Loading...
PC 11-24-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 To~e Avenue Cupe~ino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 24, 1997 SALUTE TO TI-IE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Roberts, Chairperson Harris Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the November 10 regular meeting: Chair Harris noted the following corrections to the November 10 minutes: Page 6, third paragraph, second last line: "contained" should read "container" Page 7, the motion to approve Application 11-U-97 should reflect that the hours of operation for the service station and convenience store were as set forth in the model resolution and were 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Discussion of the operation hours indicated that three Commissioners were in favor of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. operating hours; one Commissioner preferred 10 p.m. closing time; and one Commissioner was absent. Chair Harris noted that a recent newspaper article erroneously stated that the hours of operation were 7 a.m. to l0 p.m. The wording of the motion was amended to reflect the inclusion of the hours as voted on: "Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application II-U- 97 with changes discussed on Conditions 5, 7, 8, lOa, plus reduction of drive-throughs to one; putting in 8flowerpots; adding landscaping to triangular area; hours of operation to be 7 a.m. to ll p. m." Page 12, last paragraph, lines l and 2, "Mom and Pop Make the Big Bucks" should read "Mom and pop vs. the big box." MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the November 10 Planning Commission minutes as amended. Com. Doyle Chair Roberts Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 24, 1997 ORAL COMMIYNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Chair Harris requested that Application No. 8-U-74 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Application No. Applicant: Location: 8-U-74 (Mod.) Cathay Bank 10480 S. DeAnza Blvd. Use Permit Modification of landscaping at an existing bank to remove and replace trees. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED ~: Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, noted that reference in the staff report to the 5 inch diameter of the 24 inch box trees should be circumference, and said that the trees that are being removed are 11 inches in diameter. She said that a condition needed to be added stating that the trees will be replaced with the 36 inch box trees, and that Condition No. 2, last line should read: "replaced within 60 days of removal with 36 inch box trees." Ms. Gil referred to the drawing of the tree replacement and illustrated where the various species would be planted, and answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. George Lewis, Jr., A.F.F.I.R.M. Corporation, explained that the red leaf plum was being replaced because of the damage caused to the curb and pavement in front of the tree. Following a brief discussion regarding deciduous and evergreen species, Chair Harris summarized that the issues were: (1) Should the tree removal be permitted; and (2) What the replacement would be. Com. Roberts said he would like to explore the possibility of a root trim and installation of a root containment ring. Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Roberts, and stated that 36 inch trees would appear minimal compared to what existed. If impractical and replacement was necessary, Com. Mahoney said that he preferred replacement with evergreen trees. Com. Doyle concurred with Corns. Mahoney and Roberts relative to the possibility of root trim and containment, however, if not possible, would prefer replacement with evergreen trees. Com. Austin said she was not in favor of removing the trees, and suggested enlarging the openings so that less of the root system would have to be cut away. She said that there were creative ways to save the trees other than cutting the root system. Chair Harris said that she concurred with the other commissioners that the root trim was a typical arrangement to save grown trees and arborists are familiar with the process; if that is not possible, she preferred replacement with evergreen trees. She said the fact that they drop pods and are dirty, is unpleasant, but noted that liquid amber drips sap, but is beautiful.. Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, said that the two courses of action possible were to continue the item to allow more analysis to contain the trees, or deny the amendment. Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 24, 1997 Mr. Lewis said that he would prefer a continuance to discuss the issue of root repair with the property owner. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 8-U-74 to the December 8, 1997 Planning Commission meeting Com. Roberts Passed 5-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Location: 12-EXE-97 Q-Lube 19480 Stevens Creek Blvd. Sign Exception to allow 2 wall signs and to exceed the allowed wall sign height on an approved commercial building in accordance with Chapter 17.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNiNG COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for sign exception for two ~vall signs at the Q-Lube location, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff does not recommend approval of an additional wall sign and believes that one ground sign and one wall sign are sufficient to be seen from all directions of traffic. Staff does support the applicant's request to increase the wall sign height for the letter Q. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered final and will not be forwarded to the City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan and illustrated the location of the ground and wall signs. She said that staff was recommending one wall sign and one ground sign. She distributed colored renderings of the signs. A briefdiscussion ensued regarding the sign sizes. Mr. Stephen Coulthard, Amcoe Sign, explained the ratio on the large sign, noting that the 30" to 12" letter is the ratio Q-Lube uses. He said that if the letter Q is increased to 36", the Lube lettering is 15". He pointed out that it should read 36" not 38" on the drawing. Mr. Coulthard said he was willing to accept the one wall sign and felt the one facing toward Stevens Creek would serve the best purpose. He clarified that the request was for the 36" Q and the 15" Lube on one sign; and 30" and 12". Chair Harris opened the meeting for the public comment. There was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Harris summarized that the applicant was requesting two signs, one on Stevens Creek, and the monument sign; the issue being the size of the exception for the Q on the wall sign. Com. Austin said she preferred the 30"/12" size lettering, one wall and one ground sign. Com. Doyle said he felt one wall sign and one ground sign was appropriate, with a maximum height of Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 24, 1997 24" on the Q letter, with proportional ratio on the Lube lettering, because he felt Q was an emblem vs. a sign by itself. Later in the discussion, Com. Doyle amended the recommended lettering size to 30"/12". Com. Mahoney said that he concurred with staff recommendation of 36"/15" size, one wall sign and one ground sign. Com. Roberts concurred with staff recommendation also. Chair Harris said that she was in favor of 30"/12" size sign. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 12-EXC-97 with the 30"/12" lettering, one wall sign and one ground sign, according to the model resolution Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 13-EXC-97 Cupertino Village Assoc. 10945 N. Wolfe Road Sign Exception to allow 2 walls signs in accordance with Chapter 17.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for sign exception to allow an additional wall sign on the east facade of the existing bank, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends denial of the application for the second wall sign as Cupertino's Municipal Code allows one wall sign and one ground sign for a business. Staff recommends approval of two wall signs only if the applicant agrees to remove the existing ground sign. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered final, unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Wordell referred to the site plan and reviewed the location of the existing signs and the proposed signs. She noted that the distance between the proposed new wall sign and the curb was 65 feet. Ms. Wordell explained that staff felt the ground sign did not associate the particular bank tenant with the sign and that the two wall signs were sufficient to achieve the proper identification. She passed around the color board which illustrated the bank building colors. Mr. George Laine, Better Image Sign Co., Castro Valley, pointed out that from the Wolfe Road entrance there was no bank identification sign. He distributed photos which illustrated the bank building location, and requested the allowance for the ground sign in addition to two wall signs because of the building's corner-like location. He reiterated that the ground sign was needed for identification purposes, particularly because of the setback from the roadway. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to address the application. Ms. Wordell clarified that the ordinance specified that one wall sign was permitted; with an additional wall sign if there was not a ground sign and the business is adjacent to more than one street; or the sign is directed to the interior of the project and not visible from the public right-of- way. P~anning Commission Minutes 5 November 24, 1997 Com. Doyle said that he was opposed to the exception because the applicant already met the sign ordinance maximum. He noted other exceptions on the site and said he was not supportive of another exception. Com. Mahoney said that he was in favor of signs on both walls, with no ground sign. A brief discussion ensued regarding the occupancy of the building, and whether or not the bank occupied the entire building. Mr. Laine said that he was not opposed to continuing the item to ascertain if the bank was the sole occupant of the building. Com. Austin said that she concurred with staff's recommendation, and that she was in favor of two wall signs and no ground sign. Com. Roberts concurred, and stated he would prefer to see the ground sign removed, and two wall signs remain. He said he felt the ground sign posed a safety hazard. Chair Harris said that she was in favor of the exception because of the distances; and she felt that banks should have monument signs as well as wall signs. However, she said she was opposed to a strip of monument signs. Com. Mahoney said that if it was a single monument sign, he would grant the exception for the monument sign. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the exception to Application 13-EXC-97 if elevation B has only one tenant; if there is more than one tenant space on elevation B, the exception is denied Com. Mahoney Coms. Doyle, Roberts Passed 3-2-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 14-EXC-97 Cupertino City Center Buildings 20400 & 20450 Stevens Creek Blvd. Sign Exception to allow two wall signs and to exceed letter height in accordance with Title 17 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for sign exception to allow two 8 foot high signs atop each of the City Center twin towem, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the sign exception, and that the signs not exceed 8 feet in height and made from materials to complement the buildings. The Planning Commission's decision is considered final, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Cowan referred to the illustration of the buildings and noted the location of the proposed signs atop the buildings. He explained that the building owner has requested that a generic sign program be approved and a more precise request would be presented to the Planning Commission when the tenancy of the buildings has been finalized. The sign exception is being requested because of the 300 foot setback from Stevens Creek Boulevard and 280 foot setback from DeAnza Boulevard. Mr. Dennis Randall, Maxim Property Management, said that the generic application was being submitted so that they could assure some of the tenants that they could locate a corporate logo atop the building. We said they did not wish to cimumvent the formal sign approval process, but the Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 24, 1997 companies they are negotiating with need assurance before they will sign the lease that they can have a sign atop the building. He said that the application is merely to indicate where the sign would be located. He said that a comprehensive sign program would be resubmitted when the tenancy is finalized. Mr. Randall said that there is one tenant for one building entirely and four to five tenants for the other; with one anchor tenant for the multi-tenant building. He said the same color palette would be used for both signs. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Mahoney said that he was in favor of an approval indicating the Planning Commission has bought into the concept, but not committed, to allow the applicant to move forward to the next step and return with more details. Chair Harris questioned staff if there was a way to provide general consensus that a logo might be approved, but not define the exception as written, with 8 feet and no specific letters or colors. Chair Harris said she objected to three unspecified letters and preferred to know what they were before they were approved. She said she would rather approve 6-1/2 feet. Mr. Randall commented that a building top logo or corporate identity would be acceptable, and that it would be subject to final review and approval under the standard sign approval process. Mr. Cowan said that in such a program, there are some outside parameters; and said that if the 8 feet was too vague, it could be compressed. He said that as an example the ordinance specifies 40 square feet as being the maximum size. Com. Austin said she was willing to approve the application subject to review. Com. Doyle said he felt they should define the acceptable envelope. Com. Mahoney said that he concurred with staff's recommendation subject to a final review to define the colors, lighting, and final size. Discussion continued wherein Mr. Cowan explained the options available to allow the applicant to proceed. He suggested a minute order approving two corporate logos atop the buildings; continuing the item at which time the applicant would return with the finalized program. Mr. Randall said that the applicant would prefer some type of resolution approving the building signs subject to further review; however, he said that it would be two to three months before they could put together a sign acceptable to ownership. He pointed out that they were merely trying to fast track the sign concept and would be diligent in submitting a final sign program when finalized with the tenants. Com. Roberts said that he was opposed to the sign concept, and noted that the buildings already stuck out like two sore thumbs and he would rather not attract further attention to them. Com. Doyle said he was supportive of putting the Iogos there, but restricted in size. Chair Harris said it was difficult for her to approve the concept this way. She said she was willing to approve the logos which were relatively tasteful. Mr. Cowan reiterated that there were two approaches; to adopt a minute order that doesn't have any real rome and continue the application for two months or to approve it with some modifications. Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 24, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve a Minute Order in favor conceptually of logos larger than the normal size in the panel specified on each building to display the image of the primary tenant, subject to final sign approval Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 4-1-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 14-EXC-97 to the February 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: 22-EA-97 Philippe and Anne Dor Stevens Canyon Road/Balboa Discretionary action request of a negative declaration for a hillside exception to construct a new 4,547 sq. ft. residence on a 2.56 acre 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 Summa~_: Chair Harris reviewed the history of the application. She explained that at prior Planning Commission meetings, the Environmental Impact was not approved, the 2:2 vote caused the application to be denied. Applicant appealed to the City Council where the City Council approved the 4,574 square foot residence. The Environmental Impact is being presented to the Planning Commission for determination. The applicant did not address the Planning Commission. Chair Harris opened the public hearing. As there was no one present who wished to speak, Chair Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 22-EA-97 Com. Austin Com. Roberts and Chair Harris Passed 3 -2-0 Chair Harris commented that she felt them was significant environmental impact and that not sufficient viewpoint from the city was addressed. Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 24, 1997 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 10-U-97 and 27-EA-97 Chevron Service Station 10023 DeAnza Blvd. Use Permit to demolish an existing service station and build a new one, including modifications of the site plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 1997 Staff presentation: Ms. Gil reviewed previous Planning Commission discussions relative to the application. She explained that at previous meetings, the majority decided that the design and site plan was not ora landmark design and requested that the applicant address the proposed gas station at the northeast comer of DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevards as well as review other significant Chevron buildings constructed in the past. The applicant has reviewed site plans for other Chevron buildings constructed and met with commissioners and submitted a revised proposal. Ms. Gil reviewed the proposed changes as outlined in the attached staff mport, which include terra cotta tile to replace the brick; concrete slate roof; a proposed grate above the foodmart sign; redesign of building; and additional landscaping, She noted that the Planning Commission still had to address the 24 hour operation of the foodmart. Staff recommends approval of the 24 hour operation of both the service station and foodmart, and approval of the Chevron design. Mr. Kevin Coruell, Chevron Products, referred to the preliminary landscape plan and reviewed the changes which included addition of a double row of trees on Stevens Creek and the hedge along the back of the second 10 foot planter to provide visual screening. He noted that because of underground vaults, the sidewalk would have to remain as is without removing the major vaults. He also explained that the seating area suggested to tie in the other retail areas was not feasible because the other needs could not be accommodated without giving up parking space, and there were only 6 parking spaces remaining. He illustrated the location of added trellis structures and distributed revised colored drawings and samples of the siding and roofing material. Mr. Cornell reviewed the building elevation changes and answered commissioners' questions. He referred to the front and side elevations, and illustrated the reduced canopy. He noted that the building height was now 21' 10" and by reducing the pitch on the roof portion, it was reduced to 20'. He discussed the building materials and colors used. In response to Chair Harris' questions about signs on the building, Mr. Coruell said that there is a small portion on the front of the building used for promotional specials. Ms. Gil said that the sign program allows some signs in the windows. He said that he was willing to include opaque glass as suggested by staff. Mr. Cowan said that the use of spandrel glass would be inappropriate as it is not a high volume ceiling. Relative to the canopy, Com. Roberts questioned if the roof was an essential element of the canopy. Mr. Cornell stated that it was included for aesthetic masons, and from the input from the Planning Commissioners, there was consensus that the architectural tie in of the roof material with the building was desired. Com. Roberts said that his preference for the location was to eliminate the canopy because he felt from the perspective of the soon-to-be four seasons park across the street, the roof would obscure the view of the hills to be seen from the four seasons park. He said Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 24, 1997 the roof was included as part of the consultant's recommendation, but he was not opposed to the alternative of not including the roof. Mr. Cowan distributed photos of the existing service station as viewed from the corner grassy area. Chair Harris addressed the issue of the 24 hour operation of the service station and foodmart. She noted that previously there was consensus on the 24 hour operation of the service station; and read the previous minutes for decision about the hours of operation for the foodmart. Com. Mahoney xvas in favor of 24 hour operation of the foodmart; Com. Austin was in favor of 11 p.m. or midnight closing; Chair Harris favored midnight closing; and Com. Doyle said it was dependent on the execution of the building; Com. Roberts was absent. Staffstill recommends 24 hour operation of both the service station and convenience store. Discussion ensued regarding the canopy height. Mr. Cornell said that the bottom of the existing canopy is at 13-1/2 feet. Mr. Doyle Warnock, Chevron Products, clarified that the bottom of the canopy is 13-1/2 feet, but the DOE requires 14-1/2 feet. In response to Com. Doyle's question about the design of the building, Mr. Cornell said that the design of the inside of the building had not changed. In response to Chair Harris' question about consideration of windows on the 36 foot wall facing Starbucks, Mr. Cornell said that the only feasible consideration would be a faux window or display case. He said that the merchandising department felt there was no benefit to displaying things on that side, but if aesthetically it was important from the Planning Commission's standpoint, they were not opposed to including it. Mr. Cornell reiterated the request for the 24 hour operation of the foodmart. He said the convenience stores were only in conjunction with their service stations and Chevron would like to offer their customers the convenience of making purchases while purchasing gasoline. He said there is a competitor located at Stelling and Stevens Creek offering a service station and convenience store 24 hours. He said that he felt the Chevron location was appropriate for the 24 hour operation as there were not residential issues at the site. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris summarized the issues: (1) The project (2) Color of parapet; (3) Height of canopy: as is with pitched roof or remove pitched roof; (4) Hours of operation of service station; (5) Hours of operation of the convenience mart. Com. Roberts said that he supported the application and the project, and commended the architect and applicant for the design. He said he felt the parapet would blend in better if it was the same color as the building. He reiterated that he would prefer to eliminate the roof on the canopy design because it was important on that particular site not to obscure the view of the hills to the minimal possible extent. He said he preferred the clock to the grate, but it should not hinder the project. He said he supported the 24 hour operation for both the service station and market, and felt it would have a minimal impact on residential and would provide a needed service to the community. Com. Mahoney said that he was in favor of the overall project; was in favor of a darker parapet color; grill work was appropriate; he preferred the roof on the canopy and felt it would have a Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 24, 1997 minor impact on the view from the park and enhanced the overall project. He said he was in favor of the 24 hour operation as it was an ideal location. Com. Austin said that she concurred with Com. Mahoney. Com. Doyle said he felt progress was made as his previous concerns were reduced. He said he was in favor of the gas station; the dark color of the parapet was appropriate; the higher canopy height provided more relief. He said he was opposed to the project because it is a long term occupant of the intersection, the property across DeAnza will redevelop into a park; the property across the intersection will likely be an office complex or retailer; and the crossroads will redevelop at some time. He said that he felt that the proposal offered a well executed Chevron station which did not offer anything more to the site than an upgraded service station. He said he felt it did not pull together the remainder of the site, nor pull together any themes and had no shopping center context. He said he felt it still was not a significant building at the intersection, but only a replication of what exists today in a better fashion. He said he felt it was a missed opportunity and was opposed to only repackaging the Chevron station and not trying to turn it into something that is a significant change for the intersection, in which them was a lot of time and effort expended over a period of time. He said that 24 hour gas station operation was appropriate, but he was opposed to the 24 hour operation of the convenience store. Overall, he opposed the project. Chair Harris said that there was a 10 year lease on the service station and she felt that the fact that Chevron was willing to invest this money to upgrade it and modernize it, get rid of the visible service bays and put in the attractive mini mart was a good thing; and was an improvement over what is there now. She said the applicants have worked very hard to take the Planning Commissioners' random thoughts and turn it into something attractive, and she supported the project. She said she preferred the darker color on the parapet; the roof structure was much mom of a quality item when it has a pitched roof; it will match the building; and she preferred the canopy as proposed at 20 feet; the grill is appropriate; the 24 hour station is appropriate; but she was still opposed to 24 hour operation for the mini mart and was in favor of midnight closure. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 27-EA~97 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to approve Application 10-U-97 in accordance with the model resolution, with the additional stipulations that the parapet color be changed to Havana Cream; and to include the 24 hour operation of the convenience mart and service station. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 Chair Harris declared a recess from 9:00 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: None Planning Commission Minutes Il November 24, 1997 NEW BUSINESS Request to initiate a public hearing to consider a change in the zoning code regarding the application of the Architectural and Site Approval process for various zoning districts. Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan explained that when the City recodified the zoning code, the reference to the architectural site control process for some of the zones was not included. The Planning Commission is requested to initiate a public hearing to re-introduce the concept into the code again. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to authorize the setting of a public hearing Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 8. Preliminary 1998 Work Plan. Ms. Wordell stated that a prioritized list of projects was handed out for ease of reference. The revised schedule shows the projects in high, medium and low priorities. Referring to the 1998 projects, Ms. Wordell pointed out the staff oriented projects: Revise Development Intensity Manual; Mr. Cowan said that it was a staff prepared document that the Planning Commission would approve. It is rule setting for how the General Plan policies get implemented; GIS which is a computer data base which digitizes the city parcels and informmion on each parcel can be entered on zoning and land use and discretionary approval. Ms. Wordell said that a fair commitment of time and money has been made on the project and staff would like to continue to do it in the coming year. There was a brief discussion relative to schedule of discussions regarding flag or cul-de-sac lots. Chair Harris said that it included the Stelling Road side orientation and how to deal with fences that no one took care of the landscaping on the other side of it and caused a blight. It also included the issue that the cul de sacs were getting larger, from 36 feet to 41 because of the fire requirements. Mr. Cowan said that the road width would be done because there is a uniform fire code, and that it may be beneficial to have a policy on those streets that have to be wide, and parking is on one side. Ms. Wordell indicated that the asterisked items were already committed to through the 1997 work plan or authorized by the City Council. Com. Doyle said it was helpful when addressing multiple programs and work projects, to consider what the goals and mission are of the Planning Commission. He said that as representatives of the public they debate the validity of projects based on what is perceived as the community's feelings of such an activity or event; therefore the activities on the project list used to implement the needs of the community should be fairly high priority. Chair Harris expressed concern that Cupertino did not have enough for sale housing in the $400,000 range and suggested addressing the issue as part of the planning, to set the densities to provide for sale housing in that price range. Mr. Cowan said that he had the distinct impression from the Council and Commission that density is going to be lower. He said that it could be discussed at the next meeting when the General Plan issue is addressed. Planning Commission Minutes 12 November 24, 1997 Chair Harris proposed that they address all the densities, including the gross vs. net densities issues. She said it should be included in any discussion about density because that is what is allowing one lot to get subdivided into four. She said she did not subscribe to the idea that if changed from gross to net, all the densities in town would need to be redone. She said she felt they should leave the densities as is and start to use the net which will result in lower density, which is something that has to be in part and parcel of the whole discussion of how the town would be developed and all the redevelopment that will be done. Com. Doyle said that setbacks from the street and FAR were also discussed. Chair Harris said that height and setback ratios for the whole town should be' addressed, and to make certain the new ordinance covers them. Because Cupertino is in a redevelopment mode, especially if communities are annexed, and there needs to be rules governing how that is done to please the community. A discussion ensued regarding retail, and the future of Vallco Shopping Center. Chair Harris said that just putting an anchor tenant in the center will not help. Mr. Cowan said that the owner of the regional center will approach the Planning Commission and City Council with their redevelopment plans and Cupertino does not have a redevelopment agency. He said that there has been an economic development team to interview people and discuss the Vallco issue, but the city can only help the center owner proceed but not dictate the exact mix of uses. He said that specialists, real estate brokers and Sedway have studied the problems of the center. Chair Harris said she felt that Monta Vista had potential to be a successful downtown area such as Los Gatos, with proper zoning, redevelopment and financial assistance, but that it would not happen by itself. Com. Austin said she did not feel it was appropriate to discuss Vallco because business people are capable of doing the best job. Mr. Cowan said he felt Chair Harris was looking at strategies to revitalize Cupertino's retail base which is appropriate for the Planning Commission to do if the City Council ihink~ it is a priority. A discussion ensued regarding the Planning Commission's role in developing stronger retail strategies. Chair Harris said it was a mandate that the Planning Commission advise the City Council on land use issues. Mr. Cowan said that staffwill return with the General Plan report on December 8 and strategies and the Planning Commission's role will be addressed. He said ultimately it is defined by the City Council. The priority list of projects was reviewed and prioritized as follows: ASA Subcommittee - changed from high priority to medium Single Family FAR - remain as high priority Future development of transition parcels - remain as high priority Neighborhood preservation - from high to medium priority Development project, n/e comer Stevens Creek - remove from list Annexations - Heart of City Specific Plan amendments - Development Intensity Manual - GIS - Zoning Ordinance review - Comprehensive General Plan review - Revise implementation section - Evaluate neighborhood park acquisition/ combine with revision of park data remain as high priority changed from high to medium changed from high to medium changed from high to low changed from high to low changed from high to medium changed from high to medium changed frommediumto high Planning Commission Minutes 13 November 24, 1997 Signs - Newsrack ordinance - Steep hillside development - Industrial/residential mixed use - Policy Manual - Bandley area study - Revise drive-through policies Hillside review of environmental impacts of domestic animals - Flag & cul-de-sac lots, incl. street standards - Gross vs. net densities - Kaiser operation - Condos vs. rentals/small lots single family - Height setbacks/ratios - Retail allocation issue - Inspiration Heights Plan - remain as medium priority changed from medium to low changed from medium to high remain as medium priority remain as medium priority remain as low priority remove from list remove from list high priority changed from low to high remove from list medium priority medium priority medium priority medium priority Ms. Wordell said that there was still another round remaining; staffwill present it to City Council and schedule a joint study session similar to last year if the City Council so desires. REPORT OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF 'rile DIRECTOR OF COMMIINIT¥ DEVELOPM~ENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Chair Harris requested that staff notify the Courier that the 10 p.m. closure time for Walgmens was an error. There was a brief discussion regarding scheduling upcoming agenda items for December and January. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Applications 12-U-97, 37-EA-97 to the January 12, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-1 ~0 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting on December 8, 1997 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, cordingZh~eth E~:icSretary Approved as amended: December 8, 1997