PC 09-10-84CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORN1A 10300 Torre Avenue,Cupertino,Ca.95014. Telephone: (408) 252-4505
MINTJ'rES OF THE REGUT .. AR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10,, 1984
Chairperson Blaine called the Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chainbel.•s, City Hall.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALI,
Commissioners Present: Commissioner Adams Commissioner Claudy(until break) Commissioner Koenitzer Comm1am1oner Szabo Chairperson Blaine
Staff Present: Director of Planning and Devel.Sisk Assistant Planning Di~ector Cowan Assistant City Engineer Whitten City Attorney Kilian (after break)
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES •1.l~:,·~ .. ~J:t
MOTION: Com, Koenitzer, to approve the Minutes of
SECOND: VOTE:
MCYi:'ION:
SECl'ND: VOTE:
the Re8ular Adjourned Meetine of August 15,19841 Com. Claudy
Pass~d
Com. Adams to acc~pt the Minutes of the Meeting of August 27, 1984 as presented
Co.m. Claudy Passed
POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS
Item #6 -Applicant requests withdrawal .:r1~om calendar.
Com. Blalne determined that no-one was in the audience for that item.
MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, to withdraw Item #6, Application 33-U-79 (Revised) from the calendar. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5~0
WHI'l'TEN COMMUNICATIONS
A letter from Mothers Against Drunk Drive~s; Key Chevrolet; Bob Edmiston of the Cupertino School District; City of Milpitas Planning Commission.
ORAL COMMUNICATIOl~
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS nEMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
PC-448 Page l
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES., SEPTEMBER l:O., l.98li
Director of Planning and uev~lopmen~ S1sk suggested that Item 111 be postponed until after··~: 00 p .m ... since City Attorney Kilian would be available after thav ~im~.
Com. Blaine ascertained that nobody had yet arrived tor the Item.
MOTION: Com. Claudy., to continue Item 11 until after 9:00 p.m. or the arrival or the City Attorney SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0
2. Application 15-U-79 (reirised) of JOHN VIDOVICH (EDWARD YAMAOKA); USE PERMIT MODIFICATION tc allow electronically emplified band music and dancing 1n an exxs~1ng cuc&~Bll lounge and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting o~ a Negative Declaration. The sub-ject site is located in the Portal Plaza Shopping Center on the northeast quadrant or Portal Avenue and Stevens Cree~ Boulevard in a P (Planned Development ~ith Ofrice intent) zoning d!strict. First ~earing. Tentative City Council Hearing date -September 17, 1984.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk gave the history of the establishmen-c 1:mu exp.Laint:a t:tH:: reque~i..,, pointing out that the General Plan discouraged this type of use in that area. He mentiunt:a pruoi~mt:i r;uat had 'been experienc'ed w:tth such establishments recently.
, John Vidovitch, representing Ed Yamaoka, the app.Licant;., explained that,, unt1.L now, the app.J.1c1.:1.ri't had permiss!.f:on to use ·two nonamplified musical instruments., but that it was difficult to fina a oana 't1J~~ functioned tnK~ way. Addressing the noise issue, he ewpnasl~ea that this was a large shopping center, 1sui~~~a from residential by a wall, anj aiso emphasized that parKlng was plent1£ul. He pointea ouv ti1e mature nature of' the patronage, and the gtJoa i:;rac.K recu.i:·d., and felt sure there would be no repeat or P.J. Mulligans.
Mr. Leopold MaestasJ a homeowner who lived opposite the center, said he and his nele;noc.r:, Mr. Jow., a.iu no-c nC1.Vt: any objections, as long a.s the area wa.s prope1"ly policed.
Mr. Jow supported him.
Janet Hanlon, 19874 wneaton ur~ve,ascertained that there were homes in ~he rear~ and men"Cionca ~ntiv she had a sound wall of 9 ft. behind her house, which did not help with noise at all. She did not think a mature pavronace needed such music, and listed the es~aui1s11ments in the area that were a source of irritat1un. She was also concerned about parking, since the lot was already full.
Ann Wrigbt, 19698 Wheaton Drive, immediately behind the ba.r, said she had no complaints so far, but was concerned with having her rign~~ pru-c~cted and the value of her property upheld.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPl'EMBER 10, 198Jt
Ed Puccinelle, 10!28 Denison Avenue, a new r~sident, said there were other sources of noise near to their vesiden6e, and they were concerned with what might happen.
MOTIO~: Com. Koenitzer, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: ~a~sea 5-0
Corns. Adams and Claudjr supported the Sta.ff pos:t tion, that amplif'ied music should be contained in the areas closer to Vallco Park, and did not want to encourage people going tetween bars in the area. They thought the clientelle would ch•nse to a younger age group with such music.
Com. Blaine's inclination was to deny, since tn the G~neral Plan Hearings there had been much discusaion about keeping such acttvities away from residential areas.
MOTION: Com, Claudy, to recommend the granting of a Nagative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0
MOTION: Com. Claudy,, to reconm1end denial of application 15-U-79 (Revised) subject to the findings of the Hearing, basically, that the location or the proposed high activity late night entertainment use is in close proximity -co tue aaJoin1nr; res1aen-
t1ai area ana would reBUi~ ln detrimental acttvitie such as la~e nlgn~ traffic i~av1ug ~ne site anu
uu..LSe .from the pat.s.·um:1.e;e of' the pu.i:·k.i.n!:'.;lot area, and 1s inconsistent with the auopted policy of the ueueral Plan. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: l:'asseu 3-2 (Corns. Koen11.ze.i:· ana .::;zauo d1se~rrr.:.J.ng)
To be netiru by City uounc1J. on September l,, 1984.
NOTE TO STAFF. Com. Adams askeu Staff to bring the followin subject up to the City Council. The pe:d.meter of this property is an eyesore cu ~ue '• Anyone walking along Portal or Stevdns Creek had a v~dW of trash on the propebty
and in tne shrubbery which was atrocious. If the Planning Comrn1sa1on decision•wa~ over-rul~d, it should'be ensured that the trasn wasrcleaned up, at least a couple of times a
:'.10nt h.
3, Application 14-U-84 of NORMAN C. HULBERG AND KENNETH W. GILBEAU: USE PERMIT to construct a two-story office/retail buildinc equalin~ 8,250 sq. ft, and ENV~RONMENTAL REVIEW:
·~1 he Environr.:ental Review Committee recommends the grantinc; of a Negative Declarac10~. ~nc suDJec~ prope~~is located on the northeast corner or Mann ur1ve ana ~~evens Creek Boulevard in a P (Planned Development w1th commercial, indus trial and rcsident1ai intent) zoninG district. First liearin5. Tentative City Council hearin~ date -Seotember 17, 1984. .
.t'C-448 Page 3
PC-448 Page 4 0
PLANNING COMMJ~SSION:'1MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 10,, l9i34
Assistant Planning Director Cowan po:!.nted out the looa.tion and stated that~e configuration of the structure was 1dentioal to its envisionment by the Commission,. arid that the reoon!'igu-ration or Adriana Drive was as planned. H~ pointed out that application or the new F.A.R. policy here precluded any conversi1.m to commercial nae at a later date, which sl'lowecl a weakness in the policy, he felt. He drew attention to the fact that a hommowner on Adr;t, oa would be incoriven:I.enced by the re-configuration of that street. ASAC* had not felt there would be a "cut-through" problem,, he said, and Starr felt there could be 5 ft. more landscaping on the Mann Drive side.
The Commission discussed with Staff the landscaping and mainte-nance and sidewalk on the north side. 'I'he potential tra:f'fic cut-through pllbblem was also discuseed among the Commissioners.
There was a d1scu~s1on on setbacks of the building across Mann Drive and the pro;poaed buildin'g, and whether the proposed building might be moved to the east.
Norm Hulberg, the applicant, clarified some questions of the building design and setbacks that had come up. He ·naid it was possible, and they would be agreeable, to moving the building further to the east, but they had considered the guidelines of the Monta ViGta Plan and the site when they had designed the project; the idea was to create a commercial center incorporating this bu1ld111g with the one to the east, and thecerore aaui~.1.unal landscaping to the east would be more appealing.
Com. Blaine a~ .. dd the applicant about the sprinkler line ~nder ttte s-creet;.
The applicant advised that until they nKu received the Staff Report thav aay, they had not heard about it, but he questioned whether tneve was actually room for even 2 ft. of landscaping and a s1aewalk, 1;1.11u wantea a review oy 'tne 1"'.1.aun1ne; tepar-cmen .. vu ue a.1..1.oweu in this matter. Further, Dondition cl called for grassea ar~us, anu ne did not feel there was room for a meaninsfu.L grctss art>a, so they also wanted the Cor.:lition modified so that the Planning Depsrtment could review this; to add sod only if found appropriate.
Ann Anger, President of the Mo~ta Vista Improvement Association, had attenaea ASAC* and was very pleased with the plan, which she noted would replace an old gas station.
Mr. Harold Wilson Woodwara, 10053 Adriana Avenue, the adjacent property owner, S-Ctitcu t~at he and his family were not averse to the deveJ.opment., out we.z:·e cuucerneu about their property; there were many questions they needed answered. Any information that -cne <.:1t;y !!.ne;incer aw.;. i..nt: Applicant could give him and that he could cooperate with, he was more than willing, he saidJbut questioned any of their property being taken and a wall being built. He pointed out that the subject wall would be 5 ft. off from the waiJ. ou1it for the Nelson property, so he wondered 1f 5 ft. of' their pr0pert;y·.wr.rnld be taken to correct that. He further mentioned that he would have trouble getting his boat and campeL' into his driveway.
The vommis:n.un OJ.l:l'cussea tr1e pr•uo.i.em or -cnt:: wa.L.J. and a.ccees to the driveway, and thought the trafric staff might have some suggestions, and that the situation needed to be solved.
*ASAC-Architeotural and S:tte Cont.r•ol Committee
PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'l'ES# SEPTEMBER 10, 19811
Mr. Woodward suggested that he would not be ~ve~~e to the wall being staggered, as he could plant to till the void, and ne tnougnc v1sual access would be improvea this way.
MOTION: Com. Claudy, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams
v0~~= Passed 5-0
The Commission discussed whether the building should be movea oveL·, anu a1a not feel it was necessary. There was some concer~ W1tn t11e landscaping, but it was decided that Staff could monitoP it, and that cround cover oould be used instead of sod, if necessary. Renent1on of the seating area wotua a.Lso be a decision 01' .'.:itan auu the applicant.
Discussing the mutter 01 i::ne wall, the Commission wonderea
j,.f the aidewallc could be deleted on that side, or cut down,, but in d1scuss1on wii..11 .:)Ll:LI I, it was determined to be impractical.
City .t.ne;1nePr Whitten suggested to the Commission that Sta.ff would try to worK ou~ a plan to nuv~ 2 ft. of landscaping an 5 ft. or sluewa.J.K without cutting into Mr. wooawara 1 s driveway if they could.tell him what type of planting they required.
Com. Koenitzer suggest;eu i,mu 11ne J.anal:.lcet.p.i.ng; in the Pharlap Drive area couJ.u oe studied. ·
Com. Claudy established that irrigation should be provided by the appli~ant.
Assistant Planning Direct:or uowan es~abli~hed tha~ the Item did :!'lot nave t.u come back to tne .t' .1.asm1nB l..itimm:i.::H3J.on 1.L J.el.H3 than 2 ft. could be found t'or landscaping,; it w-::>uld oe at: t:n a1ncrei;;iun 01 ~vl:l.II
MOTION: Com. Adams, to recummenu c.ue gram;.:tng 01 a Negative Declara.1,,lon. SECOND: Com. Koenitzer
vuT~: Passed 5-0
MOTION: Com. Adams,to recommend approval of 14-U-84, subjec to Standard Conditions .i.-l5;16,17,18,19,2o;uonu1'tilu. 21, thira sen,ence to read "The applicant may add I grass WJ.~uJ.n 'tne .i.an<.urnupeo ureH. aaJact:!'rrc t.:> the easterly property line and the landscaped area adJ aceni, t-o 'tine OU.L.Lu..1.nb, and may add seating I areas wii..u.J..n t>a.ia a.reu.~; 22.,23;Cond1t1on 24 deleted; Condition C:'.') ameuaeu uy adding 11 that irrigation an6. maintenance of the .tanuscup1ng or i,nt: nori:ne.L'J.Y side of Adriana shall be the responsibility of the applicant.:.
SECOND: Corn. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0
To be heard by CJ.ty C0unci.L on <:>eptemu~.z:· .J.7, 1981-1.
PC-448 Page 5
PC-448 Page 6 • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 10, 1984
4. Application 16-U-84 of WEIGHT WATCHERS (THORNWOOD ASSOCIATES): USE PERMIT to operate a 1,320 sq. ft. counselling and exe~oise !'ao111t.y in the existing Homestead Center and ENVIRONMENTA!,, REVIEW: 'l'he proJ eot is catee;orioa.lly exempt,, hence, no action 1a. requ1X'!od. The suOJect prup~r~y 1s located in the southeast quadrant or Stelling Road and ttomestead Road in a P (Planned Development with recreation, eu1.ie.t•i;a1nment and limited commercial interit) zoning dls~ric~. ~1rs' netir~ng. Tentative City Council hearing date -Septemuer 11, i984). ' ·
Assistant Planning Director Cowan,g1ving the Staff Report, explained that a use permit had to be approved foi• a·ny change· in this particular center. Staff fel.t that the exercise activity waa consistent with the approved uses, he said, and the applicant would present some researcn ~o prov~dthat the parking could be viable.
Com. Blaine determined that Assistant Planning Director Cowan had not heard directly about any parkin; problems at the location.
Roxana Baker, ae;ent .ror We.ight Hatcher&, the applicant, stated that sne had contacted the rour owners of ~ne oen~er and McDonalds, to ascer~aln pedK nours, and had found peak hours for MoDonalds were dur1n8 ~ne J.uncn period. She had driven by on Thursday, Friday, anu ~on1gm:;, she sa1a., ~na ntt.a ruunu parking to be quite adequate. ·.rni;:: manager of Brunswicl( had, however" fel'c there mi~n~ oe ti problem, which was not apparent to her, since she had driven by at approximately 7:15 p.m. tonight, and even with league activity_, there wa1:1 p.Lem;y of par.icing. She pointed out thui.. ~ll'-'!J.'e was a p1:u·.K.1ng J.oi; in the rear ths.t on every occasion had been v1ruuuJ..LY empty.
Assistant Planning Direc~or uowan oo~ecvea ~na~ uondition 20 maae pruv J. s.1.un fN' a hearing to be initiated if there was a bad paL·lung pruoJ.ern. He commented that a.s uses in the center intensillea, ~umeune wuu.1.u ~ven~uu.1..1.y lose out on parking.
Com. Claudy suggested that tne n~x~ ~lme an application was rec e1 vea wne.i:e there were severa.L owne.r~, li!!t: Conunission wouia .1.1Ke to see a chart on the parkine supply, as well as the parxinc; aemauu,, for each owner's property, to mnke it fair.
A discussion on the type or uses that were allowable and the parkine ensued.
Com. ~oeniv~er suggested that Weight Watchers could try to use the rear p1;ir.1<1ni:; .i.o ~.
Kathy Schoenenberc;er, office manager for Weight watche!'s, conrirmea .;na.~ i:;ne rear pC:tL'ku.nr; J.o v was .i..i.ghted, and that there was an access door to their proposed space. They were willing to st;agger· no1.u:t> a.nu to accommodate the flex times or ether tenants~ nhc ~aid, but cou~d not suspend evening meetings. Based on their experience, 17% of the members would carpool, 7% would walk or bike, and 76% would drive themselves to their meetings, she stated.
Com. Claudy agreed that tne s~Kgcer1ng cou.i.u oe impor~an~, to
c J. ear ptt.L'.KJ.ne; ::!paces.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEI''.l.'EMBER 10,, 1984
MO'l.'IO.N:
SECOND~ VOTB:
MOTION:
uom, Olaudy, to close 1.;he Public Hearing
Com. Adams Passed 5-0
Com. Koenitze:t•, to recommend approv~l of 16-U-84, subj t.rnt to Standard Conditions l-15,, Oond:f.tions 16-20 of Urn Staff Memo,, with findings and suboonclusions or the Hearing. SECOND: Com. Claudy
VO'l'J!.: Passed 5-0
To be· heard by City Council o~ September 17,, 1984.
5. App.t1cat .. wn 25-U-81 (Re~i:sed) of NICHOLAS SPENO: USE PERMI'r .MODIFI<!A'l'ION to allow x•emoval of two specimen trees
and ENVIRONMENTAL HEVIEW: Tl1e project was p1•eviously assessed, hence,, no action is required. ~he subject property ls J.o(iatea on i..ne fl',out..nwesi; corner oI ~ft:1trn Avenue: and Stevens Creek Boulevard in a P (Planned'. Development wit office intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearine; date ~ September 17, 1984.
Director or J:'.iann1ng a.net L'eve1opneni, Sisk outlined the Starr rt~port,, nna aescr1o~a the location 0r the trees requestea to oe repJ.acea w1tn rour box specimens.
The Commission dlsc·ussea 'Cne •aamaeeu ana r'emoveci t::-ee:<.;,and how1.' -cne ::i1c;uat1on oould nave mippened, when th~re was a protection clause in Condition 21.
Com. Claudy suggested -cna-c tne damaged tree woula noi;. aurviv• and it was beti:.er i;.o r•ep . .l.!:t.Ot: it wnen 1,,11e Planning Commission had some controJ. over tha repJ.!:t.Clne spec1es.
Com. Blaine observing tnui, tne oJ.a species wa~ ~ vHry guou one, asked ~t:arI if a prot:~c~~un plan had oeen suom1i..t:ea.
~-.., •t '.>''!-,~ r\ D1l"ector of Plann:.ng ana "'eve.i.opment Sisk con.f:trmeei that before a ou1.tu.1n~ permit had been issued, this had oeen acne
N.tck <:>peno, <in owner, sa.ta nti uia not know personally wh~t happened, but that the t::-ee was almost on the sidewalk and overhung the street, and was hit by a trucK t:urning on'to 0r...ern, anu rwi.. lL'um t..ue <)unstruction site side. They had wanted t:o Keep t:ne tL'tH~, ne ~uJ.u, auu rmc.1 •,rJ.1ru111;1u. it. There was a large cost u1vo..Lvec1 WJt:11 ta.K.J..ng it out and rep.ta.cine; it, he saia, out.. t:!le er.t1:!ci.. or i-ne whole bu:lld1ng was ruined
and eventua..L~Y it would havu i,u cume owi,.
Corn. Blaine inquirea wnu~ had happened to the other trees.
l•:r. Speno said there was JUt:1i-om·!; wn1c11 naa been taken out by a demolition cr·ew oy ;ni::i1;a1rn. He conf~'.:mned it was an elm
:tiOTION: Com. Claudy .P to cJ.ose r.ne Public Hear1n3 SECOND: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: Passeu 5-0
Com. Adana suggested vHa.i-<:>t..tt.1.t could engage an arborist consultant at the applicant's expense to determine l.t' t.m~ tree was still salvageable, and to rec.ommend what could be done.
l'u-i+ '* o Page 7
PC-44'8 Page 8 e PLANNING CU.MN.J.SSIUN MINUTES,, SEPTEMBER 10, 1984
The Commission lil<ed the 1aeu o.t' n •·secuna o~inion 11 · and Com, Blaine reoorrunended~ lin. arbOx•irst. t
MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommena that Staff obtain the co:lf!Ultat..i.on o.r an aroor1si;, to aeti~rm1m1 ll' t:rie tree could be saved and to e;ive recomlnenaaliJ.una to replace tho~~ ~rees tihat were removed by accident, to bring it as near as possible to the original state before tnadvertent removal of the trees, all at the applicant's expense. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0
To be heard by City Council on September 17, 1984.
7. ApplJ,oation 17-tT-81 (Hevised) of SHELL OIL COMPANY (JOHN A. WILLIAMS): USE PERMIT to construct a kiosk with appx•oxi-mately 500 sq. ft. for the operation of a 24-hour mini-mart (indluding sale of alcoholic beverages) in an existing service station and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The pro~ect ia categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The suoJ~ct prop~rvy is located on the north~ast corner or ~~ei.L1ng no~u and Stevens
'Jreel~ Boulevard in a P (Plannea J.Jeve.Lopmeur.:; with commerc:i.al
1nt~nt) zoning ai~r.:;r1ut. First Hearing. Tentative City Counc1i nearing date -September 17, 1984.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the two new facets
01" 'tntt ope.t•ui,..i.un, arm aav1sed the Commission that Snarr d:id not have a pruoiem W1ti11 r.:;utt ~~-hour aspect of the operation, but in discussion wl'tu t:ntt o'::lnerriff's Depar.tment and Alcoholic Beverages Uun~ro.L anu others, they felt the request for the sale of' alcoholic beve.1.·cte;es should be denied.
FranK .tlre'tano, repr·e~ent1ng .:>ne.u. Oil Company, said they had operai:;ea respon1;11.oiy at the locat-ion for a rmmbel" of.' years, and added that if' tnt~ t.:orrun1 ~s1un wi.c:;hed to approve the Item as Staff' recommenaea, i:;uey wuu..1.u abi~e by 1 t, but they wan·~ed serious cunslae~a'tiun given to the e~tire merchandising. conve1.1encel:l as in the application.
Com. Aoan.i.tzer had questions about the security of the kiosk operH'tor over a ~~-nuur p~riuu, and the manner of operation.
George Papalias, owner, said he had a proper~y on Stevens Creek and Kiely wh;t.ch_ was banically the same. He cte·scr..i.Ot!a the operation and the~security aspect. .
Tor:l Bric;nt, nearby resident> had pol:Led his community of 60 units, ana 'tr1~y were unilaterally opposed, because the acc~ss for ga~oiir1~ sales might be blocked by convenience customer~, ana ~i1c sale of alcohol was inaongruous with the sale of casoline, they thought. Also, the proximity of Memorial Park couia ue a pruoiem in that there crould be distur~ances there. He was aisu conuerned with the poor southbound access on Ste.t.nng Roet.d and the conp;estion in the area during commute hours. ·1nere wati a 7-11 Store close by which was underutilized at night, he said.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 10, 1984
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Com. u~auay, to close the Public Hearing Com. Aaams Passed 5-0
Com. Blaln~ m.)i;ea 'Cm:tl. ~et.t.~rs nau oeen X'eceived from Key Chevrolet in favor or the Mini-mart but not the sale or a~cohol1c beverages, and from Mothers Against Drunk Dr1 v:l.ng, a.Lao oppos.i.ng i,ut:: sa.Le of' alcoholic beverages w1 th gasoline.
Com. u~auuy observed that this operation was different from 7-11. He thought the kiosk area needed more landacaping, but noi; 1n rruni; of the windows,for the sake or aare~y.
Com. Adams had no objections to the M1n1-mnrt.
Com. Blaine established that it was the consensus of the Commission that they were opposc;-d to the sale. of alcoholic
bcvcra~es w1i;n gasoJ.1ne.
MOTION: Com. Claudy, to recommend approva.L or l'i-Li-81 (ReviseaJ, suoJ~c~ to Standard Conditions 1-15, .
1 Cond1~1on J.o, L7, Condlt1on J.8 with "exclusive ot the sale or alconoJ.1c oeverages 11 deleted and "no alcoholic bevenages shall be sold" added; and additional Condition J.~ aaaea tu ~ne errec~ ~nu~ the applicants prepare a landscaping plan for submission ~o i;ne Architectural and Site Control Committee to proviae som1:? J.andscaping reJ.1eI' !'or the westeriy ena of the sales KiosK. SECOND:, Com. Adams VO'l1E: Passed 5-0.
To be neara oy City Council on September 17, 1984.
BREAK (Com. Clauay left~ City Attorney Kilian arrived)
1. Application 7-U-69 of STEVENS CREEK RANCH STABLES: PUBLIC u.e,JHU.NL:i 'Co consider revova1.iJ.0n or modification of an existing use permit which allows the operatiion 01 a commercial hor·seback ria1n~ stabl~ anu ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project 1s categorically exempt, hence, no action is requirea. ·.t'ne su.oJ t!Cti properi:::y is located on the east side of Stevens t,;anyon ttouu {lpproximately .1., uuu rti. sou·r:;n oI Ricardo Road. Firs~ Hearing continued.
Com. Blaine reviewed the history of the item and establi&hed an order of proceaure w1th City Attorney Kilian.
Mr. Junn H. Coward, of Duno1:1.r, 1v1auu1gnn, Coward & Moore, attorney for the Rancho Deep Cliff Homeowners Association, described their proposed procedure.
~d Vargo, President of the Rancho Deep u.1.11f Homeowners Associatton, read a statenent rrom tue Board of' Di.rector>S', e;iving their position, cvve.t·.l.nc.:; LW:! probJ.ema am .. 1 items previously discussed, stating the~violations of the use
perm1i;., ~rnscr·io1ng a misleading :nap that had been used, and describing what had happened on the three Monday ni~hts the Planning Commiss:t.on had met s1nce tn~ r.1.e..1.u ~rip. H~ stated the odors were still cont:tnuine~ 1:.1.uu W!:iuv1:a t.he Commission
PC-448 Page 9
PC-448 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 10, 1984
to direct Planning Dt>:;:>artmeni, ~:n;~I'I' to make a study atid recommendation, so that a member o.r -c.i1e J:'lanning De-partmcnt could be called on when the odor was present, to report on the degree and nuisance value or the odor to the Commission. In oonclus1on., i.f the matter was not resolved,, they would have to take alternavive act1on,, he stated.
Com. Koenitzer inquired the rrequency and intensity of the odor over the pas~ 45 day3.
Attorney Coward advised that Mr. Clayton had kept a log end .Mr. Adams could make statements, and he called on Mr. Adams to give evidence.
Bill Adams described how, on the last Planning Commiaa1on evening ni:: nau oeeu watching the Meeting on i:;c.i.f:lVls.i.on, auc uau gone outside just after 10:00 p.m. after the second telephone call, and had discove..t·ea a ve1.·y si:;.r-uug odor. indeed. He reiteratt!a t:nai.. t:ne smeJ..1. wa:.; a.1.mu::H .. u daily occur•rence and was a nuisance.
There was discussion on why the Planning Commission had not been called and 1 t was det-.ermined that the telephone munber was not available to all.
Com. ~oenitzer requested a record of the latt 45/60 days the smell had.occurred.
Attorney Cowara CHJ.J.ea on Mr. V.1.Ky~ou to present a iog ne nKu Kepi:;.
Fred Clayton, 11092 Canyon Vista, descrioea tue log, wnaL "C.i.me and where the odor readings had been taken and how much odor had been observea. ~n~ ouur could be spotty and rluctuating, he said, and was especi1;1.iiy present during the evenings. He presented tne ioe t:u City At:i:;orncy .1\.1.1..Lan, who passed it to Attorney JacKson !u~ tlcrutin)i
Attorney Jackson cohfir.med with Mr. Clayton that on the scale of 1-10 of t:ne iog, .LU wau the strongest and 1 the weakest. Since ne nau no ooJ~CL.Lons, nc ptissed the log to the.Commission. He stat:ea tnaL ne nau no~ ot:ne~ evidence, but noted, for the recura, tnaL in ~r. U.Layton'~ log, the highest reading was 4 and most: were J._,G and 3, and some o.
Com. J\aans establ:Uhed that Mr. Clayton had been present at the l'J.elu t:r.Lp,, ana LuCLi.. ne n1;1,u neen t;zwL·e I or t:he tuu.c· or the stables, a.na wat1tif:lu to Kuuw how Mr. Clayton rated the odor the Commlssion had ouse.r:vea.
Mr. ~.LrtY~un recemue~~u them as in the 4s and 5s and even a little higher, and hbd observed some fairly strong odors.
Com. JWCLms established with Mr. Clayton that the basis .for the loe was the same OtiS1a HS ~ •r that even1ns.
Com. ~~aoo inqu.1.reu at what location Mr. Clayton had smelled the 4 to ' oaors.
~r. 0itiy~on arJuwe~ed that the area the horses were kept during the uay wttu u 4 to 5 reading.
PLAN.N.l.NU COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 10,, .1964
Com. Blaine established with Mr. Clayton that on t..he rieia trip, all oaors ne n~u observed were the same type, anu ne had not smelled the chemical odor noticed betor~ or sinoe.
Attorney Coward established with Mr. l.i.l.a.yton 'ti.hat.. ne nac.t gone to the areK oeicw tne res~rvo1r, and that the odor detectea th11~re was not t..m: oaor 1n the subd1v1a1on • .tie
al~o es~uo.Li~l1ea that the homeowners had not detected the oao.L·., not was lt cum:::.LnUJ.ng.
He empnas1:Gea th1:.1· proxlm1r;y oJ.· •vne opera"C1on ·to i..m~ hom1:1s, ctnu did n0t think the homeowners should he responsiblP. !'or .fina.rng tue soiut.i.on, ana cornmeuuea tlla.c.. no great effort had been put ro.i:"Cn"'OY i:::ne si:;uoie owne:i:·s 1n 'tne11· opi~1c.m.
Tne r10rnecrtvrn&rs: u:;;e and enjoyment cl their proper1,;y wa;.{ affected by a cont1nu1ne, unpredic1:.able odor, he said; Ile listea tne v1oiat1011s 01· t:he use permit and wanted 1r, up-
ne.1.u ana 1,;ne si~uut:ion monitored until the proo.tem was e.1.iminated.
Attornell Jackson gave a history of negotiat:i.ons ana eI'.t'ortis expenaeu on i..ne1.i;· p1.:1r1.;, 1.:1uu stated that they had met witn
i..11e nomeownertl on the day prior. Ht:! wonuer·cu why the smell was never ver-y 1:1t...t·ong at the stables; it we.s a puzzle, and. ne t:nougtit .. tne answe.r .J.uy in 1v1.z:•. v1.:1rgo 1 1:1 c.Losing statement. The Rancho Deep Cliff homeowners simply wanted the stable closeu down, he t:nouen&. He went on to give a history of the Hearing, and po1n~ea ou't &ne cieanliness of the stablee
!'C-1J48 Page 11
and the minor nature or the oaurs. It had never been clarif ed that tne r.echnicu.L vlolations of' t.he use pe1•m1t were tne
suuL·ce 01 the problem, he said, but they would move the offending horses, though it would take some time.
nuwe\'e.i:·.i-they would pre.fer to have the use permit modified to permrc Keepu1p; a limited munber of.' arab1ans in the office and pud~ocK area, six in all, and try other ways to clean up and aoate any sme~.t.
A~1,;u.i:·ney Coward complained that Attorney Jackson continually rei'erenced the problem with the words "chemical smell,
r'.'lanuL·e ctnu u.i:·.Lne, wnereCl.s 'Cne prooJ.em was 'Cue st.1:1.ble and the smell was comine; from somewhere w1tn1n it, and he d1d no th1nK -c;uey nt.tu &o establish that. He rejected the .idea the homeowners nau ever wan'Gt:a tu c~o:;;e tne st:uuies, cu~ JUB~ wantec '!;u use anu enJuy their property, and had no argument j
with tne Ot:!nerit::i 'GO "Gut: CuI'.llllur11q• that the stable af'i'ord~d. He pointed out that 'Gnere htid been no testimony that 'C11ere was !l'J or1 ens1 Vt: oaor a -c vne stables, and when the homeowner< experlencea orrens1ve odors~ "Cnere was nu auuot in their r.:inds tntt1.o they were:•corning from the stables. It was not known whether tne sne~~ was no1.o presen~ at 1.one stanies a1,. the same time it was at Rancho Deep Cliff; it had not been monltorea, he said •.. He felt the ~echnical violatlons could be solvea, but that 'was no"' 1.;11e problem.
Attorney Jackson declinea 1.one opportunity tu repiy, ~lnce Attorney Gowara had the burden of proof.
PC-448 Pat;e 12 -PLANNING COMMISSIOl'l Ml.NU'J.'i'!..::;, SEP'l'EMBER 10, 1984
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Com. ~zaoo, to close tne ~CDl10 Hearing. Com. Koenitze:i:• Passed 5-0
City Attorney Kilian advised tbat 1n regard to the use permit, the Comw:.i.ssion should direct the viola.t:lons be corrected, or amend t:1e use permit. 'l'he matter should not be le.t""t;, he said.
The Commission basically thout:ht the conditions of the use permit should be followed. It was felt that from Mr.Clayton's log, the odors occurred more frequently than odor problems tha~· would be expected from li vine; 1n tne !!ills, and ser:1.ous cons1ue.c·atcf:on had to oe given, ou"C tmu.·e··,was no solid. evidence that tiea "Cne ouors directly to the stables.
Com • .!\oen1t~er· observed thai; tne worst: oaors emanated fro:m the area 'the norses were Kept in during tne aay, anu aalllerence -cu the u~e pe.cw1t: wouiu nut solve tnu~.
Com. Szabo haa a pruoiem wlt:n t:n~ Irequency of the odor, since the ~ommis~ion had not been able to sample it on three occasions, whereas it was supposed to occur 75% of ths time. He thought the resiaen~s might: be mo~~ bensitiv~ tu it tn1:1.n aouiu be 0rdinarily expected, and could not vote for declaring it a nuisance on that oasis.
Com. Adams thought the degree of obJectionability was not clear, and tr~oaors ne n~a pbservPrt WAre not ~bjActionable enough to him to be consid~~ea a n~isanc6. '
Com. ~~aine £elt there was a problem, or the action would not have bean brouBnt, but ob~ervea that odors could be very subjectiVE!. Tney couJ.u st1:1.I.'l• by insiatint·'., that the use permit be adhered to, she suggested, and if this did not wurK, i;ne next
Stt'p wouJ.a ue to move the operation towards the quarry area, she tnoue;nt...
MOT~ON: Com. Szabo, to find that there was no public nuisance SECOND: Com. Adans
VOTE: Passed 3-1 (Com Koenitzer dissenting, Com. Claudy absent)
MOTluN: uom. ~~aoo, to find that there was a violation of ~n~ use permit, in that horses were kept overnight in an area other than the quarry area, and that 'the pe,mlt hoiuer oe directed to comply within 6~ days. This l"'t'm to oe cunt1nuea ror 6u aays until November J.j, 1984 for further Hearing on compliance with the use permit. SECOlW: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-o (Com. Claudy absent)
Public lJearins continued to 1~esday night, November 13th.
Com. Biaint' atipulatea tntl~ no odor problems could be brought up a:c the ~or:~J.r1uac.J.un Hearinr,J and that arwvu~r 11ea.ring wou.Lu have ~u ue 1n1LJ.u1,,eu ~o au su; the focus would be compliance. h '
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOEEt~ 10, 1984
8. Application 12-TM-84 of CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION, INC. (BAS HOMES): TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP to subdivide·
thre~ parcels equaling three acresninto 14 parcels.ranging in size .fl•om 6,.300 aq. ft. to 8 11 000 sq. rt. and ENVlRONMEN'l'A REVIEW: ·.me .tmv1.r•drur.enta.L .t(ev1ew vo1nm1t t.ee rt!commana1:J 'tnt-J granting of a Negative Decla1"ation. The suoJ ec't propeirty 1:'3 located on the east side of Stelling Road approximately 125
ft. north or Shadow Hill Lane in a Rl-6 (Residential, singlci fa."11..ty, ti,uuu sq. !"c. m1n1uaur. lot size) zoning district. Firs'C 11earing. Ten ta ti ve City Council Hearing date. -September ..1.(, .L~o~.
uirec,or of Plann!ng and Development Sisk outlined the Staff Heport, saying the a.eve.Lopment. was consitrcerl"C Wi'Ch i;ue Generai ~.Lan aua tne ~rceH haa protect.ion measures. ~ince Condit1un .L~ nau oeen iert ou~ o! ~ue pucKetB , he
PC-448 Page 13
d1str1buteu i~, uuvi~1~~ that the appiicanL nau ques~lonB on it.
Steve Stern, Presidetlt or .tsJ\0 l1omes, said they had a problem wi tn 1Jona1 -r;j,on .L~ in tmu:; t.ne wno.1.e area needed storm sewer wors, out. t.ney wou.LC oe i1aoie to cover the cost of an ubs1ze seNer system. ne want.ea a proration based on their acreage in the area..
vom. Bialne estaoi1snea tna~an assessment district had not been d1scussea wit.n ~r. ~tern, anc sne a~Kea v1~y ~ngineer Whit'Cen whether such a district would normally be Ret up.
vit.y .c.ne;ineeL· wnit.ten advised that tnere had not been such an assessment district f':ince he had been with the City. He expla1nea the problem of the additional run-off_. and that: -cne sewer sys-r;em wou~a prooao~y not serve futuee development, since the land to -r;ne north was ~ower anu !'e..l.J. away "Cu -c.ne nor·t.neast, so that the system probably would only serve the BAS de~relopr.lent.
Com. Koenitzer questioned the curve in the road coming off SteJ.J.lng, as 1t. maae tne J.O"t sizes uneven, and did not m.1.ke much topocrepn1ual u1rr·erence, he thought. He expected there would he very iarge nomes on Ll1e J.ot~ and wanted to see a more even J.OL s1~e balance.
The applicant staLea tnat. t.n~ curve gave a little more
1nvex•est, and pointed out the minimum lot size was 6, OCO sq. ft., whereas tne smaiiest her~ was 6,300 sq. ft.
Berk Simonds, 1171 South Stelling, lived opposite and thought the curved drive addeu aethetically and also kept the street away from Lne ~rees tu be prt"serv~d.
Marjorie Simonds supportt"U nt'r huso~nd; and said their next-· j door neighbors also liked the development. As a realtor, she · stated tne.c·e was a neea ror nou:nne; anu t.llt'L'e had been too r.1Uch co:niilercial development recently.
MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE~ Passe'! 4-0 (Corn. Claudy absent)
_,
PC-448 Page 14 PLAHNING COMMISSION MINU'l'ES, SEPTM13ER 10, 1984
In disc us sing 1..ntt st. orr,1 drainage, 1 t was felt that if' anothe1~ group b~nefitted 1n the future, they should reimburse the developer.
As$1stant City Engineer Whitten advised that there were existing Ordinanoea and Resolutions bhat addressed the subject, and gave advice on the wording of the Condition. He advised that there would be some monies available to assist the developer.
Com. Blaine suggested Mr. Stern be given an opportunity to peruse the Ordinances 1n question before the City Council Meeting.
MO'rION:
SECOND:
VO'l'.t!.:
Com. Adams, to i•eoomrner1d the granting of a Negative
Decla.r~1.-1vn. Com. l\.o~nl tze.1.·
J:'asEea 4-0 (Com. C~audy absent)
There wa::i tl suu.1.·i.. a.Lscunslon regarding the curved. street, and
11.. 1'11:1::; geueL·1:t.LLY tnou.3nt; t-u oe satisfactory,. . ~ . ~
MOTION: Com. Aaams, tu rt::cununeua appruva.i. or· 12-TM-84, subject to Condition::; 1-.J.o, w.i.1..n uonal1...1.un 19 motjified to . read 11 '.L'rH:: app.Llcaur.;l.i sntu..L oe responrs:tble for apportioned costs to upsize or modify any public utilities or other improvements tu acco~dOUHte the subject development.
SECOND: Com. r,oeul't:ZeL·
VO·i c.: ,tJa::;sea 4-0 (Com. Claudy absent)
'ro be heard by City Council on SeptembtH' .L {, .J.~O'+.
UNFINISHED BUSl~L~~
9. Review of .t'ropu::;ea Floor Area Rat1o (F.A.R.J Transfer Manual.
Com. r-..oen1t.ZeL' con.firmed that n.i.s cuncer·ns ni:ta been answerea.
1viu.i.·.1.ui~: vorn. !\.ueu.J.t:Ge.1.·, to send the F'.H.r:. ·.1.·rans.fer Manual on to tue uity Council
SECONU: vum. ;warns
VOT=.: Passed 4-o
I (Com. Claudy absent)
10. Request I'or uenefit.l .t'.Lau Araendment s:
1.t a. DML
I b. Mariani Financial Company c. ve An~a ~rupe~t.~es I
I I
Corr.. Bl::.1ne ascer"cainiea 'tuut, 1,,ue uomm1ss1on had to determ1ne whe c,he.t· eacn 01 t.ne tru·ee request: s hau r:ie.t•J. i,, anu 1r so, wnethe.i:
i,He amenumeu1-::; woula Dt! ::u:J.J or or minor.
'I'he vomr:11ss1on exa."11nea .Levce.c· la; WlUCu requested a General Plan nearing to add units on the De Anza Oaks Development..
Com. Koenitzer felt that not even 211 units would be allowed on 'the propeL't.Y now. He gave some n1::; cvry,, as he had been on the Arcnivt:Ct:u.ra.1.. a.riu .::.>l.ve l.JonvrOJ. Cor.unittee at the time. or cunstruction or the previous un1t3 •
. .
.,
'
0
PLANNING 1MJ-1J.)SION MINU~ES, SEPTEMBER 10,, 1984
Com. Bl:a1m:: pointed out that tn~ .J.t:itt,e.c· stated 16 acres baa oeen ne.1.a in reserve for future consideration.
Com. l\Oen.it:Ge.t· c.1.ariL1.eu that it had been put in DeSel."Ve because the de,re lo.i:Jiu'.eri('ti ~ht:a~iwQr:~~~ deedad~(t.o ,~f.~:~'~'.¢.~~y\~t~~;;,'~+t::~~~ti~·~,,
MOT Iv.N: Coz:i. Koenitzer, to i•ecommend rejection or tn~ DML request, in that it ala not meet; th~ cr1ter1a ror determining that a ttea.t·ing should be scheduled, and tha"C the aev1::.1.opmt:ui.. rights had been deeded 'to the U1ty. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: J:'l::ltjSea 4-0 (Com. Claudy absent~
'J.1he Commission exam1nt:a J.t::'tte.t• (b)which was a request to initiate a General Plan Hearing for the property at De Anza .oou.1.evara ana Homesi;eaa ttoaa,, t;u Cilange t;u a comme.c·c1al
orrice/res1aen~1al m1xea use.
1,;om. Szabo felt the proposal would decrease housing and was con'Crary 'Co 1.one commun1t;y neeus.
PC--448 Page 15
·.rne L.:or.un1::Jsiun aid not.. see anyt;H1ng tnaii woulu fit the criteria, since the approvea zoning wa::J a housing developmen •
Paul Hogan, Mar1an1 ~inanci~l Company, wanted to suppiemen'C 'Cue J.e'titeL·, auu re.Lt they had lost their rights W1'Ch t.J1e new procedure. He wa6 confused by what the t;omm1ss1on was saying.
Com. Hlaine adv1sea n1m tnat he hau not.. .Lost any ~ign'C~, since 'Gile mui:;-cer st..1.LJ. had to go to City Council and the' uomm1ss1on was me.c•e.1.y a reco.mJ:H:maint!; body. She gave Mr. Hogan an explanation of their ac'Clons, going bnrougn 'Cne
Cri-r:er•;.a, aua suge;esi-ea he add 'CO i;;ne J.er;;-cer r·ar City Counc1 •
MO'fION:
SECOND: VOTE:
Com. Szabo, to recommena 'CO 1.;ii:.y 0ounc.L.L t;nar, Ma!'iani .F,inancial L:omp,any 1 s i•equesi;. I or a I'ev1s lun or the General Plan be denied.
Com. Koenitzer Passed 4-~ (Com. Claudy absent)
'l'he Comr.1iss1on examineu .1.et.Ler lCJ wult:H was a r•equesc; rur a uene1·a.1. !:'.Lan Hearinc to replace so.me or tne conaom1n1um
univ::> w1tn e.Luer.1.y .nou::i1ne :.m1Ll:l anu aaa an 0J:I1ce si-r.uci-ui.·e at the northeast co~ner 01 t.ne ~own uen11er P.1.ann1ng Area.
'l'he Commission liked the idea of the housing for tne e.J.aer.Ly but felt that addins the orr1ce space was not w1vnin Bu1ae~
lines.
Com. Blaine asked Director of Planning and Development Sisk
if' it would be a prerogative of the CJ.ty Council on:.y to accept a part of the request.
Director or Planning anu ueveiopment Sisk thought tnat tne app.1.1cant; was m1:.uruy J.nterested in the commerc:!.al office, und that supp.1.y1n6 hones rur ~ne e.1.aerJ.y was a way i;u gee 1.one t1·'1r·r·1c ,·;balance required.
;·
PC-1148 . Pac;c 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SPETEMBER 10, 1984
MO'l'IO.N: Com. Adams, to recommend to the City Council that De Anza Prope~t1e~·r~qut1s1.i rur K ueneral Plan Hearing be d(.)nied. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 3-1 (Com. Blaine dissenting, Com. Claudy, absent)
Director of riann1ne ana uevelopmei1~ ~isK advised that the Commission should adopt a Resolution for each one of the three letter$, stating that the criteria had not been met.
The Commission acreed, and clarified in the second case, that. the amount of avrilable housing would be decreased, and in .· the third case, tnat ·if there ~ere additional trips that could.· be used, they should be used for additional housing on: the site~
City Attorney .l'\1J.ian aav1st1a tutt.1.i i:.nt! app.L1cants could mod,ify or add to their letters for City Coun~il.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Com. Szabo asked for details of the rules governing garaee sale
signs~which Director of Plannine and Development Sisk gave him.
Com. Ada~s questioned the leeality of an auto parts store sign on De Anza Boulevard,which Director of Planning and Development Sisk undertook to investigate.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Director of Planning and Development Sisk announced that there would be a fairly extensive parkine lot redesign relative to further development in Vallee Park, and wanted to arrange a Special f.leetinc; to consider an amendment to the use permit for the entire cent:er.
·1·ne uormn1ssion ae;reect tna'G a 1v1eet1nc; snouJ.ct oe set: up ror uctober 1 1 1984 a~ 5:30 p.m., prior to u1ty uounc1J. Meeting
Adj ournrnen": 11: 50 p. rr..
ATTEST:
·-
'; ! ' ~