PC 03-25-87-crI'Y OF aJPERI'IlK>, STATE OF Cl J.Il'ORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue CUpertino, CA. 95014 fill (408) 252-4505
MINUrES OF 'IHE ADJOUI~ ·ru:x:;ur.AR ME'ETTh"G OF THE PI.1\NNlNG W1MISSION HEID 00 MARCH 25, 1987 Meeting He.ld in the 'l'emporary City Hall, 10430 s. De Anza Blvd.
SAI.lJ.I'E TO THE FI.AG;
ROLL CALL:
COromissioners Present: Vioa Chairwaman Sorensen camnissione.r Mams Canmissiooer Szabo
7:30 P.M.
Staff Present: Rebert Cowan, Director of Plann:ing & Developne.rxt.
NE.W .&JSINESS
Steve Piasecki, Assistant Plannir~ Director
'l'ravice Whitten, Assist.ant City En;Jineer
Peg:;J'f M. Cocke.r, Attorney
ITEM 6. Discussion of Letter frClll. Collins Elementary Schcol tlated
¥.arch 3' 1987
Staff Prese..ntation.;. Mr. CcMru1 r.oted that t.he Commission had expressed concern regardirq traffic patte..."'115 in the residential area surrourrlirq
Collins School; se-::orrlarily, he called attention the letter of Ms. Sonja Shurr, CJpe.rt.ino Union School District, of March 24, 1987.
Mr. Cowan reviewed the history of traffic circulation patterns for the area; he presented an exhibit shcMi.ng traffic circulation patte.rns in the Collins School area, called at:ention to the Lazaneo/For.rest area and the turn restriction at Stevens Creek Blvd. He noted that the original intent of the City was to relieve pn>~--ure on the DeAnza/Stevens Creek Blvd. intersection.
Mr. Travise Whitten noted in regard to thn March 3, 1987 letter that:
-Sidewalks -Crossin] Guards are currently a budgetary item am would probably be approved. -Three way stop:
-Crosswalks will be :in'plemented
In resp::>nse to Com . .Adalns' question, Mr. Whitten stated that cx.>st of these
i.mprov~ts could be imposed by the City Council on Apple co. Mr. eowan added that apparently there was confusiot1 at the Council Meetinq; the Apple repre.smtative submitted a letter whi..ch contained specific'
pr01::osals. The verbal presentation was more gen€'.ral; hcwever, when approving this proposal, the Council ref erred bctcic to the letter. Mr. Ca.van statei that the requests bein:;; made at this Hearing were beyond the
Use Pennit.
PUiNN:rnG c::n1MISSIOO MTIIDl'ES
.Adjourned Regular Meetirq of~ 25, 1987
PAGE 2
PC -516
ITEM 6 (cont'd)
Ms. Sonja Shurr, Clpeltino Union School Disb:ict, read a t-.cepared statement dated March 24, 1987, ooncerning saferty hazards an:l P:roposed solutlons to prevent hazards. She exp~ ai:p:r~'Ciation to the City for help in redesigning traffic circ:ulation pa:tterns and ar.swe:red questions C!lddressed by the CcrmnisaionArs.
ITEM 7 Application 9-U-83 (Mcdified) -Sevf.m Springs Ranch -Minor m::xilfication to previously approved use permit.
Staff ~tion~ Mr. Piasecki st."'l.ted that the request was to consider a minor no:iification of the t1"lroo carrq;xm.e.nts of the Seven Sprinjs Ranch
Develoµr.ent: -Deletion of the zero lot line reference requirement (self inlpJGCd) for
the Seven Sprin;fa Ranch IX."Velopment -Deletion of self imposed restriction that: 50% of all units be limited to one-story; this 1 request doe.a ·oot involve the ·ninete.en perimeter lots;
the developer is still following t.hraJgh with the 50% corditior.a.1
requirement on the Use Per:mi~ for those lots. Instead, it involved the interior portion of t.he develop:!W"'.nt . -AWlicant requests the option of retaini.rg an existirq duplex str.ucture to be used by the HaOOCMI'lP..m Association. He noted t"lat on the Applicant's plans it irrlicated that this structure could r.ossibly be
used for a co-op child care center to serve the develcpnent only. It is
Staff's opinion that a child care c.ent..er serving th~ project only 'WOUld not necessarily require a Use Permit; if opened to the general public, haNever, the facil.i.ty walld require a Use Permit hearir.g to evaluate traffic i.>tpacts. Secorrlly, they are suggesting that this structure could be used as a green house or a o:..rporation yard.
Minor nOO.ifications provisions in this case are drescriberl iri Condition 23
which authorized the Plannin:;! Director or the Pl~ Commission to aPf. -:ove minor C.hCJ.n3"es to the deve.lq:mp..nt. plans. 'Iha whole concept of minor m:::xiifications is the1:0 bec.:ause al.~t ariy develq:.ment is goi.:ig to urrlel-go
some ~e before they get ar.ound to acl-ually build.in:] it; this is particularly true for a large develop:nent of this size. He cited other
exarrples.
The intent of the minor nroif ication provision is to allow the minor
cha.n;Jes to occur arrl, provich~ they don't have significant impacts particularly on adjacent properties. Also it's important t.J review them
atrl judge whethe.r thfq represent any chan;ies i...., the char'"ct:er of the project as it was represented in the p.lblic hearing process. ·
,.
~ ..
PI,ANNING Cll1MISSJCN MmCJI'ES Adjoorned Regular Meetirg of March 25, 1987
PAGE 3
I:c -516
rrEN 6 (Cont'd)
'Ille Staff Report noted ~ issues:
-Procedural; St.a.ff revi~ tJtla application arrl a.it.lined sane mlggest.00. questions for the ca:nmisaionar to ask th.ems<t!lves that relate to the character of the project: -'What was represented jn ~lie Hearirqs?
-Will the c.han:]e affect the prcperty interest of the adjo.1.nirq p~..J..ty
a.me.rs?
-Does it alter the chan'lctar? -Does it represent a least :modification to achieve the dsveloper 1 s objectives? uroe.r that procedural area, normally you won't get into the rrerits of the
change significantly except when those merits can be ax:gued will :fulfill
the intent of the original statement, represP..n:tation, whatever it may be. You may want to brin:J up issues relat:lrg to how the two story 1::.uildin:js they are prq:iosirg also have vru:yirq roof elements arrl in fact, fulfL.~ a significant portion of that original intent. 'Ihose ty~ of a:cgumE>.nts are certainly very relevant wxier the procedural issue.
'Ihe other concept of lllP..ri t is th1.s that cha.n:Je to tho bettfJ.r in sane respect rc:-.ally s.ha.lld cane after the procedural issue has been resolved.
'lhe request tonig..11t repre...<:;ents an appeal of the Plannin::J Director's detennina.tion that the charge does alter what was presented in the exhibit. '1be staff did qualify our statement relatirq to the third J:X)int,
r.elatirg to the interrled. use of duplex structure. We felt that p<>.-rhaps
that chan;Je could be dexronstrated not to alter the intent of maintaining a fairly large q:x:.n space area in that particular location. Howeve.r, the plans were semantic at this poirit--we couldn't tell h0"'1 much area was to
be fenced off for child care.
He pointed to the plans of the app:r'OV'ed romibi t. shrM:in:J the open spaee areas an:i note:l the uni~ on Rainbow O-.c.; as prese.nt.ed tonight, that unit
doe..-m 1t seem to be there'. I 11fl not sure' if it was iixcen::'.led to be delete:'l,
reroclVed or located somewhere else. But ce.rtainly if this :Held area wa'il
enlarged as it appears to l>e - I think it 1 s about tlu."ee quarters of an acre, 01· maybe just under an acre in size depen:ifrg on which e.;dtlbit .
you're looki.'lg at. If it was to be enlarged in this area, certainly putting a buildirg in here is goin;J to retain much of the same open space area as presented with that prq~..al. Staff did qualify that state.me:nt
that that change as presented by itself could e...c:;sentially be viewed as insignific.ant and not a ma.jar change.
Mr. Piasecki referred t.o the pob"ted exhibits approve:! in 1985 as well as
the exhibit of the interior ~\rea. 379 of the lats were to be zero lot
line arran;3'eroonts an::i the reference to the 50% single sto:cy W-dS actually
contained as a notation. O;ie plan talks about the number of. stories, one
arrl two, showinc; maximi.m1 heights of 20 and 30 ft. It is also reflected by
ths elevation rud1.ibit showirq some alternatiri<;J one and two s'.:ory haoos
which were presentA:.'rl :rrore as information be.c'..ause the deta1led architectural concept was to go back to ASAC.
;~ ·'
PLl\NNING aJ'.r'i·ITSSICN MINUl'ES
Mjoorned Negular Meeting of M:lrch 25, 1987
PAGE 4
p,:: -516
IT.EM 7 (eor.t'd}
Mr. Piasecki also noted that the City received floor plans showing square footages of sane of the hones and reiterating zero lot linf....s concepts on side yards; if ~ look at tiietn clooely, .i.n sane cases they are ~ a lot different than if the hane was placed Jrore towaJ:d the center of the lot, as the....--e little side yru::d. But in other ca.sea, they did try to capture
arxl agglcmerate GaM of those spaces.
He then ~tad. that the Ccmnlssion review the CUIDUlative inpact of
~es; Vie were prest~lted with sane min".'r. ci'la1;ges a few weeks ago involv.in;J tree rem.:TVal, bike ~th gneatiou, mcr,..ification of i.ntel:nal
sidewalks and ~ plan changes. Ya.i need to put tonight's request wit.h
those am say we have min::lr du.vqes that are broJ<en into little . incre.mants-iniividua.lly they may l:::e all minor but put t.GJether they're viewed as major.
Procedurally the minor modification provision Corx:lition 23 does not require notioo t.o the neighborhood; this po:l,.nt should l:>e kept in ndl'tl.
Staff did advise Mr. Shannon of the West CUpertino Haneown.ers Association ar.d at his request, Mr. senuta, but staff made no otror effort to contact residents in t.ha ne.ighborhood. From tlw Clty's notice standpo:int, it was not p.lblicized. Also the de.:ision of tl10 Planning Cc:mni.ssion can be ai:pea.led by art;{ interested party. Expedited revie-Ar of an appeal would take
place at the Cc\mcil Meeting of April 6, 1987. He also noted· that the
project Use Pr ini.t was due to expire on May 6th of th.is year. 'Ihe applicant c.an al.so awly for a Use ~nlit amenc.lroont. He noted. letter rece-i::ed. frcm Mr. Se...'lllta arrl a secrnrl lettA..r fran Mr. an:i Mrs. Epstein.
Vice air. sorensen aske::l for a dete.:r.m.ination whether this was a minor
charge.
Mr. Jim Jackson, ut:on :rocc>gn.i.tion frcm the Chairv stated tbat the Applicant was in substantial cU.SC\greement with the wording of the COrrlition presented by staff; he asked to address the Commission befo:.:e a decision was made on whether the request wa.s a minor amendment or nct:.. He belie":es that staff has overlooked another alternative inte.:c:protatim in detennination t:lle nature of the request.
He stated that according to the lan:]uage in the Uoo Penn.it there is a
third alternative before tlw c.ammission. Urrler COJ¥.lit1o.n 23, " ••• the Plazm.ing Di.rector may certify the change on the revisai plan; if such
approval is wit.hheld the Awlicant may appeal to the Planniny Conmtission. If the charges are material, the Plann:\JYJ Director shall submit t.11e change to the Planni.n3' Caum.ission for approval .. " He fe-J.t the ai:plicant's
proy-JSed changes are minor an1 can be applXNed by Staff. Ho\<ieVer, the
language of the con:litian is intended to avoid the dic..hotan't1J between 1najor arrl minor modifications by alla.d.ng dic;crationazy review of the Commission withoo:t the context of a noticed Ftlbl.ic Hearin;. 'Ihe hie.rarchy of
proce:.'h.lre is to review mioor charqes a': the staff level, "material" chan:jes at the Plannin;f carrm.ission 1ew.?.l, and changes to the entire Use
Permit at a roticed ~lie hea.dn.J.
~
~;
If.-
19
·Pl.AN.NJN:i CXMiISSIOO MINl1I'ES Mjoo.rned Regular Meeti1¥J of March 25, 1987
PAGE 5
FC -516
ITEM 7 (Cont'd)
Mr.. Piasecki cited Page 2 of the Staff Rep:>rt which refers to the Plan:n.irg canmission 1 s option to exerclsa gn-.ater latitu:la in int""..rpretin:J the intent cf the conditfon, am thereby e>q:>arrl thair review authority. However, staff has taken a rore literal, arrl thereby mre restrictive interpretation.
Ms. COCksr reviewed loga]. prtX:eC1ura an this AJ.::plicatian ard stated that since Staff did not view the above aa a minor change, the Plannirq COmmission must confirm or reverse that detenninatian. If the minor modif icatian denial made by the staff is ~d, further action shalld be taken at a p.lblic hearin:].
In response to can. Adams' question, staff stated that thf:l scope of an advertised public hear~ which follc.M detennination that the pl':qX)Sed lOCdifications are major, wculd be limita.i to the modifications themselves.
cam. Szabo ~ that there have been a nwaber of c.:han:;)'es ma-~ the years. If all the chan:Jes had been pres.ented at one time, there would have been a requirement to hold a Public Hearirq. He felt t.hat a Public Hearirg was necessary at this t:i.n:e and noted that minor euoo:r.dments do not provide the p..lblic with the opportunity to cx:mnent on the reqwo...st. ·
Can. Adams concurred that this w.:1s a major amendrrent in the reigard to
eliminate the 50% one story provision; he favored denial of a :t:'eCJ.1..i.est. for a minor moondment. Vioe au-. sore.nsen COI'lal...i-red ru"rl noted concern
regarding the cumulative effects of sweral minor amerdments.
Mr. Jackson stated that 1 the CO.V.mission niay be open\t.irg under a misconception; there has been only one minnr arrien:bnent made up until this :tX'int; he noted that there was a Use Permit < .. ::i.ange two years ago which was reviewed in a noticed public h'2ar.i.rq.
MJI'ION: Com. Szabo IOCNed to firrl this request a material cli.an;;e arx:1 therefore deny the req.i.est for a minor an~.
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOI'E: Passed 3-0
Break: 8:40 -8:50 P.M.
REFORT OF THE PI.ANNING Cll1MISSION
-Com. Ar.lams i-eque.sted add.i.tiona.l infomation reg-a.rd.liq hazardous materials.
RB.P:)Rl' OF '11'JE PI.ANNING DIRECroR
-Written Report submi.t.._"ld
Us. :J?e:;Jcnr Coc.ker discussed charqes in prooerture of rcvCX"..ation of Use Per.mi ts; and Ordinance wae be:lrrJ d.ra.fted ootl inirq this proce.·e;s.
PUINNOO a:HfiSSICN M1NtJI'ES
.Adjourned Regular Moetin; of March 25, 1987 PAGE 6
PC -516
AOJOURNMEm':
ATTEST:
Havin:J concluded its business, the Planning Commission adjoorned at 9:02 P.M. to the next Rag-u.lar Meetirq of April 13, 1987 at 7:00 P.M.
, 1987: