Loading...
PC 11-13-90 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 13, 1990 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman claudy vice Chairman Mackenzie commissioner Adams Commissioner Mann Commissioner Fazekas staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Mark Caughey, city Planner Ciddy wordell, Associate Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner I Marilyn Noorling, Housing Coordinator Travice Whitten, Assistant city Engineer Charles Kilian, City Attorney POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 2: ADDlication 20-U-90 and 39-EA-90 - Applicant requests continuance to November 28, 1990 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Dennis Warner regarding ground water problem Louis B. Green regarding item 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PUBLIC HEARINGS: L Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 33-U-87 (Amended) Bethel Lutheran Church Bethel Lutheran Church Southwest corner of Finch and Sorensen Avenue AMENDMENT OF USE PERMIT to construct an outdoor stage and seating, install playground equipment, install demonstration gardening devices and accessory structures for use in conjunction with church and school activity. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 2 Staff Presentation: Mr. Bob Cowan presented the staff report describing the location of the property. This particular application is to change the site plan of the church to allow more activities. He noted the Use Permit has been involved in at least five hearings since mid 1970's involving continued expansion of the church. The applicants are seeking approval for garden boxes which have been built, a trellis and a 280 s.f. stage for education activities. Mr. Cowan noted there are storage buildings on the site which should not be there, but these code violations will cease when the new structure is build. The neighbors have concerns regarding the childrens activities. He noted the stage is away from the neighbors noting the application is conditioned to eliminate amplified music and to limited the hours of operation to school hours or the time the church normally has religious activities. Staff recommends approval. Com. Mackenzie questioned the Use Permit violations. Mr. Cowan stated the planter boxes are the basic violations. He noted staff had allowed the planter boxes to remain. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Earl Jones noted there are only three planter boxes as opposed to the six shown on the site plan. He noted the construction was only the footings. The plan has been changed to accommodate the neighbors. He noted the gravel on the play yard will be replaced with sand which will cut down on the noise. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Barbara Myers, 10190 Yoshino Pl. presented photos to the Commissioners of the site, the planter boxes and the metal shed. She expressed concern regarding the fence and the gate as well as the L-shape storage unit as shown on the drawings. She stated they should be built in accordance with the original application which have already been approved. She requested restrictions on when construction can take place and also a completion date. Ms. Myers noted there are three sheds on the site and asked which two sheds will be removed. In response to Com. Mann's question regarding the sheds, Ms. Bjurman stated the three will be removed when the L-shape structure is constructed. Mr. Cowan stated ASAC did require a fence to block the area behind the shed so it cannot be used. He noted a permit had been issued for the construction of the shed. Com. Mann expressed concern regarding the on-going code violations regarding illegal buildings, trash, etc. She felt the stage was a good idea, but was concerned it would be used at hours which would impact the neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page J Com. Adams noted the stage is acceptable as is the fence and gate. He expressed concern regarding the removal of the sheds that are violating codes. Corn. Fazekas suggested modifying Condo 3 to include 3 sheds and Condo 2 to add in the gate and fencing between the shed and the back fence. He supported staff's suggestion regarding the back half of the stage being solid wood treatment if noise is a problem. Com. Mackenzie stated he would like to see the site brought into conformance, with the exception of the planter boxes before a Use Permit is permitted for the stage. In response, Mr. Cowan stated a condition could be added to ensure the L-shape building would be installed first and all code violations removed prior to start of construction of the gate or play stage. Chr. Claudy felt the church should be aware of these code violations. He supported the fence and gate for safety and also the planter boxes. Chr. Claudy concurred with Com. Mackenz ie regarding no Use Permit until all code violations are taken care off. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 2. Com. Fazekas moved to close the public hearing Com. Mann Passed 5-0 Com. Fazekas moved to approve 33-U-87 (Amended) subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Condo 2 the area behind the L-Shaped shed to be closed off; Condo 3 change 2 to 3 sheds and all existing code violations on the site shall be removed prior to any construction subject to staff's inspection, eliminate lighting used in play area except for safety lights. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Application No(s): Applicant: Location: I-GPA-90 Update of the Housing Element City of Cupertino City-wide Review and update of the background data and pOlicies of the General Plan Housing Element. Staff Presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report noting this is a technical update which is consider Stage II of the General Plan revisions. She stated there is a major policy direction added to the staff report which will be discussed at this hearing. Ms. Wordell stated comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the City's draft had been forwarded to them, they are seeking more detail on the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 4 programs and also more commitment from the City. She noted the answers to HCD's concerns were written in the outline as presented in the staff report. She explained the job/housing ratio noting the numbers, based on ABAG, raise questions regarding transportation and housing for people who work in Cupertino. Regarding regional ABAG housing needs, in 1985-90 the City met about half the number of housing units which ABAG identified as meeting the City's share of the need. The City did not meet the low income housing need. Ms. Wordell went on to explain the housing needs for 1990-95. Another issue HCD identified was meeting the emergency shelter needs, staff recommended direction to amend the zoning district ordinance to allow shelters in the BQ zone. Staff suggested showing HCD more commitment to higher density and mixed-use development. In response to Chr. Claudy's question Mr. Cowan stated HCD wants def ini te commitments from the city to meet their requirements. Chr. Claudy questioned looking at geographical regions rather than just the City. Mr. Cowan pointed out that HCD has a certain number of requirements for each jurisdiction and the cities are participating in a rotating homeless shelter. Ms. Marilyn Norling, Housing and Services Coordinator, went on to explain the housing programs. The Primary program is the CDBG fund, she also explained the senior housing fund. For the past two years the City has been trying to provide housing using the following: State Density Law; Mixed-use; Fee Waivers. She noted only 20 affordable housing units have been development over the last five years which does not meet ABAG goals. Ms. Norling explained the potential tools for affordable housing. She noted the state is taking a stronger role in affordable housing and stressed the need for more apartments. She felt the City has adequately responded to the HCD and is making an effort to provide affordable housing. In response to Corn. Mann's question Ms. Norling stated that park waivers had been considered. Ms. Norling explained the mitigation strategy suggested. Chr. Claudy commented on the mitigation strategy noting the only one the City could enforce now is require the developer to build high density. Corn. Adams stated parking needs to be consider in high density development, noting there should be some compromise. Corn. Fazekas noted he would be interested in seeing where 200 units would go, and if the infrastructure support the housing proposed. Ms. Norling noted in terms of the number of units one site in the city current zoning would allow 110 units. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 5 Com. Mann suggested using a parcel of land which the City had just purchased. Chr. Claudy stated he is opposed to allowing developers to provide low cost housing on a site that is already zoned for housing. He noted the intent should be for the developers not to provide low cost housing which would be developed at a later time but to provide low cost housing that would not otherwise be developed. Corn. Adams asked if it is feasible to convert vacant warehouses to apartments. He would like to see this explored as a potential. Mr. Ed. Bloom, 22150 Wallace Dr., Housing Sub-committee, noted the problem is providing affordable housing when land is so expensive. Ms. Roberta HOllimon, 11155 Lapaloma Dr., Fine Arts Commission, noted the Fine Arts Commission has suggested converting industrial space into artist studios. Mr. Jim Eller, Westland, asked when considering Mitigation Measure alternatives, they consider exempting retail development because of a sales tax base. Ms. Andrea Harris, 1052 Tuscany Pl., expressed concern regarding young adults affording housing in the City and this need should be accommodated. Mr. Bob Cowan commented on 2nd units, noting this is allowed on all single family residents in the City, yet in five years there has only been six units built. Ms. Nancy Hertert stated that no more expensive housing should be developed until affordable housing is developed. Com. Mackenzie considered incremental housing to be more important than affordable housing. He is not opposed to exempting retail, but would like to see a numerical analysis of employees, retail as compared to an office building, and would like to see dollar amounts regarding sales tax. He question whether housing would be allowed in all zoning districts. He suggested a sliding scale, density vs. affordability and also for every expensive house built an affordable apartment should be built. Com. Fazekas asked to expand on the inclusionary zoning and what exactly it entails. Chr. Claudy suggested developers build smaller and denser units, which will reduce the cost. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 6 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to continue 1-GPA-90 to November 26, 1990 Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: 3. Application No(s): Application: Location: 81,004.151 City of Cupertino City-wide Preliminary review of 778 concerning the significant trees. proposed amendment of Ordinances 381 and care, preservation and removal of staff Presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman presented the staff report. She presented two proposals of a draft ordinance to the commission (Draft A & B). Channel 53 will work with staff to provide more public information on tree preservation. She stated draft A is more restrictive than draft B. Draft A retained the landmark trees and removed the heritage designation. Permits for chemical application has been removed. Pruning permit, if removing more than 33 percent of the foliage, has been retained. All certified arborists will be able to work within the City. Notice on trees being removed would be required, but an affidavit would not. A ratio of specific trees protected is included in the ordinance. If someone were required to retain a tree as part of a development, a cash or security deposit will be required for each tree specie. The Protection Plan shall include correct pruning, maintenance and fertilization methods which ASAC would not review. In draft B heritage and landmark trees have been removed and it would include all trees of a certain size. Under the permit requirements the pruning and chemical application have been removed. No posting on the tree is required. Under Section 5.1 (e) Tree removal permits would not be required for all non-native trees. Under both alternatives all trees with a single trunk 10" diameter as well as multi-truck diameter of 15" would be protected. All trees that are required under a use permit, tentative map, etc would be required to obtain a permit for removal under both alternatives. Com. Adams questioned which one of these alternatives satisfy tree preservation. Ms. Bjurman felt alternative B would preserve the trees. Chr. Claudy pointed out that the owner of the property can apply for a permit to remove the tree. He expressed concern regarding individuals removing trees simply because the tree is a problem to them. Com. Mann stated protection is needed for the tree after the developer is finished and the private citizen owns it. Com. Fazekas stated he would like to see guidelines for removal of the tree under certain circumstances. Mr. Cowan stated the draft PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 7 ordinance states a tree can only be removed if diseased. The Commissioners preferred alternate A, keeping the landmark trees. certain species from alternative B should be added to A. Com. Fazekas stated it should be a short list which an arborist dosn't feel it is significant to the area unless it is a landmark tree. Com. Mackenzie suggested one set of rules for both commercial and residential for the protection of trees under the Ordinance. The public hearing was opened Mr. Courtney Heater, 1111 Milkyway, urged maximum retention of heritage and landmark trees. Replacing trees for those removed should be required. He noted the Tree Ordinance should be something the community is attracted too. He suggested the citizens nominating a tree which will be preserved and make this Ordinance a positive method to retain trees. Ms. Nancy Hertert stated she was glad to see a Tree Ordinance, citizens are interested in saving trees. She noted the landmark tree designation should be retained, but dosn't agree with tagging the trees. She requested a time period for an appeal if a tree was permi tted to be removed. She suggested omitting section 5.1 regarding climate and specie of tree. MOTION: Com. Mann moved to continue 81,004.151 to November 26, 1990 Com. Adams Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: 4. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 8-Z-90 and 35-EA-90 Judy Chen Judy Chen 7359 Rainbow Drive REZONING of approximately .41 acre gross from R3 (Multi-family Residential) to peRES) (Planned Development Residential with a density range of 20-30 du/gr. acres). Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey presented the staff report showing the property outline. He noted this application severely effects the cities affordable housing needs. He referred to the letter from the applicants attorney. Although this project will finish out the Townhome Development started in the block, staff are concerned regarding the Conceptual Development Plan. He noted the project does accomplish housing needs, but loses affordable apartments. Following on some of the discussion begun with the Housing element, which have to do with developing an alternative of mi tigation fee production process that would off-set the public PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 8 interest in the loss of the rental units in allowing this project and others like it to convert from rental to ownership format. Staff felt this application is a few months premature and suggested the developer work with staff on developing the mitigation process. This would then clear the way for the commission to recommend approval of the rezoning to the planned development which would allow ownership. The applicant would like a decision at this time, so staff recommends denial. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Caughey stated if the Conceptual Development Plan and rezoning were approved it would be difficult not to entertain a Use Permit application before staff is ready to address the Housing Impact Mitigation issue. He suggested holding the process until the Mitigation issue is resolved. Com. Adams supported staff's recommendation. The public hearing was opened. Auulicant Presentation: Louis Green, representing the applicant, showed photos of the property and surrounding neighborhood. He noted this project will finish the corner. He noted the building is older and the architecture is not attractive. He noted this particular project would not set a precedence as it is already surrounded by townhouse development. with regards to the mitigation he noted it is difficult for small projects to bear mitigation measures. He noted the building as is has noise problems, is an old building and ought to be dealt with on it's own merits. Concluding, he stated the applicant would like a decision. Chr. Claudy asked if the applicant had approached the adjacent property to discuss developing as a single unitary whole. Mr. Green stated there were discussions between Landmark and the applicant regarding the potential of a sale and the possibility of a joint venture, but the applicant did not feel she was in the position to get involved in a joint venture. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie concurred with Chr. Claudy regarding developing the site as a single unitary whole. He would not be in favor of the development as proposed. Com. Adams stated if they were not formally merged it would be feasible to make an integrated approach between the two that might satisfy the objectives, but still retain two separate property owners. Chr. Claudy stated this would be more difficult to achieve. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 9 Com. Mann expressed concern regarding the lose of 6 affordable rental units, replacing them with ownership units and only gaining one net housing unit. She would be in favor of keeping or enlarging the rental stock at a certain financial level and would not support the application as is. Com. Fazekas stated he has seen worse plans than this. He noted he is supportive of the mitigation measures and would supports staff's suggestion. Chr. claudy would support rezoning the property if merged with the adjacent property. He noted rents are going to go up no matter what and rental stock is important. He is not in support of the application as is and would urge the applicant to consider a joint venture. Com. Fazekas noted the site plan has serious problems and questioned the conceptual site plan when rezoned. Mr. Caughey stated what the Planned Development Ordinance expects is a three step process: Conceptual Plan setting forth the basic outline of the building; general configuration of the building and the general location of parking and open' space, the number of units; the strategy for controlling off-site privacy impacts. Mr. Caughey stated that one of the strategies that was discussed wi th the developer on how to mitigate the loss of affordable housing was to develope more units and deed some over to the City for affordable housing. In doing this the City decided they were working on an ad-hoc basis rather than a systematic basis, staff decided to hold the project until a strategy would apply to this situation uniformly and throughout the community. He noted staff are not opposed to seeing more units on this project assuming that it will meet other objectives besides just ownership. He noted the applicant is asking for a density range of 20-35 units per acre which is consistent with the General Plan designation, staff recommends 10-20 range to be consistent with the Landmark Development. Com. Mann supported adding to the density and deeding excess over to the city. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mann moved to continue 8-Z-90 and 35-EA-90 to December 10, 1990 Com. Adams Passed 5-0 MOTION: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 10 6. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location:q 21-U-90 and 36-EA-90 Dale Meyer Associates Emile Nijmeh Northeast corner of stevens Creek Blvd. and Blaney Avenue USE PERMIT to remodel an existing 97,000 s.f. shopping center and construct 5,000 s.t. of new office space under the provisions of Policy 2-31 of the General Plan Land Use Element. Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey presented the staff report. He noted the request is to rehabilitate the existing shopping center. The applicant would like to do a comprehensive upgrading of architecture and an installation of 50 ft. landscaping strip on stevens Creek Blvd. In doing this the application would like to take advantage of a policy in the General Plan which allows shopping centers built prior to 1973 to receive up to 5000 s.f. of additional bonus floor area credit beyond what they are allowed under the FAR's. Mr. Caughey pointed out that the question before the Commission tonight is, are the components of the upgrade in this particular case sufficient to warrant granting the full 5,000 s. f . bonus? He noted concerns of the neighbors included the opening of the parking lot between this project and the adjoining building to the east. Staff also expressed concern regarding this. Mr. caughey showed drawings of the architectural concept of the project. Applicant Presentation: Mr. John Plungy, 20720 Garden Manor ct., noted the need for upgrading of the shopping center. He stated the project has interesting design elements and does not intrude on the neighbors, who were shown the plans. The only increase in floor space was the two story center units which will house Qffices. Mr. Dale Meyer, Architect, stated the problem was they had three dissimilar buildings and had to come up with an architectural design that would tie the buildings together. Condo 14 was a concern and he asked for clarification. Mr. Caughey stated they will work on this in the building permit stage. Mr. Meyer commented on Condo 23 regarding building C, stating that if arches are put on this building one of the problems is the extended height of the building. He felt the arches would make building C look too imposing. Com. Fazekas agreed that the arches were not needed. He suggested doubling the amount of trees on the site. Mr. Meyer stated this can be done. Com. Fazekas spoke in favor of the architecture and asked about the improvement of the existing parking problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 11 Mr. Meyer stated two driveways had been eliminated and have incorporated 90 degree parking, compact parking has been added. Circulation in and out of the site will be easier. Mr. John Plungy stated the overflow of parking will go into the adjoining property. He noted peak use of the office building would be day time hours and P.J. MUlligan's would be evening hours. Mr. Plungy noted a correction in Cond. 17 stating there is a dance floor. Com. Adams stated there is not as parking as there was a few years ago. of removing the Dairy Freeze had been floor area space elsewhere. much concern now regarding He asked if the feasibility examined thus increasing the Mr. Plungy stated this had been looked into, but not possible because of the length of the lease from a financial standpoint. In response to Com. Adams question Mr. Nijmeh stated that there is no auto shop on the site, only office space and the vehicles that have been parked for several months are the result of accidents. Mr. Caughey stated a separate Use Permit would be required for auto sales. In response to Com. Mann's question regarding housing Mr. Meyer noted, although he is in favor of mixed-use, he felt this was not a good location for residential property because of P.J. MUlligan's. Com. Adams questioned the operation of serv~c~ng. Mr. Meyer stated servicing can still be done as it is now. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. roof layout stating all roof equipment will buildings. Meyer explained the be screened on all The Commissioners discussed the architecture. ASAC was in favor of the project. Mr. Caughey stated The public hearing was opened. Mr. James Cox, 10139 N. Blaney Ave. expressed concern regarding noise especially from P.J. MUlligan's and also connecting parking with the adjoining lot. He stated he was not in favor of expanding this property as there is already too much activity. He expressed concern regarding the loss of driveways noting it will push more traffic onto Blaney. Mr. Plungy stated the only addition is the office space. He noted there will be a speed bump between the two adjoining parking lots to discourage car speeders. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 12 Mr. Cowan stated if MUlligan's becomes a problem and enough complaints from the neighborhood are received the City will contact ABC and the Sheriff's Department to take care of the problem. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Fazekas moved to close the public hearing Com. Mann Passed 5-0 Com. Fazekas suggested moving the driveway from building B to the center of the project, he noted it may alleviate some of the circulation problems. In response to Com. Fazekas concern regarding the adjoining parking lot, Mr. Cowan noted the intent was to link properties to minimize u-turns at intersections. It can be opened and if a problem occurs it can be closed or look at other alternatives. Com. Adams stated an upgrade to him would have got rid of the Dairy Freeze and dressed up the corner also to ensure the landscaping along Stevens Creek Blvd. is compatible with Stevens Creek Blvd Landscape Plan. He did not feel the proposal warrants the additional bonus of 5~000 s.f. Com. Fazekas stated the parking in front on MUlligan's will be replaced with landscaping, which is a major improvement. Mr. Caughey stated the four principles used to evaluate the floor area credit are taken out of the General Plan Policy Land Use Element. Chr. Claudy stated this shopping center has been significantly improved with the proposed plans. Com. Mann concurred with Chr. Claudy Com. Adams questioned the intent of the use of the patio area. Mr. Caughey stated that Mulligan's is for overflow area for people waiting to get in and Dairy Freeze is an existing outdoor eating area. Com. Mann, Com. Fazekas and Chr. Claudy felt the improvements warrant the 5,000 s.f. bonus. Com. Adams and Com. Mackenzie did not. Com. Adams questioned the number of seats in patio areas as it increases the floor area space which in turn increases the parking. He concurred with Com. Fazekas regarding moving the driveway to center of project. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Fazekas moved to recommend approval of 36-EA-90 Com. Mann Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved to recommend approval of 21-U-90 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Condo 14 to remove any comments regarding parking on adjoining property; Add PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 13 SECOND: NOES: VOTE: condo to send project to ASAC to approve removal of Blaney driveway southward and substantially increase landscaping with trees specifically on the property; Add condo which would prohibit patio at P.J. Mulligan's from being covered; Cond. 23 remove the words ..... such as archways, round windows or tower elements..... Mann Com. Adams, Com. Mackenzie Passed 3-2 7. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 14-TM-90 and 40-EA-90 K.W. Engineering, Inc. Ching-Chen Lin West side of S. Stelling Rd., approx. 200 ft. north of Seven springs Parkway TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately 1 gross acre into five lots ranging in size from approximately 6,120 s.f. to 7,280 s.L Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey presented the staff report noting this was a completion of the Seeber ct. subdivision which was approved several years ago. Seeber ct. is a public street with a proposal to provide five lots on the south side of the court. Staff suggested reconfiguration of lot 4 to enable lot 5 to be accomplished. Staff also suggested a requirement that lot 1 have its front lot line designated as the lot adjoining Seeber. He noted if the project was approved staff will work with the property owner of lot 3 to have the temporary fire easement abandoned. Com. Fazekas questioned parking, Mr. Caughey stated flag lots do not require extra parking. Com. Fazekas questioned the possibility of the back three lots having extra parking. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, noted the request is for a tentative map and they disfavor putting special conditions on the recording of a map, this can present some difficulty. He noted if special circumstances were found you can condition a map on providing additional parking under the sub-division map. Avvlicant Presentation: Mr. Kenny Wong noted all parcels meet the requirement of 6,000 s.f., however, the total frontage on Seeber ct. and stelling Rd. is not long enough to create all the lots that have 60 ft. minimum frontage at the 20 ft. setback. He noted the reason parcel 4 being created was to gain an additional housing unit. He noted the two existing houses will be removed. A 50 ft. right of way will be completed on Seeber ct. and improvements on stelling Road made with the development. Mr. wong noted they will work with Public Works regarding the sidewalk around the pine trees on lot 2. They agreed to install curb and gutter, street lighting, a fire hydrant and other underground utilities needed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 Page 14 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Owen Tainter, 7731 Seeber ct. expressed concern regarding the width of the court, noting there will be extra traffic with the development and a fire truck would not get down the court if traffic was parked on both sides. He felt it should be compatible with the original plan. Mr. Travis Whitten, Assistant city Engineer, stated the City standard is 30/50 ft. width for a court and noted this is what was indicated in the original subdivision. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to close the public hearing Com. Mann Passed 5-0 Com. Adams moved to recommend granting of a Negative Declaration Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 Com. Mann moved to recommend approval of 14-TM-90 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing Fazekas Passed 5-0 8. Proposed cancellation of December 24, 1990 Planning commission Meeting. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to cancel December 24, 1990 meeting Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: -None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan reported on the City Council meeting. Council supported the Sobrato Development, but want to see housing mitigation. Special study session on Westfield on Nov. 27, 1990. Council suggested an economic study and hired Lynn Sedway & Associates to look at the issue of what effect the expansion Vallco Parkway is going to have on the City. Mr. Cowan noted the city Council has approved an Ordinance which gives the Director of Planning the ability on a urgency basis to approve temporary Use Permits.