Loading...
PC 06-10-81 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue~ Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC-358 PAGE lA MINUTES, JUNE 10, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Binneweg Commissioner Blaine Chairman Claudy Late: Commissioner Adams (8:00 p.m.) Commission Koenitzer (7:35'p.m.) POSIPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported that he had received a telephone call from the applicant of ITEM #6 to request a continuance. When asked by Chairman Claudy, the applicant, who was in the audience, confirmed that he wanted a two week continuance, and it was established that no-one was at the Meeting in regard to that item. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to continue ITEM #6 until the Meeting of June 22,1981. SECOND: Com. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED 3-0 (Cams. Adams and Koenitzer absent) ITEM #4, Application 26-U-74 (Revised) of BETHEL LUTHERAN CHURŒI: USE PERMIT to expand the elementary day school program to encompass Grades 4, 5 and 6. The existing school is limited to kindergarten through the third grade. The expansion will increase the expected number of students to approximately 150 from a present limit of 80, and include a play yard area, storage and miscellaneous building modifications and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the southwest corner of Finch Avenue and Sorenson Avenue in a BQ (Quasi-Public Building) zoning district. First Heáring. Assöciate to explain Planner Piasecki their own progress. wanted the applicant's representatives Mr. David Klinger, Vice President of Bethel Lutheran, thanked the Commissio for the sugg€'stion of continuance, ,,,hich had enabled them to get together with the Brookdale Homeowners Association, with whom they had developed a system of keeping in contact. The homeowners had explained they could not make a decision, as because of their bye-laws they could not meet in less than 15 days, so that because of the urgency, the Church was proposing Items 1-18 of the application, pertaining to school expansion, be approved at this time and Items 19 and 20 modified, to indicate they would work with the homeowners association for a solution. Because of the circumstances, they expected the homeowners to appeal, he said, and they would both use th time to work out their diffences. He explained the Church's reasons to move quickly; they could not hire staff, order supplies or complete necessary remodelling until they had the Use Permit, he said. PC-358 PAGE 2A MINUTES,JUNE la, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CHR. CLADDY asked that a representative of the homeowners give their interpretation of the meeting. Mr. Mark Fang, counsel for the Brookdale Homeowners Association, concurred with Mr. Klinger's assessment of the meeting, but said he had been in error in informing Mr. Klinger of the date of the homeowners associåtion special meeting which would be June 2sth.He felt resolutions might eventually be attained. He believed there was on record a letter from Hr. Wayne Lichtenberger of the homeowners association, stating that they were going to object to the expansion, on the basis the association did not have sufficient information to make a decision, though individuals had come forward to raise specific objections, he said. Mr. Jim Solomon, on the Board of Brookdale Estates, had heen involved in the meeting and said they had a good exchange, but they did not like the facility. It seemed to him a matter of convenience for the members of the Church versus damage to their home environment, and the homeowners did not seem to have any choice but to put up with more noise. He felt it was an obligation of the Commission to keep watch over this experimental developm~t they had approved five years ago. He observed that the parents of would-be students were not in the audience, and surmised it was because the effect on them was infinitely less serious than on the homeowners, who were here. Mr. Wayne Lichtenberger, speaking as a member of the association, read a letter from Mr. Howard Mitomi whose property bordered the Church on two sides, that his personal life and family were not affected presently, but that any new addition would be a concern. Hr. Lichtenberger added that this neighbor's concerns were the same as his own. Mr. Klinger explained he had asked the School Board not to have anyone at the Heeting, but that he could turn out 100 people if need be, as they were concerned. He observed that the Pastor had spoken to the neIghbor quoted, who had said he had no complaints. He did not how to interpret the letter, as he thought they had good relations with Mr. Nakamoto, he said. They provided a Lutheran education for all members of the community, he went on, and wanted expansion to the sixth grade bcause it was a conventional elementary experience and would provide a stable environment for the children. COM. BINNm4EG, observing that there were complaints of balls being thrown against the fence, asked if the fence waS a joint one. Mr. Klinger answered that there was an existing 6 ft. fence, and the plan showed dense folIage, so that balls would be unlikely to do damage. He commented that the storage area proposed would block off 25% of the south lot, where at present it was dIffIcult to control infractions altogether, as it was adjacent to the parking lot; also the play equIpment where It was proposed would be at a maximum separation from the neighbors. However, they were perfectly willing to negotiate and look into che alternatIves, he said. COM. BINNEWEG thought that as long as they were doublIng their enrollment they could do some revamping. Mr. Klinger thought that if parking was negotiahle there would be other optIons, and noted that they had not intended the addItions to be make- shift, only to fit in with parking constraints, and said it was not critIcal MINUTES, JUNE 10, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-358 PAGE 3A for the next year to have the play area and the equipment, so that they had time to seek a solution. COM. BLAINE inquired whether they would be able to meet the State standar s for school playgrounds. Mr. Klinger informed her that they had checked into the matter and that there were virtually no State standards for private elementary schools. He advised that they had a mutual use agreement with Sedgwick School and were able to use the play yard and equipment there, though this was not a long-term arrangement. Mr. Fang believed he spoke on behalf of the association "hen sa1¡<ing they had no argument whatsoever with the fine intention of the Lutheran Church but the key issue was that there did not seem to be clear plans for the design of the playground. CHR. CLAUDY asked Mr. Fang to comment unofficially on whether it was his perception that the association was not opposed to the expansion of the school, but to the matter of the outdoor environment. Mr. Fang felt he could not answer, .due ~o a wide range of opinion within the association. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. COM. KOENITZER thought discussion would be beneficial before closing the Public Hearing COM. BLAINE withdrew the Motion. CHR. CLAUDY wondered if the Commission had the final authority here. Associate Planner Piasecki an appeal. advised that it did, unless there was CHR. CLAUDY explained appeal procedures for the benefit of the audience, and also that the application would not be continued unless the appli- cant concurred. COM. KOENITZER established that if a decision waS made and it was appeal d City Council would hear the appeal on July 6th, and that the City Counci decision would then be final, unless challenged in court. He was concerned about the noise, he said, and would like to see miti- gation measures as part of the application. COM. BLAINE was also concerned about the noise and having a school yard next to homes where it had not been expected. She felt the playgrounp and play area had to be located elsewhere , possibly next to the apartment playground and parking lot, and her inclination was to approve the increase in school size but not to permit any play in the undevelope south area, so that the school would find they had to relocate the play area. PC-358 MINUTES, JUNE 10, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING CO}1MISSION MEETING \GE 4A COM. BINNEWEG sympathised with people buying homes and then having a school growing unexpectedly over their fences, but felt schools should not have to be in commercial or industrial areas. She felt inclined to allow the Use Permit if there was a way to work out basic differences. COM. ADAMS said he would abstain, since he had missed half an hour of the Hearing, though his views had been given at the previous Meeting. CRR. CLAUDY was inclined to approve the school itself, but the play yard should be located elsewhere, he said. He was not inclined to' pass a lIotion with a Condition that gave veto power to Brookdale Homeowners Association, and suggested substituting for Condition 19 something to the effect that organized' school activities not be permitted on the southern portion of the site with conditions as they now existed, leaving off the last part, that the applicant should submit a detailed plan. He suggested that when the Church and neighbors had reached an agreement or impass, they should return to the Planning Commission to change the Use Permit again. There was discussion on the wording of Condition 19, and also on cutting out Conditions 19 and 20. There was also discussion on finding a way to approve part of the Use Permit and continue the other part, so that the process would not have to be repeated, but it was decided there might be problems in doing this. Associate Planner Piasecki advised that he had spoken with Mr. Klinger, who fully understood the implications of a new Use Permit application, and he was willing to accept them. City Attorney Killian suggested, since the Public Hearing was still open the homeowners might want to comment, but there was no response. CHR. CLAUDY explained that the Commission would probably vote in favor of the expansion but would probably not approve the construction of the play- ground or storage building and in fact would probably disallow use of the southern area. He reminded the audience that the right of appeal was still open. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED (Com. Adams abstaining, since he had missed some of the Hearing) 4 -1 abst. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to approve Application 26-U-74, subject to Standard Conditions 1-14, Conditions 15,'.16,17,18 and 19 as in the Staff Report to read: "School activities shall not be permitted in the southern undeveloped portion of 'the site. The development of the storage shop and play structure area in the southerly- most portion of the site is not approved at this time." With findings that the uses are in conformance with the General Plan and are not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located; the property involved is adequate in in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use as a school; MINUTES, JUNE 10, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING CO}~ISSION lffiETING PC-358 PAGE SA the proposed use will not generate a level of traffic over and beyond the capacity of the existing street system; the proposed use is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals or general welfare of persons working or residing in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood, and in fact will be an improvement over the situation now existing; with the subconclusion that the intensity of use in the southern section is being reduced. SECOND: Com. Binneweg VOTE: PASSED (Com. Adams abstaining, since he was absent for part of the 4~ Hearing) abst City Attorney Killian advised that the applicant had a right to appeal condition, even though the Use Permit was approved, and described the procedure. any ITEM #5, Application l3-U-8l of C.A.T.V.: USE PERMIT to construct a cable television facility including offices, garage and storage building equaling approximately 3,200 sq. ft. and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the east side of Imperial Avenue approximately 100 f south of Stevens Creek Boulevard in a P (Planned Development with commercia and incidental industrial and/or residential intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 15, 1981. Assistant Planning Director Cowan firstly drew the Commissioners' attention to a letter recently received from Ms. Barbara Trubell. He described the area involved in the application as in a PD zone initiated by the City in conjunction with the MORGA Annexation Procedure, which reflected the Manta Vista Plan in land use types and design of the Manta Vista commercial district. He pointed out that there was a question involving the activities to be conducted within the building, as the application was for an office and operations center for a cable television franchise, but that Staff thought the proposal could be considered a neigh- borhood commercial activity. For guidance, he had supplied copies of portions of the Neighborhood or General ~nmmercial Zoning District Ordinanc which outlined the permitted uses, indicating th~t administrative office activities were allowed, and in this case, such activities constitute 50%, he said. He advised that the key was the degree of public contact, and if the facil' y would detract from creating a commercial center in old Monta Vista, and that Staff felt there would be public contact in bill paying and complaint activity when people would come into the office. He reported that the design aspects facilitated the interconnected drivewa approach established for Manta Vista, and that Staff felt there should be windows on the Imperial Drive frontage to give the feelinp, of a commercial structure. He added that the owners were willing to sign reciprocal acces agreements to facilitate development of the surrounding sites. COM. KOENITZER thought the definition of communications equipment, in term of sto,rate, in the Ordinance was ambiguous, and it seemed a lot depended on whether the Commission felt stoTBge was necessary for conducting busine s. PC--358 INUTES, JUNE 10, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 6A he concept of storage was discussed, that any business activity would ave storage for their service or product, and a comparison was made to he telephone company. r. John Cribb, General Manager of United Cable, the applicant, felt the rchitect had designed the building to meet the demands of the Monta Vista Ian. He pointed out that their uses were changing, and in September, hen the system was turned on, they would not have any materials to ware- ouse and would need to start serving custbmers. They needed an admini- strative facility so that they could servê the community for the next 5 years, which projected a good image, with expansion capabilities, and hichcontained a public area and offices, similar to a bank or telephone store, he said. He described their various products, and said that if .ustomers wished to change their services they would need to bring in a small converter box and pick up another, so that he saw customer service as being a large portion of the traffic. escribing the contents of the building, he said they had a conference aom and marketing area proposed, but that the majority was office space, and that there would be a garage to house the mobile television van, which ad. to be housed inside because of the expensive equipment on it. There was also bulk storage and an appliance storage area, housing converter boxes and one or two reels of cable. He stressed that there would not be fences or an open storage area, and that parking for employees and customers would be adequate. It would be an attractive facility in an area they would be proud to do business in, he said, and noted that it would draw needed foot traffic to the area. it was established that C.A.'f.V. was hoping for 8,000 customers the first one or two years, that they would have only four radio-dispatched service vehicles and that they needed only a very small trencher to lay additional cable. There would be approximately eight employees in the office and not more than twelve totally, unless business was better than expected, and even supplies for a large new subdivision could be stacked in a relatively small space. Mr. Robert DeMann, Daverman Associates, the architects on the project, said they had been instructed the building was to be a commercial customer-oriented facility, and that the clients understood the concerns of the Manta Vista neighborhood and had made every effort to have the building enhance the community and follow the Stevens Creek Plan Line Study. He described the structure as in a pre-1940's style to fit in with the area, handsome, though not pretentious with no outdoor secured areas and with parking available to the public in the form of reciprocal easements. He advised that if all went , as planned they would eventually expand the office area within the perimeter walls and also expand out to the south. CHR. CLAUDY wondered what he thought of the Staff recommendation to add windows on the west side. Mr. DeMann explained they had not put them there because of problems with western sun and also an intention to have a good background for the public area, but there were no architectural problems. MINUTES, JUNE 10, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-358 PAGE 7 A Ann Anger, Vice President of Monta Vista Homeowners Association, said sÀe had been approached in March by Mr. Holsinger of C.A.T.V. and at that time. the project had sounded good. They were trying to get foot traffic into Manta Vista and it seemed this would help. Howéver, she had asked Assistant City Engineer Whitten for addresses of other facilities and had visited the one in Santa Clara, which was situated in an industrial park, as was the one in Sunnyvale. They had office space, an unused studio and an assembly faC'ility for the boxes, where there were four or five men working, she said. She felt it 'was definitely an industrial use, which concerned her. She was not against the office and service part, but only the utility part, which Manta Vista did not want. Mr. Wes. Williams, President of the Manta Vista Homeowners Association, said that the business within the structure that ~!r. Cribb had presented seemed to be a wotthwhile one for Manta Vista, if it remained as presented and did not have a utility Use. In considering the Use Permit, he wanted the fact that there would be no truck storage at the site enforced, even if all the employees went on vacation, he said. He felt the design was appealing, "ith the addition of the windows that Staff had suggested. He had a concern about traffic and the growth of the business and did not want it to impact Stevens Creek Roulevard in that area, so that a median strip would be necessary for the left turn required.He also did not want to see any expansion going to a second storey or obviating storage areas. Richard Scott, who owned the 50 ft. piece of land south of the proposal, said he noticed parking was indicated on his site, but nobody had approache him. CHR. CLAUDY explained that an old, conceptual plan of two years ago was being used which did not represent the present application. Mr. Scott voiced another concern, that in a map he had seen two or three years ago, Imperial Avenue was to be closed off to Stevens Creek. CHR. CLAUDY said he believed Imperial would remain open. Mrs. Anger thought the present application was for a part industrial use, and wondered what would+prevent Mr. Scott putting an industrial use next to it. It would be setting a precedent, she said, and she did not want to see the area spoiled for future applications. Mr. Scott ~vas confused, as there was a termite company next to his propert with outside storage and vehicles in the back. He noted that the area had always been light industrial and that the buildings had been there a long time. CHR. CLAUDY explained that approximately one year ago the area had been changed from store-front industrial to neighborhood commercial, and that industrial uses would not longer be permitted, though anything already there could remain. !Irs. Anger commented that unfortunately people had bought for speculation, but that the residents of the area wanted certain things for the community Mr. Wes Williams added that the Citizens Goal Committee had for a long time tried to stop random development in favor or something more appealing PC-358 MINUTES, JUNE 10, 19S1,REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . 'AGE SA as Monta Vista was one of the few areas left in the valley where there was a country store atmosphere and the residents did not want in spoiled. Zoning should be applied correctly, he concluded. Mr. Jim O'Day, -General Manager of C.A.T.V. Facility Company, the developers, said that he, as the developer, would not allow outside storage, and that the operat ion was not manufac turin g, assembly or warehouse, but basically retail providing direct service, and that if there was any concern, Condition 20 clearly outlined their obligation to keep it open to the general public as a place of business. He pointed out that they were providing reciprocal parking in the back, which would help with the development of neighboring lots. COM. ADAMS suggested an easy way for a solution might be to refer to the Ordinance, page 135, where it was stated that"uses not specified in the ordinance which in the opinion of the Planning Commission were substantially industrial rather than commercial shall be excluded from the general commercial zonel1 so that the decision, he felt, was whether this business . was substantiðl1y industrial or commercial. He thought there were two way to assess that;by the number of people working in the industrial area or the amount of floor space set aside to be potentially industrial. COM. KOENITZER added that the office part of the building fell into the category of permitted uses and professional general administrative and busi- ness of f ices in Paragraphs 94 and 94 .l.B. of the Ordinance ,. that 94 .l.D: listed several other types of offices, including communications equipment buildings., and that 94.l.G. permitted limited repair services, including domestic appliances, into which category he tþought this ,.¡ould fall, so that it seemed the use would fit the General Commercial Ordinance. He suggested adding a Condition 22 that there should be no outside storage of materials, equipment or vehicles. Mrs. Anger still felt the use was industrial, judging by the other facilities in the area. MOTI ON : SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. Com. Binneweg PASSED 5-0 COM. ADAMS felt the Commission had the guidelines necessary to assessthis application. He saw this as a commercial installation and said he would be in favor of it. COM. BINNEWEG did not see this as a great commercial contribution to Manta Vista and commented that she had problems with conditioning Use Permits because of enforcement difficulties. COM. BLAINE felt that as along as encoder boxes were it was a commercial facility, and that the advantage it would be the only one of its kind in the area, so into Manta Vista creating much needed foot traffic. not heing manufactured for Manta Vista was that that it would bring people She was in favor. CHR. CLAUDY felt that the use waS not industrial, but that this was not a neighborhood commercial project, so that in a neighborhood commercial zone he would have to oppose it, though he felt there would be few neighborhood MINUTES, JUNE 10, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-358 PAGE 9A commercial projects going into Monta Vista, and that the City Council had put themselves in a dilemma by creating the zone. COM. BLAINE wondered whether the City Council's intent had been to oppose regional commercial, such as Vallee. CHR. CLAUDY said he could only give his interpretation, that the City Council had specified neighborhood commercial to serve the immediate neighborhood. COM. BLAINE asked Staff if there was another designation, in geographical areas or types of areas served. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that the breakdown was regional community and neighborhood, and that neighborhood shopping meant day to day, with a food emphasis. COM. BLAINE observed that bringing people in from the whole City meant community, rather than neighborhood, in that case. Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that the Land Use Amend- ment was from commercial and store front industrial mix to neighborhood commercial, but that it was stated the basis for the amendment was to create a viable commercial district for Old Monta Vista, and the intent W8.S not convenience retailing. He quoted: "Commercial land use mix should be predom;[nantly oriented to convenience shopping designed to serve the needs, day to day, of local residents" and interpreted that the word "predominantll left room for other activities, and that nothing in the General Plan would preclude commercial-type activities. He reported that the first three or four applications in Honta Vista sine the Plan had been adopted were office and that realtors had said there was no demand for specialty or convenience stores there, but that Staff had taken great pains to see that office buildings would be adaptable. He added that Staff felt if a very strict interpretation was taken, there would not be any buildings going into the area. COM. BLAINE was also concerned that if it had to be neighborhood commer- cial, it would not support anything. COM. KOENITZER felt there had to be a way to get the parcels together in Manta Vista, as the development problem sprung from narrow lots. COM. BLAINE did not find the use to be convenience shopping, but did not think it all had to be, and felt that perhaps this particular use would bring foot traffic in and create an atmosphere where convenience shopping could work out. She "anted to leave it to City Council to decide if the use did or did not fit the zone, and wondered how long the City could mak landowners wait. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Koenitzer, to accept the Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review Committee. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 MOTION: PC-358 MINUTES, JUNE 10, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION ~ŒETING Page IDA MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, to recommend approval of Application l3-U-8l subject to Standard Conditions 1-14, COnditions 15-21 as in Staff Report, with Condition 22 to read: There shall be no outside storage of materials, equipment or vehicles. For vehicles "outside storage", shall be defined as unattended overnight parking. Based on the findings that the use is one that is permitted in the general commercial zone under Paras. 94.l.B,D and G, and that it is in keeping with the land use goals and policies in the Old Manta Vista Plan, although not directly a neighborhood commercial use. It is in keeping with Policy 2, and is consistent with both the general and specific plans that are involved in this area. SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED 3-2 (Chr. Claudy and Com. Binneweg voting against the motion). COM. KOENITZER commented on Ms. Trubell's letter, requesting Staff to enforce the parking regulations with respect to the businesses mentioned. ITEM 1/6, Applications l2-U-8l and 9-TM-8l of 1st FINANCIAL AND GUARANTEE. CONTINUED. ITEM 1/7, Application 10-TM-8l of KIER & WRIGHT (GROSVENOR INTERNATIONAL): TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately 30 acres into five parcels ranging in size from 1.5 acres to 11.4 acres and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEI,: The project was previously assessed,hence, no action iR required. Said property is located on the south side of PruneridgeAvenue approximately 500 ft. west of Tantau Avenue in a MP (Planned Industrial Park) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 15, 1981. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that the Map was consistent with the approved concept for the entire 30 acres. Mr. Dick Kier , representing Grosvenor International, explained the Map was for leasing and financing purposes, and was ready to answer any questions. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing. Com. Koenitzer PASSED 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, to recommend approval of Application 10-TM~8l, with Conditions 1-15, as in the Staff Report and with findings and subconclusions as in the Staff Report. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 MOTION: UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM 1/8, Application HC-Sl,S46.l - Antonio Reyes: Requesting the Planning Commission's approval of a reduced front yard distance, in accordance with Section 118.1 of the ML (Light Industrial) Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,600 sq. ft. industrial building to be located at the northwest corner of Imperial Avenue and Lomita Avenue in a ML zoning district. Associate Planner Piasecki stated that the applicant had been given directi by the Planning Commission at the Meeting of May 26, and Staff felt this had been met. He reported that ASAC* had approved the revised plan with two minor conditions, relating to the fence on the western property line an the height of the building in the western portion. He suggested that the Commission could make a simple finding that the specific site plan promoted the overall excellence and therefore warranted modified front setbacks. PC-358 Page llA n MINUTES, JUNE 10, 1981, REGULAR ADJOUro,ED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Louis Pina, the architect, had nothing to add, and was ready to answer questions. Mrs. Anger said that everyone involved was happy with the result. Mr. Salazar Briones, owner of the adjacent property, wanted to thank Mr. Reyes in particular, and said he was very pleased with the plan. Mr. Wes. Williams expressed his appreciation of the way in which ASAC* had worked, and advised that the change had benefitted Mr. Reyes. Mrs. Reyes expressed her thanks to everyone. COM. BLAINE was very pleased with the revised plan, and now believed that the 10 ft. setback was necessary to promote the overall excellence of the development. COM. ADAMS said he would approve the application, but repeated what he had said previously, that he believed the original plan was a good one, because there would be less noise for the residents, but observed that it was a trade-off, aesthetics versus noise. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, to find that the reduced building setback, as selected on Site Plan labelled Exhibit A, first revision, of Application HC-sl,546.l promotes the overall excellence of the development. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 MOTION: NEW BUSINESS City Attorney Killian discussed the proceedings and format for a Meeting involving a revocation hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported that the Planning Director wante the Commission to authorise the commencement of revocation hearings for Key Chevrolet, if matters were not resolved in two weeks. There was discussion on the matter of whether two weeks was enough time, as because of the present financial situation, Key Chevrolet might have difficulty in complying, it was felt. COM KOENITZER observed, however, that to the best of his recollection, ther were different vehicles on the lot all the time, so th.at they were going somewhere. COM. ADAMS withdrew the question of whether two weeks was enough. * ASAC - Architectural and Site Approval Committee PC-358 MINUTES, JUNE 10, 1981 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page l2A MOTION: Com. Koenitzer to direct Staff for revocation of the Key Chevrolet Permit if not resolved in two weeks to the satisfaction of Staff. DISCUSSION: City Attorney Killian advised that when the matter was resolved there should be a report to the Planning Commission. Com. Blaine felt the M~tion should mention .that Staff was satisfied that progress was being made to a resolution of the problem. Assistant Planning Director Cowan commented that things were at an impass fight now, and that the request had been made approximately 3 months ago. The Motion died for lack of a second. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, to reque"st Staff to initi.ate revocation of the Use Permit of Key Chevrolet if, within the next two weeks, progress on resolution of the problem had not been made to Staff's specification. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 MOTION: REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISS10N REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR MEETING ADJOURNED 10.50 P.M. APPROVED: ATTEST: c;tf2~ ~ -