Loading...
PC 02-22-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10430 So. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1988 Meeting Held in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Ave. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: 7:30 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Sorensen Vice Chairman Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Szabo Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planning Director Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Peggy M. Cocker, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Staff Present: MOTION: Com. moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 8, 1988, as presented. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed, Chr. Sorensen abstaining 4-0-1 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 1. - Application I-GP A-88 - De Anza Racquet Club - Requesting a General Plan Amend- ment for the De Anza Racquet Club to change the land use designation from Private Recreation to Commercial to allow the construction of a "residential hotel. Property is located on the northwest comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan stated that the Application is procedural in nature; exhibits of the site were presented. A copy of the Procedure for Evaluatin,: a General Plan Amendment was presented for the Commission's review. Staff recommended denial of the request since the necessary Findings could not be made and secondly, Staff had been directed by the City Council to prepare a needs assessment of recreational facilities in the community to be completed by June, 1988; such information would benefit the Commission in reaching a decision on the request under consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of, 1988 Page 2 PC - 538 NEW BUSINESS Continued Com. Claudy questioned how the property came to be zoned "Private Outdoor Recreation;" Mr. Cowan outlined the controversy that erupted in the early 1970's as to whether a commercial or retail designation existed. Legislation requiring that zoning to be consistent with the General Plan, confinned that the site was zoned residential. The Master Plan designated the site ResidentiallPrivate Outdoor Recreational. Mr. John Vidovich, Applicant, commented as follows: - Reviewed the history of the Racquet Oub - Noted limitations of the current General Plan designation, "Outdoor Recreation" Designated use did not seem compatible with location on Stevens Creek Blvd. Noted needs that have developed in the community since the Racquet Club was built; both recreation and busirtess needs A residential hotel was one of the needs for the business community Noted the potential interest of the City in buying the De Anza Racquet Club; such a decision necessitated timing of any consideration regardirtg a General Plan Amendment since the value of the site would in part, be determirted by the zoning designation - Recognized that consideration of a General Plan Amendment could not be held until a determination was made on the part of the City whether to purchase the site or not - Noted the controversy surrounding the closure of recreational facilities in the City Asked that the Application be heard in a timely manner The Chair recognized those who wished to address this issue. Mr. Ed Hirshfield, President, Cupertino Tennis Club, commented as follows: - Noted that there were many who were interested in this issue not in attendance due to the fact that only a procedural question was under consideration by the Commission - Noted changes to the City and the dimirtishing property available for recreational use Currently there are only six lighted courts available to the working adult-- substantially below the number of tennis courts available in other cities - Propitious event that the property had became available for consideration by the City - Fonner members of the De Anza Racquet Club were joining the Cupertino Tennis Club, a public courts club; the pressure on the courts available was enonnous Recreational Needs Assessment was initiated at their request; any action on a General Plan Amendment would be premature before the results of the study were made known - Noted the commitment of the Cupertino Tennis Club to make the City as livable and pleasant as possible, attracting new people similar to current residents Mr. Chuck Jacobson, Citizens to Save Cupertino Recreation, was pleased about the initiation of the Recreation Needs Assessment; they endorsed the recommendation of the Planning Staff. He felt that the request under consideration represented a major change. Mr. Dave Davis, 21917 Oakview Ln., Cupertino, supported Staff Recommendation: - Deferring consideration of a General Plan Amendment until December 1988 - That the request made was in fact, a major change to the General Plan, in that such: Affected the aesthetics of the City of Cupertino Was not compatible with the General Plan Conflicted with the objective of the City in buildirtg a hotel in Town Center Created concems regarding commercial development west of Stelling Rd. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 22, 1988 Page 3 PC - 538 NEW BUSINESS Continued: Mr. Larry Mc Reynolds, 10200 Hillcrest Rd., Cupertino, commented as follows: Noted the poor management of the former De Anza Racquet Club Questioned differing opinions of the Applicant and City on the best use of the site; if "best use" meant a high rise on every comer and severe traffic impacts than the Applicant was right Was unfavorable to rezoning the site as well as to scheduling a hearing on such Mr. Vidovich stated that his request was not that the Commission hold a General Plan Amendment hearing at this time but rather to schedule a hearing within a reasonable time after completion of the Recreation Needs Assessment; he wished to work with the Commission on the timing of this Item. Com. Adams questioned why De Anza Racquet Club members did not purchase the site. Mr. Jacobson responded that closure of the Club was a great surprise. He stated that there was no opportunity offered to purchase; in addition, the site was very expensive. Com. Szabo noted that the term "club" was a misnomer; in fact, this was a business wherein dues were paid and services made available to members; such may have been one of the reasons why the membership had not even considered purchasing the club. Chr. Sorensen reviewed the question before the Commission and the options available. Com. Szabo stated that the issue under consideration was very important, affecting quality of life in the Oty; furthermore, once a recreational use was rezoned, it could not be restored. Thus, he felt that such a decision needed to be carefully considered with information on the recreational needs of the community available; he was unwilling to hear this Item at this time and suggested a Continuance of the Item. Com. Claudy reaffirmed that this item should not be considered prior to completion of the Recreational Needs Assessment.; if the Commission were to schedule a Hearing on this Item, such should be considered a major amendment to the General Plan. Com. Adams concurred with the exception that upon completion of the Recreational Needs Assessment a hearing date should be scheduled at an appropriate time and not necessarily tied to a specific date. Com. Mackenzie noted that required Findings could not be made to justify the schedulirtg of a hearing of this Item at this time. Chr. Sorensen was favorable to consideration of a Continuance of this Application until such time as appropriate to hear the Item; she thought that this request represented a major amendment to the General Plan. Ms. Cocker advised the Commission that a Continuance of this Item was not appropriate; the Commission was being asked to consider scheduling a hearing on a General Plan Amendment. In response to Com. Claudy's question, she stated that the decision being made at this time was a timing and procedural one and as such, not appealable to the Council. However, the Applicant was free to correspond with the Council and the Council in turn could act on such communication, if they so decided. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 22, 1988 Page 4 PC - 538 NEW BUSINESS Continued MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to determine not to schedule a Hearing on Application I-GPA-88. De Anza Racquet Club SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 Mr. Vidovich reiterated his request; the Commission responded that they had voted not to schedule a hearing at this time. A decision on whether or not to schedule this Item for the General Plan Amendment Hearing in June, 1988, would be made at a later date. ITEM 2. Discussion regarding Plannirtg Commission operations. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Council's request for ways in which they could assist the Commission in carrying out their responsibilities. He suggested consideration of the following Staff recommendations: Streamlirtirtg of procedures Additional training for new Commissioners Scheduling additional Joint Meetings with the Council and/or Joint Study Sessions Com. Claudy cited the recent example of the Urgency Ordinance wherein some issues of interest to the Council were not included in the suggested Ordinance because the Commission was unaware that such was to be addressed; issues such as landscaping and front setbacks. He concluded that in some instances the Commission did not understand the intent of the Council; however, he questioned how such information might be more effectively communicated between the two public bodies. Com. Adams suggested consideration of a Commissioners attending Council Hearings when issues of importance to the Commission were being addressed by the Council. Mr. Cowan stated that on occasion the Council wished to understand the motivation of Commissioners in reaching some of their decisions; he stated that it was difficult for either Staff or the Minutes of Planning Commission Meetings to convey the motivation of individual Commission Members. Com. Szabo suggested providing background information on Applications of interest Mr. Piasecki responded that the CQmmission could direct that such information be irtcluded in the Minutes along with carefully specifying the Findings that were being made. Chr. Sorensen noted the recommendation of Mr. Curtin regarding the usefulness of Joint Meetings of the Council and Commission; such should occur at least twice yearly in order for both bodies to become familiar with the thoughts of each other and to discuss policy. Com. Mackenzie concurred with this recommendation and added that the Commission could more clearly formulate the necessary Findings; in addition, Mr. Cowan could relay necessary information. Finally, Minute Orders were useful when an individual Commissioner carried the dissenting vote. Com. Szabo suggested consideration on an individual basis whether an Item warranted the attendance of a Commission member at the City Council Meeting; Com. Adams concurred. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 22, 1988 Page 5 PC - 538 NEW BUSINESS Continued Ms. Cocker advised that the Commission rely on comments made on record at Planning Commission Meetings; she did not recommend contact between individual Commissioners. Chr. Sorensen commented on the differing roles of the two bodies. Com. Claudy noted that while Study Sessions would be useful, legislation required that such be open to the public. He was unfavorable to taking public testimony at a working session between the Council and the Commission; there are other opportunities wherein time is set aside exclusively for Public Hearings. Finally, he noted that comments made at a public hearing might not fully reflect the thinking of an individual Commissioner. Com. Mackenzie was favorable to the use of Study Sessions even if a quorum of Commissioners did not attend any individual session; he noted the stability of the Commission and felt that over a period of time, such sessions would be profitable. Mr. Cowan invited Commissioners to submit to him any additional comments they might wish to forward to the City Council. OLD BUSINESS: - None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: - Com. Adams asked if anyone planned to attend the Transportation 2000 Meeting. He questioned the Deputy City Attorney regarding potential conflict of interest - Chr. Sorensen noted site improvements to the Parks House. - Com. Szabo questioned signage at the Del Mar property; Staff to investigate further. - Com. Claudy noted disappointment that no public seating was being provided at the mini-park at De Anza Blvd./Stevens Creek Blvd. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: - Written Report submitted DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: . None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded its business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:40 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of March 14, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recordirtg Secretary