Loading...
PC 07-23-79 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-314 Page 1 MINUTES, JULY 23, 1979 REGULAR MEETING - PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG CALL TO ORDER: 7:40 M·m. , APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ~~6, 1979, PC-312, CC-466, JOINT MEETING/PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCI GENERAL PLAN Page 10, par. 3, Com. Adams - insert Noise Standard L-l (1%) definition of level not exceeded 1% of the time. Page 11, par. 2, line 7, Com. Adams - spell pool cnrrectly. Page 7, par. 8, Com. Claudy - ..more detailed soils analysis Page 8, par. 4, Com. Claudy - delete last sentence. Page 8, par. 5, Com. Claudy - change "matched" to "Uaster" Page 9, par. 6, line 5, change date to July 2. Page 12, par 4 Com. Claudy - change necessary to unnecessar ,. MOTION TO APPROVE ~ITH CORRECTIONS - PASSED Absent: None Abstain: None 5-'1 ROLL CALL: Commissioners present: Absent: None Claudy, Adams, Gatto, Koenitzer & Blaine Staff Present: Planning ~irector Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowa Assistant City Attorney Akin Assistant City Engineer ~'Jhitten POSTPONEMENTS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: ~'¡one PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #1, Applications 12-Z-79, 15-TM-79 and 12-U-79 of HYMEL-HATHA~AY: REZONING approximately 3.8 gross acres from P (Planned Development with general commercial, light indus- trial and residential (4-10 dwelling units per acre) intent) zone to P (Planned Development with residential cluster in- tent) zone or whatever may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximatel 3.35 net acres into 60 residential cluster parcels and one lot to be held in common ownership: USE PERMIT to construct 60 single-family residential townhouses; and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is locatcd on the southwest corner of North De Anza Boulevard and Lazaneo Drive. First hearing continued. City Council hearing 8/6/79. \ Õ'C-3l4 Page 2 MI~UTES, JULY 23, 1979, REGULAR ME~:ING, PLANNING COMMISSION Assistant Planning Director Cowan noted that the density was con~istent and in conformity with City standards and the wish to intersperse residential and commercial developments along De Anza Boulevard. Incorporated in the development was six (6) below-market-rate housing units that would be located after consultation with Staff. The lack of open space in the compound would be offset by Memorial Park being closeby, and the fact the units were designed primarily for childless, one- and two-member families, both working. The noise levels were of concern, he said, although dense landscaping vege- tation and the greenhouse concept for covered patio effect would filter some noise. The buildings being oriented toward the center of the court or compound would aid in noise con- trol. He noted that the Applicant's consultant indicated the Title 25, California Administrative Code for interior level (45 DBA day/night levels) could be attained; and, 55 DBA for exterior noise levels were possible -- a 78 DRA level representing the worst case possible noise level. And, construction sophistications ~oulG be used for insulating residents from noise whenever and wherever possible through- out the development. In addition to parking on Lazaneo and Handley Drives, the parking ratio for the tenants was 2.3 spaces/unit. hr. Cowan called the Commissioner's attention to the re~uirement that the applicant apply to the Archi- tectural and Site Approval Committee for determination of privacy impacts through detailed visibility illustrations. Com. Blaine suggested developing the site at a high density might create conflict with trip-end standards; however, it was noted that high densities in core area might eventually help the overall transportation problem. Com. Koenitzer called attention to the lack of mention of a Homeowner Association condition under the Tentative Map. It was pointed out that there was a reference under the Use Permit, 20 (e). Com. Xoenitzer stated that the requirement for an association should certainly be a condition of approval. Com. Koenitzer questioned the parking facilities as compared to other areas, and it was agreed that because this partic- ular development appealed to a specific market, the parking might not be considered critical. Ms. Pam. Blackman, representing Hymel-Hathaway Associates advised that "they were in agreement with the report and the Staff recommendations, and she volunteered to answer any questions for the Commissioners. Com. Adams asked if the greenhouses actually reduced noise. Mr. James Mills,Consultant with Industrial Noise Accoustical Services, advised that the greenhouses could be designed for noise reduction at 30 decibels. He described the double glass panels as being inlaid with accoustic absorber to lower the frequency of resonance in the structure. Although, he added, the fiberglass inlay would not take sound out. Ch. Gatto was told that the greenhouse area was outdoor living space -- an outdoor garden space enclosed. MINUTES, JULY 23, 1979, REGULAR MEETING,PLANNING COl1MISSIO' - Mr. Louis Paviso, a citizen, inquired as to the use of the footage he had dedicated to the city, and he wanted to know about parking on De Anza. PC-3l4 Page 3 Ch. Gatto explained that they were presently discussing another area of Item #1 and that they would be coming to the parking on Lazaneo and Bandley Drives; and, he said that although there is presently parking on De Anza, the long-range plans call for using the parking lane for a fast-travel lane in the future. Mr. William Weil, owner of the Do-Nut Shop across the street from the development commented on what he thought was an overall favorable use of the corner; however, he added, the gas station on the corner, the garage across the street, and the Do-Nut Shop along with the Japanese Restaurant would cause complaints. He asked the Com- missioners if the City was prepared to deal with those com plaints and not come back on the businesses. As for the parking, he said there were more and more cars; and, in as much as he had watched the street one afternoon, he could testify that there were only three bicycles using the lanes. Because he had given up parking space to the City, he said his business was suffering. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. PASSED: Second: Com. Loenitze 5-0 Com. Adams suggested that 2.3 parking spaces should be ex- panded somewhat. The Commissioners discussed the develor- ments going into adjacent areas, the proximity to the transit lines, the fact of one~edroom units in the devel- opment indicating lower density, and the possibility of parking credits being applicable under future plans. The 2.3 parking ratio was deemed to be satisfactory. Com. Claudy was told, in response to his inquiry as to whether or not parking spaces would be assigned, that the parking would be open. MOTION: VOTE MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: VOTE: Com. Adams to accept the recommendation of a Negative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Blaine PASSED - UNANI~10US 5-0 Com. Claudy, to accept l2-Z-79 and approve with Standard Conditions #1 through #14; #15 and #16 as per Staff Report. SECOND: Com. Blaine PASSED - UNANIMOUS 5-0 Com. Claudy, approve l5-TM-79 subject to the Findings and Subconclusions of the Staff ~erpot, #1 through #14 Standard Conditions, #15 and #16 as per Staff Report, = #17 Condition to be added to require the for- mation of a Homeowner Association. SECOND: Com. Blaine PASSED - UNANIMOUS 5-0 MINUTES , JULY 23, 1979, REGULAR MEETING, PLANNH:G CONMI S S ION PC-3l4 Page 4 Ch. Gatto, commenting on Condition Il8, said that he felt the ,requirements for meeting the noise standard was ex- cessive and that it should be limited to the living space. The Commissioners agreed with Ch. Gatto, and with Com. Koenitzer's suggestion that the greenhouse space should be usable as outdoor space. Com. Adams was told that an earth birm, densely planted, at maturity, would certain- ly be a defense against intruders having access to the property from the street. The living space being oriented inwardly would also provide more privacy from such in- trusion. ~IOTION: Com. Claudy, approve l2-U-79 subject to the Findings and Subconclusions of the Staff Report, II through #14 Standard Conditions; Il5 through #21 as outlined in the Staff Report SECO:m: Com. Adams PASSED - UNANIMOUS 5-0 VOTE: ITEM #2, Applications l6-T~-79 and l3-U-79 of STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER ASSOCIATES: TENTATIVE MAP to sub- divide on parcel consisting of approximately 6.4 acres into two parcels equaling .8 of an acre and 5.6 acres; USE ?ERMIT to construct three offi~e buildings consisting of approximately 31,400 sq. ft. and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 500 ft. westerly of Saich Way in a P (Planned Develop- ment with General Commercial intent) zoning district. First hearing continued. City Council hearing 3/6/79. Assistant Planning Director Cowan summarized the content of the Staff Report, which dealt with this application having been approve~ two years previouEly and being brought back for approval of expanded plans. The area was traced on the map (expansion from 52,000 sq. ft. to 79,000 sq. ft.), excluding the restaurant facility. The ratio of building to land area ratio changed from 25% to 28%, higher than the typical office development; however, he pointed out that the land was not constrained by the General Plan or Zoning on intensity of use. The setbacks and parking were the critical issues to be discussed. The traffic analysis of impacts on residential neighborhoods adjacent to the development indicated 26 additional trips at the proposed intensity of use when utilizing Alves Drive westerly -- Stevens Creek carrying the heavy traffic. Also, he pointed out ingress and egress reciprocal agree- ments with adjoining property owners; that the area had compact parking stalls in a ratio conforming to Vallco Regional Shopping Center; had the advantage of under- ground parking facilities; and was designed with a wing- wall roof support that did not critically disturb the angle of view. He noted, for the Commissioners, that there was a question of the legal lot for the Good Earth Restaurant site. The Commissioners discussed the parallel buildings on the original map and the perpendicular buildings on the new map at the easterly end of the development. The distance of setback on Building B-1 was discussed, the designating of the Good Earth as Parcel A until legal research clari- fied the status of the site, the elevations causing the underground parking to be half above ground level, and com- parison of parking facilities with other developments. MI'U"', JUL' '3, ',1" REGULA' MEI'ING,PLA"ING CU.MI..I' I ¡ PC-314 Page 5 Mr. John Volkmann, Applicant, said that having acquired the property about two years previously, it was now his aim to upgrade the existing buildings and to provide additional commercial and financial facilities compatibile for bus- inesses in the City of Cupertino. He said the appearance of the complex would be enhanced dramatically by land- scaping and trellises, which would also act to tie the vari ous buildings together, and. would include 6.4% of the acerage, including the Good Earth, being joined with walk- ways. He pointed out that traffic patterns had changed in the area and that Alves Drive traffic was actually de- creased by activity in the development using the Stevens Creek entrance ways. Mr. John Barksdale, Architect, indicated the direction of the slope on the property. The intent, he said, was to raise the new buildings no higher than 3 ft. above the ex- isting grade with the plaza at grade level on the corner. He called attention to the parking that would not be visibl from the street except for one small second level area (3 ft. above grade with access at the Good Earth). Mr. Paul ~eiss, owner & operator of Key Chevrolet, ques- tioned the real setback of the property -- the wings that stick out in front. Ue reminded the Commissioners of a 1973 agreement with the City for a 30 ft. setback, and he asked the City to honor that commitment. TIe added that the incursion into the promised 30 ft. setback would affect his sales and thus the sales taxes collected by the City. Ms. Jo Ann Gholson,. 22125 'tegnart Road, Cupertino, asked whether or not curb cuts and parking facilities would be provided for the handicapped. Mr. Volksmann assured her her that the curb cuts and markings on the spaces for the handicapped had been done, and also that they would be pro- vided in any additional building sites. PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED: Com. Koenitzer. PASSED Second: Ch. Gatto 5-0 Com. Adams agreed that the parking was generous, and Ch. Gatto pointed out that parking underneath doubled the utilization of the land. Ch. Gatto brought up his concern that the compact car parking provlded for a concentration of compact car parking in one place, and he said that seemed to him to frustrate the aim of the public to park as close to entrances as possible no matter what si¿e car was being parked. MINUTES, JULY 23, 1979, REGULAR MEETING, PLANNING COMMISSION PC-3l4 ~age 6 Assistant Planning Director suggested that the compact car park~ng issue could be determined at the Architectural Site Control level. General discussion of the parking spaces available against total footage of the buildings led to the conclusion that 395 total spaces would accommdate79,OOO sq. f~ of the application, excluding the Good Earth and its parking... which computed at 5 cars/thousand. Com. Koenitzer raised concern for parallel parking next to the bank and wished it to be eliminated through H-Control. ' Com. Blaine stated that the City certainly should honor the 30 ft. setback agreement if such was made in 1973. Mr. Volkmann said that the only best evidence would be the approval of the plan for the bank, which approval re- flected the understanding of a 30-tt. setback by all parties concerned. Com. Adams asked Mr. 5arksdale if the building could be set back and still be a viable plan. Mr. Barksdale said the ?urpose ot the overhang was shading for solar energy purposes; and, he added, the wings did support the roof. The fin-walls gave solidarity to the building and in that respect acted as a design device. Com. Adams observed that trees along buildings and landscaping could intrude into setbacks and obstruct the view. Ch. Gatto asked the Commissioners to establish a setback and permit further plans or options to be presented to the Council. A quick poll of the Commissioners indicated they favored a 30 ft. setback. MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: To Council VOTE: 8/6/79 Com. Adams, to accept the Negative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Blaine PASSED - UNANIMOUS 5-0 Com. Adams, to approve l3-U-79 subject to Staff Conditions, except for 15 Cd) modified to 28 ft. setback. SECOND: Com. Claudy AYES: Commissioners NOES: PASSED Claudy, Adams, Koenitzer Commissioner Blaine Gatto & 4-1 Com. Adams, approval ot l6-TM-79, su~ject to Standard Conditions #1 t~rcugh '14; #15 throuBh #l7 in accarda~ae with Findings and Su5conclusions of Staff. SECOND: Com. Claudy PASSED - UNANIMOUS 5-0 To CouP .1 MINUTE ORDER Page 7 MINUTE ORDER FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING #314 OF JULY 23, 1979 AGENDA ITEM #2, Applications 16-TM-79 and 13-U-79 of STEVENS CREED OFFICE CENTER ASSOCIATES: TENTATIVE MAP AND EVNIRONMENTAL REVIEW: TO H-CONTROL ...AS PART OF REVIEW, EXAMINE THE REALLOCATION AND POSSIBLE REDUCTION AND REDISTRIBUTION OF COMPACT-CARS TO A MAXIMUM of .5 ratio. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Absent: Abstain: Commissioner Gatto Commissioner Kownitzer UNANIMOUS - PASSED None None 5-0 MINUTES: PC-314, 7/23/79 evs Attached to minutes, Page 7-1 Ref: Page 7 PC-314 Page 7--1 MINUTES, JULY 23, 1979, REGU~AR MEETING, PLANNING COM~ISSI0. VOTE: MINUTE ORDER: Com. Gatto, to H-CONTROL that as part of their review they examine the reallocation and possible reduction and re- distribution of compact-cars to a maximun of ·.5 ratio. SECOND, Com. Koenitzer PASSED - UNANIMOUS 5-0 PC-31.4 rage 7 ITEM #3, Application l4-U-78 of THORNWOOD ASSOCIATIONS: MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT for a 2,000 SQ. FT. ~ electrcnic game center to modify Cond~tion #19 of Planning Comnission Resolution No. 1869 to permit said facility to remain open until l2 o'clock midnight in- stead of 10,00 p.m. as previously approved and ENVIRONMENTA REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt hence no actio is required. Said property is located within the Homestead Center on the southeast corner of Homestead Road and Stelling Road in a P (Planned Development with recreational ente~tainment and incidental commercial intent) zone. First hearing continued. City Council hearing 8/6/79. Mr. Thornwo~d, Thornwood Associates, and Mr. Stamus Cocoles, proprietor of Galaxy Family Skill Cente said they had nothing to add to the Staff Report, except that in conversations with the Sheriff's Department they had been told there was no indication of a problem asso- ciated with the business. It was agreed, they said, that should problems arise, they would procure off-duty police personnel to handle them. And, they agreed that the hiring of such personnel would be the responsibility of the Use Permit holders. Both of those conditions had been part of the original Use Permit and would remain in ~ffect. Mr. Chilares, associated with the Skill Center, in response to Com. Claudy's inquiry as to access through the rear of the building to parking and the apartments in the rear, was told that the rear door was used for an emergency exit only He said that although it was possible to climb over and into the apartment area, since the rear parking was used by employees, he didn't know of any problem. Com. Blaine was told that there was no wall around the rear parking area. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Koenitzer. Second: VOTE: UNANIMOUS Com. Adams 5-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine, approve Application l4-U-78 by modifying the previous Use Permit to allow staying open from 10,00 p.m. to 12:00 Midnight on Friday and Saturday nights only: Condition #18. SECOND: Com. Koenitzer PASSED - UNANIMOUS 5-0 VOTE, RECESS, 9:30 p.m. RECONVENED: 9:45 p.m. MIJUTES, JULY 23, 1979, REGULAR MEETING, PLANNING COMMISSION "'~-3l4 .ge 8 ITEM #4, CITY OF CUPERTINO: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 812 prohibiting certain types of construction on Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays, and during certain hours on week- days and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categori- cally exempt hence no action is required. First hearing continued. City Council hearing 8/20/79. Planning Director Sisk deferred to Assistant City Engineer Whitten to make the presentation since he had drafted the Ordinance originally in 1977. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said the Ordinance 812, originated in 1977 as a Staff response to complaints from residents about construction noise, had gone to the City Council but had not been enacted. The Ordinance was re- strictive, he said, because of difficulty with enforce- ment. Except for work on a single-family house or duplex units, work such as grading, street construction, framing, roufing, or utility work was prohibited. Emergency street repair and utility work was permitted; and, he added, any work that required continuous operation to avoid con- gestion on city streets was permitted. Also, permitted under the Ordinance were practical difficulties and un- necessary hardship. Thus, he said, construction was limited within the city from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., on weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays, and ilolidays. Ch. Gatto explained that the issue was before the Planning Commission at the request of the City Council and in response to petitions from residents. ~r. Dick Denesha, Cupertino resident, said he hated to see more laws to erode the freedom of individuals. Since he worked nights, he said he liked quiet days; however, he continued, with construction he'd just as soon it continue to completion to get it over with. Mr. Art Rosser apologized for being in the City only two weeks and already being on the front page of the news- paper. After looking for many years, he said this was the first time his opinion had been solicited. Aside from that, he said he was a small contractor and had to deal with emergencies that had to be done on the weekends. Large construction jobs usually being closed down on the weekends, he said it seemed to him that only small jobs were being attacked. Mr. Rosser pointed out that one more law would have a tendency to delay completion of work, cost money, and prolong problems. His recommendation and advice was a generous measure of the Golden Rule and being tolerant and working together as neighbors. Mr. James Martell. 11119 Southerland Avenue, Cupertino, advised against the proposed Ordinance because it repre- sented over-regulation, which in his estimation ~as no~ healthy for a community. He stated the case of homeowners workirigoii theÙ homes- on weeKeiids being prchibited-fromdofng--sollndN 'under the proposed Ordinance No ~- 8l2~ MINUTES JULY 23, 1979, REGULAR MEETING, PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Doug Swartz, Regnart Road, spoke in favor of the adoPfion of the Ordinance. He mentioned the large equip- ment using the road on weekends; and he said that although he was in sympathy with the Golden Rule application,he failed to see how he could stand in the road and negoriàte with heavy equipment drivers. He stated emphatically that he felt regulations are required for a City the size of Cupertino. PC-314 Page 9 Ms. Dorothy Wri~ht (phonetic), Regnart Road, said she had hoped that Mr. Leonard would speak first so she could debat with him. She waid she was generally in agreement with speakers on both sides of the issues and said she had noted the shut-down of construction sites on weekends. However, she continued, it was her feeling that regulations were necessary because of her location in the city. If once- a-week pickup of garbage near restaurants bothered people in Cupertino, then, she said she felt it was reasonable that the Commissioners would consider the "funnelll effect of noise traveling in Regnart Canyon -- sound funneling down from the top but not rising from the bottom. Thus, she said, as heavy equipment wound up the hill, it was echoing down in a centrifugal effect. She added that she was aware that more homes would be built up the hill, and since that meant the noise would be with them for a long time, she felt it should be controlled by the City. Ms. Jo Ann Gho:!J;gJiLßegnart Canyon resident, said she was aware that _ac_tcL_vity was going on in the canyon but could not locate thes_o_ur~e__ of the noise. In addition to new homes going in, she pointed out the probability of all the swimming pools that were likely to be scheduled one at a time. Certainly, she maintained, five days for heavy equipment should be sufficient. And certainly it was not unreasonable to leave the weekends and holidays noise free. ~r. Burrel Leonard, 10103 Randy Lane, Cupertino, said he wished to sp8~kto reasons given by one side and the other side of the i~sue. He explained that Walter Ward was on medical leave and could not attend the meeting. Mr. Leonard asserted that an Ordinance would cause wages to go up, cause delays, and generally prolong construction schedules. He suggested that the Ordinance seemed to ad- dress a synthetic problem and would provide only a spurious solution; however, the fact remained that feuding continued in the Canyon and would continue with or without an Ordinance. Being interested in somewhat isolated property on the eastern edge of the City, he promised that should the Ordinance pass, he would be opposed to it. Ch. Gatto summarized a letter from Mr. Ward, which ad- dressed four major points, 1) the Ordinance failed to per- mit work that w~uld not generate sound intrusion into residential areas, 2) the Ordinance did not allow for con- tinuation of work under ~Rjor contracts where work on holi- days and weekends had effect upon residential areas, 3) the Ordinance disallowed maintenance work on holidays and week- ends; and 4) the Ordinance failed to consider emergency situations necessitating weekend work. .INUIES, JULY 23, 1979, REGULAR MEETING, PLANNING COMMISSION E-C-314 ge 10 r. Childres, Regnart Road, said one thing specifically othered him and that was one could not even build a foun- dation for a dog house on a weekend. The Ordinance reference as to all persons, inclusively, and he said that although ontrolling noise was important, he felt that the problem in this particular instance was restricted to the canyon. e added that the Ordinance speaks only to construction and failed with respect to other kinds of noises. He called attention to the fact that the Ordinance would deprive the citizens of half the working days of a year for construction ork. UBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Vote: Com. Blaine. UNANIMOUS Second: Com. Adams 5-0 h. Gatto advised that the Ordinance was. exempt from En- ironmental Review, and Com. Blaine asked the Staff what pro- cedures were followed for complaints. ssistant City Attorney Aiken said the City Attorney could nforce the Civil Code by filing a Civil Complaint and a lawsuit, the defendant being the person maintaining the oise source. Aside from that, which was an extreme, the omplaints were usually handled by the Sheriff's Office and it became a county or state matter. OTE: Com. Blaine, for a comprehensive Noise Ordinance investigation and determination of all types of impacts, which she said was one of the item on the Work Schedule, and recommended the Ordinance #812 be sent to City Council with the instruction that no action be taken at this time. SECOND: Com. Claudy PASSED - UNANIMOUS 5-0 ,OTION: "Eo, BUSINESS ITEM #5, Review of Planning Department Work Program Ch. Gatto noted, for the record, that the Noise Ordinance, nder Group 3, would come up during the Summer of 1980. r. Leonard advised that in his estimation the best noise control was personal contact by telephone to placate through explanation and hopefully understandings. lanning Director Sisk said he'd not go over the Work Program except to ask the Commission to look at it and suggest any changes they wished to make. In response to Com. Claudy, Planning Director Sisk ex- plained that the Group l, Rank 1, Flood Plain Zone was ecessary because the City was planning to enter the Regular Flood Insurance Program with the Feneral Government, and an Ordinance would have to be developed for the City. Mr. Sisk explained to Com. Blaine that implementing M.O.R.G.A. eant unilaterally pre-zoning islands coming into the City. MINUTES, JULY 23, 1979, REGULAR MEETING, PLANNING COMMISSIO After discussion, it was agreed to take up the mandated issues. Then, after parking and transportation, an Histori- cal Ordinance, Grading Ordinance, the rest as they fell int place. PC-3l4 Page 11 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSTON Com. Koenitzer requested that lines be painted lefthand turn at Stevens Creek at Highway 85. vised that that was in tne works. in on the He was ad- Com. Koenitzer referred the Staff to the rotating sign at the Fast-Stop Photo business on De Anza in the new part of Cupertino. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ITEM #6, Interpretation of General Plan Policy relating to the requirement for an overall plan to permit commercial land uses on a portion of the property in the south Saratog - Sunnyvale Road planning area. Assistant Planning Director Cowan identified the area on a map and explained that Mr. Yamogomi, owner of the property, Parcels G-l and G-2, wished to develop single parcels withi the area; whereas, under the General Plan the Staff's interpretation was that comprehensive planning of access agreements, landscaping guidelines, setbacks, and zoning of the total area was required. He called the Commissioner attention to the parts of the Staff Report identifying the sections of the General Plan references to the subject property. A representative of ~!r. Yamogomi, explained that there were plans ror development of the residential section, but Mr. Yamaoka had no plans for tile commercial section. Com. Claudy recalled the decision in the area as being that G-I area would be developed at 5-10; however" if the whole area was con~idered or commercial development was planned, then a comprehensive review would be required. The members of the Commission agreed to label the section where G-I adjoined G-2 as G-IA. Thus, if any part of G-2 was developed commercially, then it would be necessary to have a comprehensive plan for thp total area -- including the greenhouse area. If, however, the residential could be divorced from the commercial, then a plan might be feasible. MEETI~G ADJOURNED AT 11:10 p.m. ATTEST: ~æa·,~ City Clerk APPROVED: