the applicant to ensure that the side facing the existing shops is interesting enough that it doesn't resemble a jail. He said he felt the drive-through was functional and that two were suitable because Planffmg Commission Minutes ~ ~ September 22, 1997 of potential backup. He reiterated that he was skeptical about the 48 parking spaces in the back of the Tin Tin Market and was not convinced that they contributed to the usable parking provided, and it may be beneficial to eliminate some in order to improve the traffic circulation of tracks coming out, and cars going in and vice versa. Landscaping was appropriate, and he concurred with the suggestion of a landscaped u'iangular area by the building. He said that neighborhood protection was not sufficiently ensured. Com. Roberts said he would vote a reluctant "no" bemuse he would like to make sure that all the measures that are in good faith and the applicant could take whatever measures are within reach now to improve, to lessen the impact on the neighbors of the existing shopping center and convince the neighbors that they are serious about that. Chair Hams said that she would like to see the project in the area; however, the residents do not want it, and there was not any work done with the neighborhood relative to getting their input. She said normally when an applicant is going to come in and make a major impact in a neighborhood, even if the applicant sees it as a vast improvement in terms of redevelopment, they do some work with the neighborhood. She said that it had been done in the past and when the project was presented to the Planning Commission, everyone felt they had input into the project, rather than saying don't do it at all, which is what occurred at this meeting. She said in terms of the project itself, she felt wider curb cuts on Blaney were needed; she would like to see a lower roof, one drive-up window only; and liquor sales are acceptable. She said that the building calls attention to itself, which is good for advertising; it is architecturally attractive, however, it is not soft and there is no tgeenery anywhere. She suggested planter boxes and lawn area which is extra expense but provides an attractive place for the community. Chair Hams said that she would vote "no" on the project because work had to be done with the community, although she was in favor of the project, if some of the items were changed. Mr. Cowan said that the application could be continued to allow the applicant to work with the neighbors, or a no vote would mean readvertising. He said that the Phmning Commission decision was an advisoi~ one as the application would go forward to the City Council because it exceeded 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Tevis said that he was willing to work with the neighbors and suggested meeting with the neighbors on the proposed site within the next week. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to continue Application 11-U-97 and 28-EA-97 to the October 22, 1997 planning Commission meeting Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 There was a brief discussion about the possibility of continuing Item 6, Application 10-U-97 and 27-EA-97 to a later meeting in order to devote ample time to the issue. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 10-U-97 and 27-EA-97 Chevron Service Station 10023 DeAnza Boulevard Use Permit to demolish an existing service station and build a new one, including modifications to the site plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 REQUESTED CONTINUANCE TO OCT. 13, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Commission Minutes ~2 September 22, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to continue Application 10-U-97 and 27-EA-97 to the October 13, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS Chair Harris moved the agenda to Item 4. Review of resolution wording for Planning Commission recommendations on 5-GPA-97, 7-GPA-97, 8-GPA-97, 9-GPA-97 and 10-GPA-97. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 6, 1997 Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, said that the general plan amendments and minutes orders had already been discussed by the Planning Commission, and recommendation made. She said that the resolutions were being presented only for clarification or in the event they did not reflect the action already taken. Com. Austin clarified that she had indicated that she was not in favor ora general plan amendment, but ifa specific plan came before her, she might consider it, but at that point was not in favor of a general plan ameadmem. Ms. Wordell said that was what staff wanted clarification on, was that if you are allowing heights or if you feel that there might be a project in the future that could take advantage of the interchange of commercial and office by not allowing a general plan amendment now, that application would not be able to be considered, unless the intent is that when they do come forward they would then entertain a general plan amendment for that site only. Chair Hah'is said that staff could convey to the Council that the planning Commission would look at a general plan amendment for a project that did not meet the spenifications. Com. Roberts said that the sense of tho action was that they did not want to recommend a general plan amendment but would be willing to consider projects that were of benefit to the city. Chair Harris referred to Exhibit A, Crossroads comer, where it shows it was previously 60 feet and no landmark; now it is 30 to 45 with a 60 foot; and said it was her impression that when the consultant's analysis was done, two of the comers were currently 30 to 45 and the other two were 60; and that this change was to make them all 30 to 45 except for a landmark. Mr. Cowan clarified that the two north comers and the southwest were 60 feet and the southeast is the park comer park. Referring to Item lA, Chair Harris requested clarification on the statement "maintain heights along Stevens Creek Blvd. consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan". She asked if something was being changed that would make the Stevens Creek Plan inconsistent with something else being changed. Mr. Cowan said they would research if there was a conflict and contact the Planning Commissioners individually. Discussion continued about Exhibit A2, wherein it was noted that a correction was necessary to the small dotted black and white block illustrated on the Stevens Creek Blvd. fmmage: it should be 30 to 45. Mr. Cowan said that the actual text referred to a 1.5:1 slope line from Stevens Creek Blvd. Chair Hams questioned if there would be a conflict between the lang-age; is it going to come up that there is a conflict between the Stevens Creek setback language and B? Mr. Cowan responded Planning Commission Minutes ~3 September 22, 1997 not the setback; and stated that there is a 1.5:1 slope line and would clarify if you have to start a minimum of 36 feet out from the curb. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to approve the resolution wording with amendments discussed. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Chair Hams declared a recess from 9:35 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. Com. Austin left the meeting and did not return. When the meeting reconvened, Chair Hams moved the agenda back to Item 3. .. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 10-EXC-97 and 22-EA-97 Philipe and Anne Dot Stevens Canyon Road/Balboa Hillside Exception to construct a new 4,547 sq. ft. residence on a 2.56 acre on a legal, sub-standard lot, prominent ridgeline, slopes greater than 30% and to exceed 2,500 cubic yards of grading, in conformance with Chapter 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 1997 Staff presentation: The video presentation began a review of the application to constmet a new 4,547 sq. ft. home on a 2-1/2 acre legal, yet substandard lot off Stevens Canyon Road. Due to technical difficulties, the video presentation did not continue. Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, reported that the Dom were seeking exception to locating a building on a prominent ridgeline, construct on a lot with slopes 30% or greater and exceed 2,500 cu. yards of grading. She reviewed that at the last meeting, staff's concerns were geology, visual impacts, the design of the home, public improvements to both Balboa Road and Stevens Canyon Road, and grading. She reported that the geology issues were resolved. Following staffs recommendation that the applicant explore alternative sites to construct the home, the applicant's geologist, Cleary and Assoc/ates as well as the city's geologic consultant, Cotton, Shries and Associates, determined that the proposed site was the safest place to consn'uct the home; therefore the visual impacts would have to be studied. Ms. Gil reviewed the visual impacts from the seven vantage points as noted in the attached staff report. Referring to the west and south elevations, Ms. Cfil discussed the grading revisions. The applicant has reduced the retaining wall to 4-1/2 feet, moved the driveway and the parking stmctore lower, closer to the pool, which has reduced the amount of grading seen on the plan. She said some changes were also made to Balboa Road. Ms. Gil refen~xt to the cross sections of the home which illustrated the changes made to the house mass; by roofline changes. She distributed the color charts and said that the applicant was seeking approval on any of the colors on the color chart, which met the refleetivity standards in the hillside ordinance. Staffrecommends approval of the application based upon the applicant following the direction of the Planning Commission to reduce the visible mass of the home. Ms. Gil pointed out that that although the home will be Planning Commission Minutes 14 September 22, 1997 visually obtrusive fi.om some sites, it is felt that the landscape screening will reduce the visibility in the futm'e. Staff is also requesting recommendation of the Negative Declaration. Chair Hams said that when the application was previously presented, there was a request to approve a lot line adjustment. She said she understood that the City Council ruled that it was not necessary or appropriate, and requested clarification from staff. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney stated that the lot line adjustment is ministerial; it is done by the civil engineer, then appealed to the City Council. It is not a planning issue unless the home is in violation of a zoning or a building code and than it would be forwarded to the Planning Director. She said that it is not part of the application or this project. Chair Harris asked if it was appealable to the City Council, and questioned how was one notified about it. Ms. Murray said that it was a process of appeal to the City Council; it is only the civil engineer's act that is appealed. Ms. Murray explained that it was not a change to the subdivision; a lot line adjustment; there is no additional lot being added here; the amount of square footage has been traded; only the property line has been changed; there is not really a change to the subdivision. It is not considered a change to the subdivision; it is one of the few exceptions to the subdivision map act; lot line adjustment and is spelled out in the statute and in Cupertino's Municipal Code. Chair Hams said the issue is when a subdivision is approved, they might consider things like the way they approve the subdivision allows for or excludes houses on the ridgeline, and in this case the two houses under the original lot line would not have been on the ridgeline, but by doing this lot line adjustment; both houses are going to end up on the ridgeline which is really a violation of the intent of the general plan. Therefore if there were some practices in place that allow people to establish subdivisions and then change the lot lines to get exactly the kind of placement of the house that they want, then that is in violation of the spirit of the general plan and it might be something that should be addressed by the planning Commission. Ms. Murray said that in the Subdivision Map Act, it is a specific exception; a lot line adjustment doesn't come before the planning Commission in Cupertino's Municipal Code. Corns. Roberts questioned site plan sheet C1, which shows the lot line adjustment; staling that it appeared the carport intrudes into what is presumably the setback zone; in other words that upper comer of the carport is shown very close to the revised, adjusted lot line. Mr. Cowan said that it might possibly be a flat area or parking area. Ms. Gil said that the lower portion does come very dose to paved parking. Com. Roberts questioned if 500 cubic yards of the grading were attributed to another property, and when that property finally came in with its application, would that applicant be aware that they had already used 500 cubic yards of their 2500 allocation? Ms. Gil said that there would have to be some logistics worked out as far as accounting for it, which was discussed at the previous meeting. She said the hillside ordinance does allow for sharing of that grading, since it would be a shared driveway. She said there was a potential for 5 new homes in that area, and they would all share the grading and further on up; 4 or 5 other homes will share other grading; and staff would have to develop a method for accounting for it. Mr. Cowan said that it would be accounted for as part of public record for this development. He said a note could be made a part of the file that one could go back and look at each one and do the cumulative impact. In response to Com. Roberts' earlier question about side yard setbacks, Mr. Cowan said that for side yard, for a one story it was 10 feet, and side yard for a second floor is 15 feet. Com. Roberts pointed out that CI and LI seem inconsistent, and they needed a set of consistent plans to approve, because otherwise there could be some question about what was approved. Planning Commission Minutes ~5 September 22, 1997 Ms. Anne Der, applicant, 7580 Erin Way, said that she and the landscape architects would be the presenters. She said that the geological issue was covered by staff in terms of the Cotton report. She referred to the 'before' and 'after' plans to illustrate the changes made since the last meeting; the overall height and mass of the home has been reduced due to the reduction of square footage on the third level and the new roof treannem. Referring to the photos of the vantage points, Ms. Der reviewed the visual impacts from the various vantage points, using a photo montage showing the view with no home on the hill, and a view with the home situated on the site. She said there would be no removal of trees for the construction. Ms. Der said that a color chart was distributed representing the house colors. She said that research indicated that the colors were well below a high impact visual white or bright color choice as seen fi.om the color selection. She said that the colors have not been decided on yet and they are requesting a palette of colors be approved. She provided roof shingle samples; and noted that because of their concern for fire haTavd in the area, the exterior material was changed to stucco. She said that relative to grading, the parking was moved to comply with city codes to have additional parking away fi.om the fire turnaround at the top. Ms. Der pointed out the location of the I0,000 gallon water tank for additional fire protection, and noted that it was located below grade and would not be visually intrusive. She said that a major change and benefit to the plan was the reduction in size of the wails, the maximum now being 4-1/2 feet, mostly in the 3 foot range, easily hidden with shrubs and bushes and not visually intrusive from the street. Referring to the site plan, Ms. Der explained the difference between C1 and L1 is that the landscaping plan was on the picture submitted in May and the landscaping has not changed since then. She said that C1 was the accurate picture. Relative to the setback from the carport, Ms. Der said it was her understanding that carport and driveway space did not count as house. Ms. Gil clarified that the setback requirement was not excluded. Mr. Cowan said that the carport was considered part of the home because it was attached. Ms. Der said that the intention was tO meet the setback requirements and indicated that there was enongh square footage to modif~ the smacture. She said that she was willing tO make the lot line adjustments to meet the regulations. Mr. Paul Reed, Reed Assoc., landscape architects, discussed the variety of trees used on the property and answered questions about the sizes to be planted. He said the variety of trees was chosen because of fire resistance, deer resistance, and low water usage. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. John Michel, 22540 Ricardo Road, said he was representing 4 residents on Ricardo Road. He said that he was opposed to developing on the hillside of the ridge as it was g~enter than 30% slope, and there would be more lots developed on the ridgeline above that when the Balboa Road gets developed. He said it was not in the spirit of the hillside ordinance; is it progress, and can be built; but should it be built? He expressed concern about the considerable grading to be done on the hillside even though the Dom have made an effort to minimize the amount of grading; however, they also located the house on the ddgeline for the purpose of being the most stable position for the house. He questioned if the hillside would be destabilized by the amount of grading to be done and the removal of the shrubs in order to accomplish the construction. Mr. Michel expressed concem about a substantial amount of water coming down the hill that floods properties below, or if there are mudslides resulting from the destabilization covering Stevens Canyon. piling down onto Rieardo Road and Miramonte, who will be responsible for it - the Dots, the Planning Commission who approved the application, or the engineering group? He said tht he did not have flood insurance and felt he didn't need it. Mr. Michel complimented the Dors planning Commission Minutes 16 September 22, 1997 for their proactive efforts in talking with the neighbors for their input. He said he felt a hill of such character and beauty should be left alone. Mr. Cris Wendt, Ricardo Road, said that he represented the other half of the Ricardo Road residents and they were the most visually impacted by the consaucfion of the home. He said they were also concerned about drainage. He said that they believed in the spirit and implementation of the hillside zoning, and in general were opposed to building on steep hillsides as well as prominent ridgelines. The Dor's proposed home is on a prominent ridgeline and on a steep hillside. He said they felt it was important to the look and feel of Cupertino as open space was important. He said good examples of hillside homes were in the area of Stevens Creek Park where there are no houses, and a bad example was the Rom-de Lott home, which should not be emulated. He echoed Mr. Ivlichel's comments about the excellent job the Dors had done relative to contacting the neighbors for their input and making adjustments based on input received. He said that assuming the project moves forward, they are pleased with the input they have had in the process. In conclusion, Mr. Wendt said that the real concern is for the ridgeline and the lots above the Dors' which are much more visible to the valley. Mr. William Peters, P. O. Box 956, Soquel, said that he represented residents from the lots above the Dom He said the residents were pleased with the placement of the house, and the fact that it had been dug in and minimized the roofline impact fi:om above. He said that they support the location and feel it is consistent with the hillside zoning and asked the Planning Commission to support the project. Mr. Peters referred to the map and illustrated the location of the additional lots above the Dom. He said they were part of the Inspiration Heights and were subdivided in the early 1900s and not built out because they were either substandard at the time or there was no collective effort to build Balboa Road, and so nothing could develop until Balboa itself was put in. In response to Chair Harris' question about developing substandard lots, Mr. Cowan explained that there were several lots in that area that got merged into the lots shown and they were substandard now as they were then and can be developed if they go through the exception process. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. Chair Hams said that in order to approve the application, the Planning Commission must make the findings listed on Pages 4 and 5, and resolution findings 1 through 13. She noted a letter fi-om Deputy City Attorney stating that previously the Planning Commissioners talked about making findings that they could not support, and she asked the commissioners to read those and make each and every finding. Com. Roberts requested more information relative to the drainage. Mr. Morrey Nelson, civil engineer, said that relative to the drainage from the site, the water will be collected along the road, the road will have a cross slope into a curb and gutter that will travel down to a valley gutter to the northern side of Balboa Road to the bottom where there is drainage. He said where the road intersects Stevens Canyon Road, there will be improvements both in the widening and to the drainage improvements that will collect the water potentially in a pipe or another curb and gutter that will keep the water from jumping across to Stevens Canyon Road; there will be energy dissipaters in this location; the water will then move on down Stevens Canyon Road to either a storm drain that is down here at the intersection of San Juan Road or the storm drain will be extended up Stevens Canyon Road so that evewthing will be in pipe. Planning comrmssion Minutes 17 September 22, 1997 Com. Roberts recalled thru a few years ago a similar situation occurred on Upland Way which had a negative outcome, and asked for comparison of the situation. Mr. Nelson explained that the Upland Way project began grading this time of year, they called for erosion control, drainage ditches, diversion ditches to be installed; unfommately they were not installed; the water came down the driveway on that particular project and created a major gully along the center line of the driveway which caused the slope to become unstable and there was a slide. He said they did not anticipate that situation occumng here: as grading will not begin until after the rainy season at which time all the storm drain meesures just discussed will be in place before the next rainy season. Ms. Dot said that in order to do the geology effort earlier in the spring, there was clearing done because of the heavy poison oak evasive in the area and there was superficial bulldozing to allow the tractor in to do the geology work. Com Roberts asked if there could be assurances that this would not happen at the Dor location, if there would be a substantial portion of this hillside dumped on Stevens Canyon Road should rains be heavy. He said there was a lot of bare earth and it was cut into the hillside, and questioned if there were any precautions taken against substantial erosion and deposition on Stevens Canyon Road. Mr. Nelson reiterated that since the Upland Road occurrence there have been two rainy seasons and no instability of the site. He said there would be erosion control measures put along the areas that have been opened up consisting of silt fences. Mr. Nelson said that he felt it was not fair to compare the occurrence on Upland Way, because on Upland Way there had been a substantial amount of grading done and it has not occurred at the Dots; only clearing away some poison oak so that workers could have access to do the geologic studies. Com. Roberts said he wanted assurance that it would not occur again because much of that was done without proper approval. Ms. Dot said that they had worked closely with Public Works on the poison oak situation, going in and clearing it by hand first, and then with a bulldozer in the non-rainy season. The bulldozer did not grade, and only moved the top 2 or 3 inches to cut off the poison oak. Mr. Cowan said that Public Works, Planning, and Building has a work schedule for all hillside projects currently under construction and if there is any need for soil erosion control, hydro seeding, etc. he will add the area in question to the list for them to review. Com Doyle said that he supported the project and said that some of the pluses were that it was 19 feet above the slope line, low profile and significantly reduced the visible mass, not only of the house but also of the road. He said from all the vantage points this does not visibly break the plane of the fidgeline. He said he didn't want to set a precedent for this area that the ridgeline construction is fine; but that ways to mitigate it were needed; take it down and remove it, so that some people have reasonable use of their other assets of their property. Com. Doyle said that the changes made were very significant and within the intent of the ordinance and the goals of the Planning Commission. Com. Mahoney said he concurred with Com. Doyle. Mr. Cowan said that some adjusnnents would be made for the setbacks; the condition would say that you have to comply with setback requirements, as Conditions lA and lB. Condition lB would be that the project must comply with the RHS setback requirements. Com. Roberts said that it appeared the design was modified in a manner that it was sensitive to the spirit of the hillside ordinance, even if the stipulations of the hillside ordinance are not fulfilled. He said he was skeptical about where Balboa Road will lead in terms of the further development; and he did not accept the logic behind the tradeoff on the grading requirements and see it as Planning Commission Minutes 18 September 22, 1997 legitimate to take a portion of the grading requirement for this project and pass it onto another project which is also likely to be in excess. He said he was not convinced that the surface drainage scheme would work and although no one can say despite the best efforts of engineers and geologists, he did not see any more assurance in this plan than the case presented on Upland Way and there is a substantial risk that the d~ainage and erosion control will not work sat~sfactotily; and in this case if there is the quantity of mud deposited on Stevens Canyon Road that was deposited on Upland Way and it takes as long to clear it out, it is a real safety hazard for the people living in the hills. He emphasized that Stevens Canyon Road is not Upland Way and they have to take more care of it. Com. Roberts said that it was not just the development they were looking at, but it was the first step and it is a cumulative effect which he felt has not been properly evaluated in the report to the Planning Commission. He said they do not know where further development is going, how much grading will be done, what kind of slope stability problems will be encountered further up and he was not ready to support it even though he did like the architecture. He pointed out that in that regard, the Dors had done an exemplary job but there are some larger issues as stake here. He said he would feel better about this proposal if it were not on a substandard lot, if this lot were somehow merged with the lot above such that we had a lot in conformance with the hillside ordinance, because taking this first step further facilitates the development higher up the hill and we are going to encounter other substandard lots, other difficult conditions and we have to be more careful as we take the first step. Com. Roberts said for that reason he opposed the project despite the very sensitive treatment of the architectural design and he objected to proposals which contain inconsistent graphics and supporting documents; and felt they should not give it a blank check on the way the lot line will be adjusted because they have no control over that. He said that he could not agree with finding 1 that the proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area or be detrimental to public health and safety. If Stevens Canyon Road is compromised, then the access and egress of lots of residents in the hills is compromised as well, and it is a substantial risk to the public health and safety. He also questioned the need for a swim pool as part of the reasonable use of the hillside property. Chair Hanis said that she could not make finding 8B which states that "the proposed development does not consist of structures which would disrupt the natural silhouette or ridgelines as hewed from established vantage points unless either location is necessary to avoid greater environmental impact or in this case the size of the structure is the minimum which is necessary to allow for reasonable use." She said that the allowable size for the parcel was 4,550 sq. ff. and the proposed house is 4,540 sq. fi. which is not the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use. She said that it is on a ridgeline and there is a commilment in thc community to minimize houses on the ridgelines. She said that every parcel supposedly can be developed, but it doesn't have to be developed if it is on a ridgelilne and the absolutely largest size allowed. She commended the Dom for the excellent job in working with the project, but she said she felt the house was too large and it will be on a ddgeline and it is not what the community wants to see. She said the house would have to be smaller to be approved. Chair Hams ~xpressed concern about the visibility of the swim pool. Mr. Peters said that he studied the findings carefully and it was his understanding that No. 8, if you meet the test of No. 8 itself, 8B does not apply. He said he felt in this particular case they do meet the test of No. 8 itself; it is only is you are not silhouetted that you get into 8B and the home is not silhouetted. Chair Hams said that she was not able to find under findings 4 and 9. Planning Commission Minutes ~9 September 22, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 10-EXC-97 per the model resolution and findings thereof, with the addition of changing section 3 conditions to lA approved exhibits as stated in lB; project must comply with RHS setback requirements Com. Doyle Com. Roberts and Chair Harris Com. Austin Failed 2-2-0 Chair Hams questioned how the language of 8 could be changed to: "relevant vantage points." Mr. Cowan said that we would go back and amend the RHS ordinance; but indicated he was uncertain if it was referenced in the general plan. He said staff would go back and reference the official documents. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Chair Hams reported that all Planning Commissioners visited the Dots proposed site to look at the story poles and see their proposal. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:27 p.m. to the regular Planing Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on October 13, 1997. Respectfiflly Submitted, Recording Secretary '~ O L~u Id Approved as presented: October 13, 1997