PC 08-27-84CITY OF CUPER'l'INO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino,Ca.95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 '
MINUTES OF TH2 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IIELD ON AUGUST 21, 198li
Chairperson Blaine called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall.
SALUTS TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Commissioner Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Koenitzer Commissioner Szabo Chairperson Blaine
Stuff Present:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Director of Planning and Devel. Sisk Assistant Planning Director Jowan Ass1Btant City Engineer Whitten City Attorney Kilian
MOTION: Com. Koenitzer to approve the Minutes of August 13, 1984 as ~ubmitted. SECOND Com. C laucl.y VOTE: Passed unanimously 5-0
POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS
Com. Blaine determined there was no-one present to speak on Item #3, since a request for postponement had been received.
MOTION: Corn. Szabo, to postp0ne Item #3, Applications 12-U-84 and 7-TM-84 to the Meeting of September 24, 1984. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed unanimously 5-0
WRI'r'rEN COMMUNICATlO.NS .
A let~er from Greer Enterprises concerning Item #2; a letter from Don Klein, .Brookman and Tui•kus .• and one :t."rom Jackson, Donovan, Rudd, Mulford and Svalya, concerning Item #l.
ORAL COMMUNICA'l'IONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CPLENDAR 4rl.. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
I
MINUTES OF THS AUGUST 27, 1984 PT.,ANNING OOMMISSIOU MEETING
l. Application 7-U-69 of STEVENS CREEK RANCH STABLES: PUBLIC HEARING to consider revocation or modification or an e:dat1ng use permit which allows the operat:f.on of a commercial horseba.ok riding stable and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is oa.te-gor1.cally exempt, hence, no a.ot.:'.ok'l is required. The subject property is located on the east side of Stevens Canyon Road appro-· x:t.mately 1, 000 ft. south of Ricardo Road. First Hearing oontinue1.
Com. Blaine explained the procedure 1'or this item, and warned the audionce that the Meeting might have to be adjou~ned early so that the Commission could go to the site.
I
1
2. Applications 7-Z-84 and 13-U-84 of DON L. BECK ASSOCIATES, INC.: REZONING approximately • 60 gross acres from Rl-10 · (Residential Siugle,•.family, 10,~00 sq. ft. minimu.11 lot r~ze) zone to P (Planned Development with offjce intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commie~ ston; USE PERMIT to construct a one-story office bu.:tlding ,ccm-sisting of 6,,900+-sq. ft, anc'. ENVIRONMEN'l1AL REVIEW: The Environ-mental Review Committee recomuends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the aouuheast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Cupertino Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date -September 17, 1964. ·
Assistant Flanning Director Cowqn gave the Staff Report,
!described the current zoning and the surrounding area and reviewed the General Plan intent for the area.
!com. Koenitz~r determined with Assistant Planning Director· Cowan that in the adjacent open area on Stevens Creek, there were eight or nine parcels zoned residential.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan addressed the reciprocal
1access problems and thought that though Mr. Beck had designed a creative plan, the reciprocal access should remain, as the adjacent neighbor wanted it, and Staff did not reel it would be an inducement for a traffic short cut. He discussed the grading
p~oblems and the drainage probl0ms, and also the proximity of
I I
the fence l:lne and propfri'>~yline to a fairly new, ex:1sting, single family house.
1com. Koenitzer established th~ the conditions of approval required 1a masonry wall, but that stucco would be acceptable.
There were questions about the existing, larger, house on the
property~
1Don.L. Beck, 10011 N. Foothill Boulevard, the applicar.t, noted lthat page 3, second paragraph, of the Staff Report indicated he was in the p~ocess of proposing a 40 ft, easement; this was not
1h1s jurisdiction, he said, though he would be entitled to use the ieasement after it was recorded. He pointed out that they had jon the request of Staff, moved their driveway over to the Cuper-
. ;
e
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 27, 2984 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
tino Road side, and had lost the use of some land that way, so that they thought they should be allowed a cmaller setback on Foothill. They wanted privacy and room for outside private areas tor employees' use. without interr1mtion trom through-traffio, he sa!d, and pointed out that they~woul4 lose 400 sq. ft. of green area. and two pa:i."lctne stalls, whioh won.1.f bf~ a · massive loss. In talking to Dr. Jones of the Vet1 ''lltl'Y Clinic" he had made his feelings alear, he said; so few a~~~ were involved, and he did not understand the rigid att~t~je or the City. They tlid not want to use other peoplets property, and did not want other people using theirs, he said. On 7-Z-84 they wanted to eliminate conditional use ~n condition~ 17 and 19, and on 13-U-84 they wanted t~ eliminate 17,21 and 23, and wanted to come back with a plan to fit that area, but they had no disagreement •1th saving large trees, or with easing the parking more to the front of Foothill, which would give a wider green area and lend to quality, he aaid.
In a discussion between the Commission and Mr. Beck it was discovered that Exhibit B was oriented in error$ and this was clarified and corrected.
Com. Claudy established the situation of the applicant's access <:?asement, and that it was not intended to split the pl"Orf,}1~ lines.
Mr. Beck pointed out that there was a utility easement almbst the width of his driveway with gas and sewer lines, and he indicated where a, prope:ttjl' line and a fence wez•e r:tght on top of the sewer line. He stated that they were not intarested in putting concrete on top of the line.
Com. Adams established with Mr. Beck that his ·engineers had locked ~t the drainage problems and had potentialssolutions, but would like to work furt;;her with Staff on them. He asked Assistant City Engineer Whitten if he aaw any problems, as the 6urrent problems in the area should not be allowed to get worBe he thought.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten had not talked to the Beck engineers, but informed the Commission that the City was attempting to divert as much water as possible across the stree , and though he felt this problem could be ~orked out~ he warned that Beck Associates might have to pump water.
Dr. Donald Jones, Acadia Vetinary Clinic, 10012 N. Foothill Boulevard, wanted to address the problem of ingress/egress from his standpoint. He had had to make sacrifices in developi g his property, he said, and described thJm. He thought Mr. Beck should also have to keep to City conditions and requirements. Ile described the difficulties of having only one access to thee clinic, which would eventually have a median in front of it. He also want~d egress to be more conven!tnt. Ho emphasized that he did not want to take up space in Mr. Beck's lot. ·
,. '
l I
FC-447 .age 4
e
MINUTES OF THE AUGUS:l1 27 ,198!1 PI,ANNINO COMMISSION MEETING
Hugh Jackson, 22lt74 Cupertino Road, lived adjaoent to M:r•. 'Beok 9 a proposed development and aaid hia only concern was the addi· tional traffic that might be generated next to his dwelling.
In regard to the letter that had been rece1¥ed on this Itemg Com. Blaine establi~hed with Mr. Beck that Greer Enterprises owned a piece of la.md in the proposed development.
I Com. Adams wanted the matter of the utilities being right on the prow;.;·t.~ line explained further.
Mr. Beck relate1 th~because of disagreements between prQpePPY owners in the past, the sewer lines were almost directly under the property line, but that hia surveyor had not completed the study.
0om. Adams established that Mr. Beck's landscaper wouftd work with the SewereDistrict to have the planting they wanted.
Mr. Jackson ~eported that he had a surveyor out that day, and they had dug down and found the swwer line. ']!;here was a gate for access, he said~
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Com. Claudy, to close the Public Hearing. Ccm. Adams
Pasa~d unanimously 5-0
Discussing the rezoning, Com. Koenitzer was concerned with the block of land to the east, and wondered if the rezoning of the Greer parcel would be a wedge for the r8zon1ng ot that entire section. The two lots on Foothill were tlle only ones non-viable as residential~ he thought.
There was some discuss:1.on on the residential versus commercial use for the balance of the empty land in the area. The
Cor.unism~on generally thought that the remaining house on Stevens Creek would eventually go to commercial, but that the line should be drawh there.
Com. Adams saw =i. problem with the proposed access easement to the Vetinary Clin~ property, in that t~northeast corner had been built up for drainage~ but he nevertheless th0ught the easement should be retained.
Co~. Blaine polled the Commission on the zoning issue, and the consensus was that there was no objection to the rezoning.
Com. Szabo thought ·the-reciprocai acceso might be impractical, and could see the applicant's point of vi~w.
There was a discussion regarding the placing cf the ~edian with Assistant City Engineer Whitten, and t~ effect this would have on the Vetina~y Clinic traffic.
Corns. Claudy an0 Koen1tzer relt that~ even with the problems, City policy should be maintained.
MINUTES OF 'I'HE AUGUST 27, 1984 PLANNI?W COMMISSION MEETING
Com. Blaine thought the easem~1~ would not b& so much use to the Vetinary Clirto as to Mr. Beck's orsanization to avoid the Foothill interseot1on, especially in peak hour trattio.
There was a discussion on this oonoept 1 and it was established w1thtthe Assistant City Engineer that a sto~ light would be installed at Foothill and Stevens Creek by next Spring.
Com. Adams suggested that it might be better if the ingress/ egress easement was relocated to be more towards the front, because or the situation just discussed and the issue or noise close to residences.
:ec.:.447 Page5
The general feeling of the Commission was that future residen-tial owners would accept the established commercial use adjacen •
Com. Adams sugge"Sted that Conditions 17 and 19 of 7-Z-8!1 be retained. ·
MOTION: Com. Claudy, to recommend the granting of a N~gative Declaration.
SECOND~ Com. Adams VOTE: Passed unanimously 5-0
MOTION: Com. Claudy;'to.recommend'approval of 7-Z-84 with Standard Conditions 1-15 and Conditions 16,17,18 and 19 of the Starr Report, and subject to the Findings and Subeonclusions of the Staff Report and the Hearing SECOND: Com. Szabo . VOTE: Passed 4-m (Com. Blaine dissenting, since she did not agree with the ingress/egress arrangements).
In a discussion with regard to the Use Permit, the Conun1ss1on examined Condition 22 on the grading, and the Assistant City Engineer suggested that t~ Commissioners consider how high a wall they would accept along the eastern property line, since he could raise the property high enough to surface drain it, bu did not think they would accept a wall that high. It was decided that a total of 8 ft. of wall would be satisfactory.
In discussinc the front setbEtck, the Comr:lission came to a con-sensus that it should be left at 18 ft,
MOTION:. Com. Claudy, to recommend approval of 13-U-84, subject to Standard Conditions 1-15, Conditions 16,17,18,19,20 and 21 of the Staff Report, Condition 22 modified to allow a variance of up to 2 ft. from what is shown on the exhibit map, and that a retaininG wall with a maximum height of 2 ft. can be built along the easterl most property line, with Conditions 23-27 as per the Staff Heport. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed unanimously 5-0
PC-447 Page 6 -INUTES OF THE AUGUST 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Com. Blaine announcied « .. : .. the it'em would be heard by City Council n September 17, 1984.
ith ro~ard to Item #1, Com. Blaine reported that a telephon~ call ad been received and that the Rancho Deep Cliff Homeownars had equested to call back in 45 minutes, which had been g~anted.
4. Application 15-U-84 otklONE WORLP MONTESSORI AND ll'IVE C'S PRESCHOOL: USE PERMIT to operate a private preschool, elementary school and day cax-e service with a. maximum of approximately 200 .hildren at the existing Eaton School site. Eaton School onsists of 10 acres with approximately 35,000 sq. ft. of building r•ea. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee ecommends the granting ot a Negative Declaration. The subject ropert, is located on the southeast corner of Suisun Drive and arallone Drive in a BA (Public Building) zoning district. First earing. Planning Commission has final approval.
1rector of Planning and Development Sisk outlined the Staff eport, and stated that t~use was consistent with the General lan, bhe major issu€ being one of traffic that the privately perated fac111 ties would generate. iEtldwas calculated to be the same.
ssistant City Engineer Whitten said the r::upertino School District ould be coming back to the Comrdasion at a later date with lternate uses for such school sites; such as quasi public.
b~om. Claudy established with Director of Planning and Development !sk that there had been 500 students at the public elementa~y chool, and that nuMber was used as the basis £or comparison.
I Com. Blaine, wondering why the traffic impact would be the same
~hen the numbers· were different, was advised by the Assistant l1ty Engineer that more children would be driven in this·instance.
~om. Adams established that 40% of the building would be left, nd wonde~ed about growth, since all the traffic potential would e used up. .
1TheJ;'ll~.ec!t'tor of Pl~nnine; and Development explained that the Use jPermit capped the number of students, but there were other lproj ected uses, and he gave etiamples of quasi IJUblic use 8 being \considered by the School District. · ·
P.ob Edmiston of thE. Cupe.t>t:lno School Di strict, confirmed
!that the two applicants did not project an expansion past
~the Use Permit requirements, and that quasi public uses were eing considered. He added th~t ears coming to the facilities ould probably be carrying more than one student.
om.Claudy stated that any additional uses would generate dditional traffic, and he explained the trip philosophy to 1r. Edmiston. He emphasized that the School District would nve to be very careful that anything else going in would have o genP.rate very low trafficJ 1.e., another achool could not go
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 27, 1964 PLANNING COrti.MISSION MEETING .,
in. He wanted Mr. Edmiston to understand and realize this, for the record.
Mr. Edmiston said that he understood.
On the request of Com. Adams, Assistant City Engineer Whitten described where the traffic had been projected, how muoh, and when.
Com. Blaine quoted from a letter received from a concerned neighbor who had problems with the previous school invading the perimeter area and the backyards, and who wanted a butter zone. She asked Doug HP.mingway of One World Montessori · School if he had any comments or ideas.
Mr. Hemingway said they had never had any such problems at their current site,, a.nd that the smaller:.·childnen,'·would be in· a fenced orr kindergarte~ section. He asaur~d the Commission that all children wouid be supervised when outside.
Com. Claudy thought a bu.f'fer zone 01,.1ght to be requintt\,.1> since the best play areas were adjacent to the homes. · ·
Mr. Hemingway agreed that th~yccould create a buffer zone. He established for the Commisidion that; the students would come mainly from the south in the Saratoga area, and that traffic would come mainly from the south on Blaney.
Mike Sheraton from 5 C's Childcare stated that their area would be enclosed with a 4 ft. high fence, and 'f;~ the ohly use they would consistently have for the turf area was for before and after school care, staying quite near the asphalt . area to resolve the buffer zone problem. He gave their starting head-count as 38, but said that 107 had been requeste in their license application.
Enri~ue Rodrigues, 20071 Sui8un Drive, raised the issues of traffic and peace in the neighborhood. After establishing wit Staff the times that children would be arriving and leaving,, Mr. Rodrigues thought that cars would be parking in the neighborhood and blocking the traffic, and called for a special parking place, as only seven parked cars could fittin the entrance of the school, he said. He brought up the fact • that the facility was currently being used for religious practices on Sundays, and he wanted information on this.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk explained that under State law, religious groups were allowed to use the facility on a temporary basis, and thfuwas taking place presently.
Com. i."lla !•.~ presumed that vehicles would just drop chilclren o.C.f and would not park. She told Mr. Rodrigues that t~religious practices issue could not be further discussed, since it did not pertain to the present Hearing •
. ;
. ·Pc~447 ·pae;e-7
PC-447 Page 8 -f.!INUTEC) OF 'l'HE AUGUST 27 ,1984 PLANNING COMMISSION Mltl:'l'INO
Com. Claudy observed that the Montessori school would probably use the ma1n driveway and the 5 C's tl'.~ Farallcne Drive entrance.
Dorothy McX1nney of 5 C's conf~.rmed that thei1• gate would be set up at the parking area off F'arallone. She said that th? peak load dropping off at one time would be in the range of 7-10, and that children would arrive up until 11:00 a.m.
f com. Adams determined with Ms. McKinney that children would !not be left at th~ gate, but handed to the custody ~r a teacher, I neaessi ta.ting a parking pex·iod of two to f1 ve mi· .utes,. and that teachers would use the same pa~king lot for about 5 oars, and lwould probably car pool. I
lrrvin Pearce, 20153 John Drive, had noticed the school traffic jon a rainy day was bad, but his main concern was damage to . 1his prop~ty by schoolchildren that had taken place in the past. I (he described this) plus a garbage problem, ao he wanted the I biggest possible buffer zone.
I
Joarlene Thorne, 20097 John Drive~ agreed with Mr. Pearce on the !buffer zone and the garbage. She pointed out that the fences
j were old and undermined and were a danger to the children,, I who should be kept off them. She described a problem of I benches, etc. being very close to the fences in the past, and did not want to see this situation repeated. She rema~ked that it would be nice to have children back in the area.
Vincent La Porta, 20129 Suisun Drive, related problems in the I past with people parking directly in front of driveways) some-! times double-parked, so that neighbors could not get in or out. i He noted that the Day Care facilities would be fencing off a play I area, and wanted this area to be open for the neighborhood.
1 He was concerned about the number or cars that could par~ in the '.school driveway, since in the past people had even parked in l front of the fir~ plug at. his 1house, creating a dangerous I situation. HA also described ~peeding and accidents that had I taken place, and suggested some rlternatives for creating extra I park.ins. . ·
I Phil Harris, 20087 Suisun Drive, stated that after the Eaton : closure he and five other community members had been asked to work
! wj.th the School District, and had interviewed several potential I tenants, including the Montessori School, and everyone in the I comrnunity had nn opportunity to be involved. But the staff at I tre School District had changed and had not kept up communication I with them. The other preschool they had picked had dropped out, i he said, and they had had no part in choosing the 5 C's school, ! They wanted a decision relative to that school to be de~ayed for I a town meetine; of the community to discuss the traffic and
i parking problems .11 and to clarify land usur.;e for the commun:t ty. ! He agreed when Com. Blaine suggested that th 5 C's school and j the previously considered school were similar.
I I
MINUTES OF ~HE AUGUST 27, 1984 PLANN!NG COMMISSION MEEIDING
Com. Blaine established with Mr. Edmiston that h~ had not realized the situation with the neighborhood grcup. She also established tha the fences would be only ~ ft. high and designed only to keer young children in, and would have gates that ~ould be locked. I
Mr. Edmiston con.firmed that he had discussed the pa.:t•king and.%)~~· related prob~~ms with Starr and the applicants, and it was ·· felt that parking w~s ~dequate. · ·
The Commission and Staff discussed employee parking, .and aleo where extra parking could be added if necessary. The idea or. a review period was discussed, and Mr. Edmiston was agreeable.
Clint Snyder, i73g1 El Rancho Avenue, Los Gatos,~~~ffassociated with the Montessori School, said their present culdesac site was the worst possible situation, yet they had developed a working relationship with the neighbors on parking, and he thought the neighbors here would find a difference with this school as opposed to the public school. Parente would not be dropping off their children on the street, he said, but handing them over to a member or the staff, They would glad~y handle any complaints.
Mr. La Porta saw a problem ther~, in that with 30 or #0 children arriving at one time, they could only park on the streP.t.
Mr. Snyder answered that in his experience, the children did not all arrive at one time.
Mr. Win Verkuylen, La Roda Drive, also one of the committee of community members, said the majority of residents wanted to see the children back in the area~ as long as traffic and buffer zone problems were addressed. He described how having a school back was in the best interests of the neighborhood.
The parking issue was further discussed by the Conun1ssion.
Corn. Claudy thought that if there was a strong eondition, the tenants would probably not take the lease, because of possible future expenses.
Com. Koenitzer suggested there be a definition of how severe the problem would be to req~±ve a Hearing.
Com. Adams suggested that traffic and parking conditions could be reviewed by Staff after a six month period, to determine whether it was necessany to ~efer the matter to the Planning Commission.
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Com. Keon1tzer 1 to cloue the Public Hearing.·
Com. Ada:ns Passed unanimously 5-0
PC-44'7 Page 9
PC-447 Page 10 AUGUST 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
In a discus:Uon on the buffer zone, it was decided to have a Condition addressing it.
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Com. Adams, to grant a Negative Declaration. Com. Koanitzer Passed uanimously 5-0
MOTION Com. Adams, fo..-· approval of' 15-U-84 subject to Standard Conditions 1-15 and Bonditions 16,17,18 and new Condition 19 that a buffer zone shall be established around the perimeter adjacent to the residences that back up to the site and children attending the scbool are to be instructed to kee~ out, and Condition 20 that traffic and parking conditions shall be reviewed after six months, and ir considered neceasary a review at Planning Commission level shall be held to consider correc-tive &¢tion. SECOND: Corn. Szabo VOTE: Passed unard.mousJ.y 5-0
Com. Blaine explained the appeal procedure for any interested parties.
In regard to Item #1, Com. Blaine announced that the residents had requested a Continuance to the Meeting of Septembe~ 10, 1984, and th~ final, action .would· be taken at that time.
UNFIN~SHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
5. Application 8-U-84 of GEORGE SOMPS and Application 26-U-83 of ANDREW JAHA: MODIFICATIONS to building elevations to add roof-mounted mechanical equipment and roor screens for an 18,ooo sq. rt. two-story office b~ilding and a 2,600 sq. tt. two-story office building located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard~ 200 ft. west of Blaney Avenue.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan revi~wed the Staff Report.and explained that t~Planning Department had relt the changes requested were too significant ror their action. He pointed out the di.f.ferences in the form and the situation of' the f,!qUipmen't and informed the Commission that ASAC had explored ground-mounted and unscreened equipment, and thought either would be satisfactory.
Phil Schwimmer, 39 E. Main, Los Gatos, the architect, in regard to the lareer, new, building~ drew attention to the fact that the new design was only half the height of that originally !'approved. He pointed out that the screen would hardly be visible and would only be 2 ft. above the parapet, whjch could !not be raised because .of height limitations on the building.
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 2i 1 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Com. Blaine established that tro siding would be cream stucco and the sct'een1ng would be o:!' the :aame material and coloJ:» • . n .
Com. Claudy wanted a guarantee that the equipment would fit under the screen.
Mr. Schwimmer assured him that all the engineering had been
oomplet~d, and this was a final den1gn.
Com. Blaine stated tnat the Commission was trying to eliminate "dog houses" on the tops of buildings, and did not want to see add-ons that detracted from good design.
Mr •. Schwimmer pointed out there were now 13 small pieces instead of the original "dog house".
Com. Koenitzer told him that the or~~inal design had fitted very well, and was troubled that architects never seemed to design buildings so that t~equ1pment would fit.
Com. Blaine established with Mr. Schwimmer that space was too tight to lower the roof and raise the parapet. She was beginning to believe that a two-story building could not adequately and aesthetical'y be cooled at the present height limits, she said.
r.om. ~laudy established that raising the height in this case was not viable, and also that tteorieinal screen was designed for a single, massive unit fo~ one tenant, and had now been changed to accommodate seve1"al smaller units 1.'or different tenants.
Mr. Schwimme~ addressed the existine low building on the front, where there was an existing metal air conditioning unit on the roof, not screened,, but 15~ the same color as the bt\ilding to camouflage it. He reported that in the ASAC Meeting it was decided there were three options; to have a well, to have.a similar treatment to the present cne, or to place a screen around the eqm~pment. He did not favor the idea of screening, and gave his reasons.
Co~. Adams established with Mr. Schwimmer that a well could not be used because of the height of, the ceilings~
In discussion, it was felt that maybe some type of screening of modest size could be used that would blend architecturally.
Mr. Schwimmer suggested a trellis type screening, since he would be using trellis to update the surroundings of the building.
MOTION: Com. Claudy, to approve the changes with the stipulation that the larger building in the back have the mechanical equ;tp.rna:r1t screen constructed of the same materials as the surface of the building and painted the same, and thEt the smaller building in the middle have a. scre~n th.at blenm:,'~: arc hi tectura.1ly with the building added.
' .~
PC-447 Page 12 e MINUTES OF THE AUGUST
t SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams Passed
21, 1984 PLANNING CO.iliMISSION MEETING
(Com. Koenitzer dissenting)
6. Procedure 'f'or Heview or General Plan Amendments and
cons:1.d~ration ror General Plan A.11endments:
a. DML b. Mariani Financial Company
Cor.i. Blaine commended Staff on their worJ.:, and deter.mined that all Commission members had read the material and had not questions or concerns with the criteria.
Assistant Planning Director i..;owan suge.;esi.;.ea 1:.nuc wnen t;m: p.i:oueuuz·e hau 1.ftabilized the Cor:unission should hold one Major Amendment Hearing per year, maybe in conjunction with the capital 1mpr.ovementa prog1•am.
jThere was a snort; aiscus~ion on wnether the amendments propusea !here were major OI';minor,, and 11,. was aei.,t'L·mirH:iu that if m.i..nur, tney could be heard at the next available Meeting and if major,, sometime in the Fal~.
MOTION: Com. Claudy, to send the rro~euure vu City Council with the endorsement of the Planning Commission. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed unanimously 5-0
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that he had requested the two present applicants to prepKre more ue~~llcu ieLLers ~u !that it could be judged from the criteria whether their cases had merit. If the City Council approved the process, the letters could be considered in September, he suggested.
He advised the Commission in general that they would have the right to refuse Hearings if the criteria was not met in any instance, and that applicants would have the right to appeal to City Council.
Don Levitz, 22941 Longdown Road, De Anza Oaks, chairman of an investigative committee of the homeowners association, had not realized that a general plan amendment was needed, and have not been instructed about the recom.r.mnda.tion until that afternr::>on, he said. He had expected to present their case tonight, and wanted to know how they could get the development rights back from the City, before applying for a General Plan Am~hdment.
Com. Blaine called on City Attorney Kilian for advice.
City Attorney Kilian advised th~ the City could abandon or transfer the development rights with proper procedures of the Use Permit, but that it would be better to have a General Plan' Amendment Hearing to possibly change the use, with the abandon-
. ;
Com. Koenitzer thoueht the reason for the transferrance was that most or•the area had been found to be unbuildable.
Mr. Levitz took exception to the idea that they might have to pay for the development rights, as these had not originally been withheld without a great deal of consideration to project the f'uture. He emphasized that they intended to build or,: a safe, flat area and did not want to be caught in the po~ition where they would be spending time, ef'fort and money for a negative outcome.
Com. Blaine explained that the Commission could not give a guarantee that their request would be accepted, but she did not believe the City would grant a General Plan change and not grant them the development rights. She also explained that at the Meeting of September 24, 1984 the Oommias1on would only require a letter so that 1 t could be determined H' there should be a Hearing. She instructed Staff to give help to Mr. Levitz in writing the letter required.
Staff advised Mr. Levitz on the probable time scale involved. ;for a Hearing.
It was established thattthe applicant had resaarch~d the histo of the item with Staff~ and it was suggested that the applicant study the current Gene1 .. al Plan po·l1cies to .f'ormulnte his lette •
Com. Blaine determined the applicant from Mariani Financial Company was not in the audience, but had been notified of the procedures of the MeEting.
7. Review of Proposed Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) Transfer Manual.
Corn. Koenitzer thought the manual needed an example of trans-ferring F.A.R. from a vacant parcel. He also noted that there was an exa...".ilple of transferrinc F.A.H. from an older, developed parcel to a new one, and thoueht there should also be an exampl
of transferring F.A.R. from a vacant parcel to a.nother vacant parcel.
It was dec1ded that Staff could project such <"'.:tampl~s, us~ng ,,...,.. an average E.A.R.
MINUTES OF THE AUOd'Ul' 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Though Assistant Planning Dil't~ctox? Cowan had aaid tha.t t1•ans.ferees and transferors of F .A .R. had to b~ reviewed.
~oncurrently, it was not clear to Cou. Claudy that both had to come in for• a Hearing. There needed to be more c.ontrol,. he thou~ht,, so that nothing woBld be left unusable.
The Commission instructed Sta.fr t.hat the manuaJ. needed -more work before being submitted to City Council.
REPORT OF 'l1HE PLANNING COMMISSION
Com. Adams was concerned with t;he procedu:t•es in the Cj.ty tor moving hazardouo.mater1al and equipment industrially. He wanted to raise cionsciouaness'on this issu~ .. he said,, and had round that other cities required detailed analyses of such procedures when industry movf:d 1ri. He thogght the Planning Commission should be made aware or any hazardou:s materials, and how they were used, stc~ed and moved, when industry moved in.
Com. Blaine referred to an article in the prior Sunday Mercury i·:ews.
Director o.f Pla.nnine; and Development Sisk noted that tl"e Fire Department was presently responsible for overseeing such matters.
Com. Szabo observt::a ~na~ ~ner was a uuun~y-~lut:: ordinance regarding the storage of hazardous materials.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Director of Planning ana ueve.1.opm~11~ ~isx advised that 7-11 Stores was proceeding through ASAC to be located on the corner of McClellan and .tjuou .1101:1.c.ts and tnai.. i:.111:: pr.Lur :s~uz·e ::t..n i..uac.
a::'t::l:i was in a genera.i. cummez·c.i.a.1. zone and couJ.ti t>e lt:tu.seo. in that capacity. Some neighbors had called, he advised, and
ua.u ut:eu made aware of the ASAC .??.nd Planning Commission Meetings, but none had come to express their concerns.
Com. r1audy had seen a sign at the gas station at Foothill and Stevens Creek that he was su~t: violateG the sign ordinance.
I Staff' advised that the City was proceedini.:; 1..zii:: ;.'uJ...tow.i.ne; day , with a fa:!.:rly strong sign enfoz•cement program.
Com. Blaine requested the Director o~ Planning and Development to bring tb the Public Works Director's attention the condition
of the water a't the mi.m, su that he coi1ld take action with the Santa Clara Valley Water Distric~, as the situation sho~11 not
jbe allowed to cun~inue.
.i;, ·~-\. ,:-~XJ~:~r.:::~(.~·.~~};2:·} ,..tf:ttJi t::fr~; ·: ·, .,
,.f\.."
~ · •• •.• ~ • · _,.·.~: .,~~.. 4;"'' . _"._,.-.1 ... ~ .. ., .... ~·,.:::_.:.-~~<; ~\~,~·:,.;: :·~ ~: ~Z; i~L ~l:? · -:.:~"J?.:"~:-".;;,;::~1:.:(,.,::·~ . -~~.:~::ir.~:'.~·;--t;t:~:.'l ·p:t.~J.t.1en·t.
• __ ~· , j .. .,. ..... -~--~~· ·i. ,~~~, ~-~ :;.. •. ,...~~·aJl.1'.r-~i~i... .~~).:.~. ::":..4:.-:l u.;;;~-~::·~ t. .ri~r:..·~~~, · .. ·:n·!:c~:t-i:'~ . c.·~~r,z;t l~a-:1IS'J)~. kt~·\,
,; ... ~}~;~. :~ .-· .... ·· \ -~ • ~;:~:~"~: J~--1 S'Y·.~ .. ~·J~~ . .-it'tt~:.; .1.:. ~:~:~:~f'.t;· 1t:·~:,:·t.t1.~:1 f~;inmi0t,~:!"~~~~ ,.. . .. -~ ...... _ ..:. ·"·,,.,.,.._.,,.
. ·. . .. > .· .. ·. y,:,< ··.:l;fJ;'i\,;i!~~~ '.;.''./;{/::>t .
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 27 1 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION:'r4E~TING\<
',.,', ... ,· ,'
Directer or Planning and Development Sisk determined with· the Commission that they were nu.ff1o1ently concerned with the · ·present General Commercial Ordinance to i•equest that moroe · . : controls be addea, 1:1.nd that Staff should submit a draft ":~O the · Commission. · '' •' ·
The Meeting was adjourned at 12:03 a.m. on August 28 1 1984.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
~L~
. ;