Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 06-20-1974CITY OF CUPERTINO, INO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC -15 3 10300 Torre Avenue, Cuperti.nc, Cal ifti rmia 95014 Page 1 Telephone: 252-4505 a `y MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PINNING COLTCSION HELD ON JUNE 20, 1974, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CI_TI H.ZL, CUPE2`I'INO, CALI FOR'N IA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman O'Keefe __. with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Adams, Gatto (7:45), Woodward, Chairman ti' (ee.fc. Comm. absent: Cooper Staff present: Director of. Planning an; Development Ssk Associate Planner Cowan Assistant City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Engineer Whit ten WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS yy Chrmn. O'Keefe referred to a letter he bad received from Valley Christian. Church dated June 12, 1974 fror.: Thomas G. Paterson. with regard to a bowling alley proposal. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Applications 16-Z-74 and 13•--U-74 of MAY INVESTh:: 'NT COMPANY: REZONING 3.64 acres from Rl--10 (Rr iden'tin;_, single-family, 10,000 sq. it. rez. dwelling unit) zone to P (Planned Development: with single.. family, residcntial, cluster intent) zone or whatever zone may be •aoeme_d R appropriate by the Planning Commit n on, USE i'_,. xl.'T •.o allow conE'tructi on of 27 tluc:ter unit a w.l.tb. one of to be held in common ownership, and one lot to be ati tined 16•--Z.--74 and 13--i--74 MAY IN'f.ST- MtiN'i COMPANY IYINUfIS Or THE L,DJ'OUrNED PLANNING COMi4ISSION MEETING. OF JUNER:2Q,L:`1"9x7 PC--i5SS Page 3 Mr. Marty Hess, 16211 Bubb Road, Cupertino, explained their proposal This will be a fee titled project with common area. It presents good street-scape; the garages are off the street and hidden. These - units have larger square footage than average cluster, ranging between 1140 and 1530 sq. ft. per unit. Mr. Hess noted they --had dropped a unit to -meet density requirement which opened up green area in center. They have been able to get 3.5 spaces of parking per unit and can make the change requested by Public Works Department at unit #9. He pointed out parking is scattered through the development.: Th-e City had requested the private street be widened from 20' to 24'� which they had done and the main street above circle was widened to 32'. Mr. Hess noted their concern with condition #32, size of garage. These are basically 18' x 20' with 2.6' insets. Two garages con- tam- washers/dryers/water heater and one does not. He referred to Rhonda Valley condominiums which do not have garage door openers and which have experienced no problems. These are FHA minimum garage size and have some extra storage -apace. Wideningarages g Will push clusters out and there will be -more paving area. He pointed out the A--1 :model has.. storage space in -attic_ also. The Associate Planner said the ordinance for typical family home does require a garage, size of 20' x 20'. Planned Development does give latitude to go smaller, but other developments have experiencedi trouble with 18' garages. It is the judgmental opinion of the staff that 2.1' x 22' is an appropriate size. Comm. Gatto questioned why four units were isolated in corner and Mr. Hess gave reasoning behind this configuration. Comm. Gatto asked about school children cutting through property to school as they do now through vacant lot. Mr. Hess said they would first post property and then maybe install some type of break away fence or barrier to discourage them. He said they :wwere aware of this problem and would be willing to accept any solution. Comm. Gatto ascertained this had been discu,ased with staff. Chairman O'Keefe commented there are a lot of problems connected with construction near a school. The schools are becoming more aware that it is their responsibility to keep students away from private property. After a brief discussion, Comm. Gatto noted perhaps the developer might. want to reconsider replacement of those four units. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNEDPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1974 Chairman O'Keefe felt the garage door openers should be an option left to buyers also. He was reluctant to increase size ofgarage to 20' because he felt it would affect the open space and green area. He noted 52% of the cars in California are small cars. Comm. Adams said he would be in favor of having access to corner units from within the project and providing some fire access that would be a breakdown wall or fence. Comm. Woodward suggesting making circular loop circle entire court. He felt since this had been an access road to.high school that the City hadn't answered the problem. He thought at might be easier to provide some bicycle route through development's common area. Comm. Gatto said if the Fire Department was requiring access off Finch, they are faced with some kind of route through there. A gate or fence would be just as much an invitation for same type of situation. Putting road through would lose benefit of open space within. If the developer feels he can live with this, he would be willing to -let him --live with -it-.- -- ---- Chairman O'Keefe agreed with Comm. Gatto. Building defensively to live across from hl;l't schoolis noot to good idea Cooperation is needed from high school rather than penalizing buyer. Since it is PD, the green area is wanted. With regard to setback along Finch, Comm. Woodward said setback of fence was a real concern to him. Apparently if these were facing Finch, the fence would not be allowed to come out that close to sidewalk. They are taking two existing family residences that have reasonable setbacks and essentially rolling them in to 7' from side- walk. To mitigate this, he would recommend additional back yard unit 119 have its fence run parallel. to Finch. He didn't know how to treat other units. If existing residents .werewilling, a 3' re.il fence might be a solution. Comm. Gatto said he thought the fence might be advantage. He referred to another development with a fence on the street which worked very well. The high school students walked by without intru- sion on residential units behind it. He felt the fence--scape along the route was a better solution than having a place where students could go sit which is what -would happen-wi:th a setback. He did not think it was an blight to the single-family residences. He did not see any justification however for 15' setback of build- ings; they should be 20-' which is required setback in any other area. Comm. Woodward said lie could agree. with Conn-. Gatto on fence, but would like to see something done behind units #9 and #16 to soften effect. PC -15 Page 5 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED PLANNING CGi+MISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20,1974 There being no comments from the audience, Chairman O'Keefe moved, seconded by Comm. Woodward, to close Public Hearing. Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Gatto said he would like staff to denote one of the exhibits •here, Exhibit A-1 Revised, with all changes they had been discussing Comm. Gatto moved for approval of application 16-Z-74, subject to 14 standard conditions and; (1.5) Approval is based upon the site plan labeled Exhibit A, 1st Rev. 13-U-74 as may be modified by additional. condi- tions enumerated herein. (16) The total number of dwelling units shall not exceed 26, including the existing single-family residential dwelling unit. (1.7) The private roadway sections shall contain a pavement width of twenty-four (24) feet from curb to curb. The roadway section shall constitute a public service easements other public service or utilities easements may be incorporated in the plan. (18) All buildings, fences, streets and other roadways, parking; areas, landscaping and other facilities or features shall be located substantially as shown on the development plan i labeled "Exhibit A", 1st Rev. 13-U-74. (19) The pavement, curbs, gutters and storm drains of the private street shall be constructed to the standards of City streets, subject to the approval of: the City Lngineer except that the City Engineer may permit modifications R recommended by a licensedengineer and subject to City inspection. (20) The private street and t:he roajorwalkways shall be lighted to an intensity according to good eng♦_neering practices and standards for the purposes int.e.ided; the type and location of elect.roliers subject to approval by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. (21) There shall be a system for the naming of the pliva{.e street and for address nulilbers, subject- to approval by the Building Department after consultations with the Postmaster, the Central Fire District and the Co-unt.y Communications Office. PC -158 Page 7 Public Hear- ing closed 3 MINUTES OF THE, ADJOURNED PLANNING C0101ISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20,1974' (29) The articles of incorporation of the Homeowners Associa- tion_ and any other instrument related to said association shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. (30) Adequate turn -around space shall be provided at the termini. of the private streets subject to the approval of the Central Fire Discrict. (31) Vehicular parking shall be provided based on 3.5 spaces per dwelling unit. (32) Garages on lots 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 1.2, 17, 13, 23, 24 and 25 shall have a minimum inside width and depth of twenty (20) and twenty (20) feet, respectively. (33) In the event the applicant shall desire to make any change', alteration or amendment in the approved Development Plan, a written request and a revised Development Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director. If the Planning Director makes a finding that the changes are minor and do not affect the general appearance of the area or the interests of owners of property within or f adjoining the development area, the Planning Director. may certify the change on the revised plan. If such approval is withheld, the applicant may appeal to the Planning Commission. If the changes are material, the Planning Director shall submit said changes to the Planning Commission. If the change or changes are denied by the Commission, the applicant may appeal to the City Councils as provided in Ordinance 002(a) of the City of Cupertino. Seconded by Comm. Adams. PC -158 Page 9 AYES: Comm. Adams, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman OKeefe ( 16-Z-74 NOES: None r approved Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Gatto moved for approval of application 13-IJ-74 subject to same 33 conditions. Seconded by Comm. Adams. AYES: Comm. Adams, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe s 13-•U -74 NOES X None approved . I Motion carried, 4--0 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20,1974 Chairman O'Keefe apologized to Mr. Wright for having to sit through so many hours of meetings. He said the Commission agreed it was not the best situation and they would be happy to find a solution. 3. Application 13 -TM -74 of JOHN HAATAHO''E: TENTATIVE MAP to adjust lot lines between two existing single-family, residential lots. Said property is within a R1-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone located northerly of and adjacent to Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 800 feet easterly of the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard. First Hearing. The Associate Planner located property on aerial photograph. The lot served by the proposed flag lot was landlocked by development that occurred on the lot labeled Baratz on tentative map exhibit. The owner is now trying_to-gain access to it. A City policy requires 20' minimum width for flag lot corridor, instead of an easement street. There are two existing dwellings on lots involved which present problems in designing lot configurations that take into consideration lot sizes and setbacks.He referred to revised map in packet showing 20' wide flag corridor and reconfigured lot lines which will create 10,000 sq. ft. lot minimums in conformance with the existing 10,000 sq. ft, lot zoning. The map, describes a plan line proposed for Stevens Creek - Boulevard, recommends a dedication based upon the premise that the 10' is needed to co'Jpiete the exist- ing 50' half -street section for Stevens Creek Boulevard. In answer to Comm. Adams, Mr. Cowan said he did not know what the leggy implications were of this application. The City Attorney said there were no problems in tentative map by allowing access. Mr. Mark Kirkeby, engineer who drew the map, said he was speaking for the applicant. In answer. to Comm. Woodward, Mr. Kirkeby said the applicant was reluctantly agreeable to the dedication. It was noted the roadway seems to be entirely on south side of right--of- way. When final plan line is compiled, some abandoning back may be done. It does crowd parcel A. Comm. Gatto questioned whether in the interest of minimizing curb cuts it had been considered having all three parcels served by this driveway. The Assistant City Engineer said this will have a solid median with landscaping with. right turn in and out situation. The hearing was opened to public. comment. There were none. Mr, Kirkeby asked to have condition 18 reserved for site review at time of construction. Mr. Cowan noted the Fire District liked to have room to turn around. �1. PC -158 Page 11 13 -TM --74 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED -PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 19 74 Chairman O'Keefe an.nounced that copies of the correspondence would be on the front table for those who wished to view them. The Director of Planning and Development referred to the staff report. The primary discussion point relative to the conceptual plan is the permitted uses as it relates to the recreation/ - entertainment uses designed by the 1973 Core Area Plan. As part of that, a use permit application has been filed for specific use of bowling alley. He noted a letter from Mr. Kehrig which referred - to another bowling alley in the area. Mr. Sisk gave the background of three applications for bowling alleys within a block and a half. One application at Rhonda Valley Shopping Center was denied by • Sunnyvale. Cupertino had approved bowling alley for Homestead Square. There had been much discussion on what Cupertino's posture should be on having two so close together, and the decision was made that if the uses were acceptable, the margin of profit should • determine what was built. A list of recommended uses that could be permitted in conjunction with the recreation/entertainment uses on the site subject to use permit approval was submitted. The individual non -bowling uses.. within the site would have to be evaluated based upon their own merit . Although the bowling alley represents the bulk of the property in terms of acreage, there is only 54' of frontage on Stelling Road, The staff would require than the easter_lymost aisleway be installed on the completion of the bowling alley through the site of future Building A to connect, with Homestead Road. It is recommended that the major landscaping features on Stelling Road and Homestead Road be installed in connection with the construction of the bowling center. The term "major landscaping" features includes the place- ment of major trees, irrigation systems, and mounding if mounding is a solution to screen the parking lot. With regard to parking, based upon a literal interpretation of the parking requirement for a bowling alley in a.General Commercial zone, a total of 252 spaces would be required. There are a total of 170 spaces on the site. Based upon parking analysis submitted in conjunction with the bowling center at homestead Square site, 5 spaces per lane is an appropriate figure. Under this analysis, the parking would be deficient by 19 stalls. If it can be assumed that the cocktail lounge which is part of bowling alley is primarily oriented to bowlers, then it can. be assumed the deficiency would be 6 spaces on a base of 189 which does not represent a serious deficiency. The applicant is proposing that 8 parking spaces within the lot area be utilized for landscaping purposes. These could be converted to parking with 4' tree wells through-the-parkin4 lot. PC -158 Page 13 Pc -158 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED PLANNING CO'1IISSION MEE'T'ING' OIL JUNE 20, 197' Page 14 Another consideration was height of the building and its relation to adjacent property _lines. The GC zone requires a 20' setback and, further., that the setback distance be equal to the height of the structure. Thus if the structure were; in a strictly conymercial zone, the bowling center building would have to be shifted to a setback of approximately 22'. ThePlanned Development zone does allow the City and applicant to deviate from the standards based'upon,the-approval of a specific plan. This is. something the Co:mmission will want to consider in its design discussion. In answer to Comm. Catto, the Planning Director said the applicant has proposeda bermed landscaping mound be placed against the building in lieu of this construction of a 6' high masonry wall on the easterly and southerly property lines. Mr. Sisk located the site and adjacent buildings for the Commission. a In answer to Comm. Adams, Mr. Sisk said there was a relatively large landscaped area on the•Villa Serra side at the south boundary. On the a east side, a. driveway went docin the property line. Comm. Adams asked about -noise readings. Mr. Sisk said this study was more general and would be (.al.king about: ambient levels of noise in neighborhoods. Comm. Adams suggested getting readings in the area of a bowling alley. Mr. David Harper, 9050 Telegraph, Downey, representing the development, said Mr. Sisk did a good job of presenting primary articles on the application and the thought behind it. They had rec.o:.nnendatious they .could like to have the Commission review in conjunc ioii vlith t.hf.' staff report: The area adjacent to the adjoining driveway they would like a.. to extend -landscaping area to a farm area instead of wail. This 41 would give aesthetic visual harrier and still give a greenbelt area. In answer to.Comm. Gatto, Mr. Harper described landscaping intent around building. As a result of a discrepancy, it was noted the Commissioners had a pleas submitted prior to review by H --Control. Mr. Harper . -explained changes that had been made. Comm. Gatto asked Mr. Harper to describe southerly line configuration. Mr. Harper said the carports do not come to property line. There is a buffer area of 2£' - 30tall trees. They would supplement this landscaping with theirs. The hearing was opened for comments from the -audience. Mr. R. J. Kehrig, 326 Phelan, San Jose,. said that in addition to letters submitted from Valley Christian Church, Valley Christian School and him- self, there was a lettersubmitted on June 10th from L. B. Nelson Corp. representing interests of Villa Serra apartments. He represents the American Recreation Corporation. He gave background of bowling alley applications at Rhonda Valley and Homestead Square. He spoke to the negative aspects of this application. A prime objection to the center on this corner was the heavy traffic on Homestead and Stelling Roads with bika lanes on both sides of the street. He said he was authorized by Vill.a Serra interests to speak of their objection to this use because of late hour traffic, noise and traffic generation. He pointed out MINt?TES OF THE ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20,197 consideration should be given to apartment dwellers as well as single-family owners. ARC is ready, willing and able to proceed with establishing a 40 lane alley at -Homestead Square. He believes it is the responsibility and obligation of the City to consider what would be an excess of approval of use permits for identical uses in such close proximity. Mr. Kehrig submitted a petition with 113 signatures o.f-people in area objecting to this particular application. Comm. Woodward noted ARC had had simultaneous. use permit .applica- • tions ..for two sites. He asked if both applications had been approved would both sites. have been developed. Mr. Harper said no. Comm. Woodward asked him if he was aware the Homestead Square. bowling alley adjoined apartments. Mr. Harper said there was a street and landscaping which would provide adequate. buffering on westerly limits. Comm, Adams asked if all 113 who had signed petitions were register• ed voters. Mr. Harpersaidhe could not honestly say since the petition had been handed to him by another party, and that he had had nothing to do with obtaining them. Ms. Ann Anger, Monte Vista, said she was disturbed by suggestion of berm instead of the 6` wall. This might set a precedent for other commercial developments. At night when the bowlers started their- cars, the lights would be shining in the apartment windows. Mr. Paul Chalmers, 1.633 Concord Drive, Sunnyvale, said he was. on the Board of Elders of the Valley Christian Church, He referred to letters stating their position and reasons for it. They were concerned about cocktail lounge; concerned about traffic hazards. He pointed out the driveway of their parking lot is very close - to the proposed driveway on Stelling Road and they think this could create a special problem. He noted Valley Christian School will be using their facilities beginning in September. Chairman O'Keefe ascertained there would be no construction involved in the. use of the church by the school. In answer to. Comm. Gatto, Mr. Chalmers said the school would be operating in the fall from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. He enumerated the activities scheduled for church, plus - unscheduled activities.. The Planning. Director .pointed out the Valley Christian School use permit would he heard Monday, June 24, relative to utilizing facilities of the church. PC -153 Page. 3.5 PC -158 Page 11) MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED :PI.:ANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1974. A resident of The Grove Apartments said he was deeply shocked when he heard a bowling alley was proposed in their area. Re predicted 50% of the tenants would moveout. He and his neighbors would appreciate riot having the application approved. Comm. Woodwardasked what use they would prefer to see on this property, and said a shopping market which closed at 9 or 1000 in the evening. Mr. Jasoft Chartier, representing owner of The Groves Apartment, answered Comm. Gatto there is approximately 30' from property line and bedrooms which would be closest to tine development. Comm. Gatto noted at the time these units wcre built the area was zone commercial. The speaker explained a.n extra strip had been purchased to give buildings that much more room. He noted the inner portion is a fantastic green area. With regard to earth berm, he would favor this. Something on Vailco type, Wall against flat --top wood and then building would give no softness. With planting on top of berm, this would give softening effect. He pointed out entrances are all on that side and aesthetics in this regard should be considered. He had ��o idea if noise would be a factor, but this would be a concern. Mr. J. Rintala, 10101. Scenic Blvd., Monta Vista, remrZ.nded. the. Commission that Brunswick has been trying so locate here for 2-1/2 years.. Traffic at west end of Cr e..rtinai will use same route to get to Honl tstead Square as to their racality. i'iE uoui.ti-el4,ree wit.n.sta:ff-to let r.nre irarii,et. sector decide whethex _ind wtIat facilities would be built: The z:>athod ABC uses to measure dist.nee For issuance_ of 1i.quor permit 13 from front door to closest y This wouldbe so -ma 1000!. G"it.ut lE,��i1.1'O'E:tt�E-:. Ti� .��.'1...�hlr��, over 1v�jC' Ms. Ann Anger, Monta Vista, said her reason for mentioning berm is that it sets a precedent. Mr. Harty Gamble, manage- of The Groves, spoke to petitions. There is a cross representation of residents from The Groves and Villa Serra. There are approximately 40 bedroom windows looking into that site. This area has become very popular as residential. He would prefer to see it built. as R-2 or R-3. Mr. Harper said he would like to clear some terms used. This is a bowling center. To answer some apprehensions, it does not have a restaurant. All functions are secondary to recreational. luncti.on. There is not a bar advertised as such to pull people off the street. Regarding traffic, the location of the building does not attract passers-by. They had parking furtherest away from apartment houses. 13% of land area total is landscaped. Very low building land use. They have no objection to either bean or wall. The ground level will exceed headlights of cars. They want to create an atmosphere that is pleasing to neighborhood. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED PLANNING COMP.ISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20,1974 Mr. Kehrig noted he was. told by an ARC representative they had a hard time keeping kids out of landscaped areas even with walls. The berm will be. trampled by kids and will not eliminate noise factor. He said the ABC representative had told him that location within 600' is a factor of objection by either school or church. In this case you have 54' strip coming out directly across from the church parking lot which brings it in realm of 600'. Comm. Gatto asked about this objection. Mr. Kehrig said any church, school or resident whose property abuts or is close to a facility may apply for a denial. Mr. Kehrig also answered Comm. Gatto that the assumption was greenhouses in rear of their property would be developed as apartments. In answer to Comm. Adams, Mr. Sisk said the property was designated for recreation/entertainment type uses with underlying land use under General Plan that if this type of use doesn't come to fruition the property could be used for multi -family development. The. Commission allowed him to file a negative EIR on this- but._no report had been prepared. Comm. Catto asked about traffic counts on Homestead and Stelling Roads. The Assistant City Engineer said the 1972 figures for. the ADT (average daily total) were as follows: Stelling, south of Homestead 12,700 ADT Ste.11ing, east of Homestead 15,000 ADT Stalling, west of Homestead 14,000..ADT Hollenbeck, north of Homestead 12,800 ADT Stelling Road today has an estimate of 700 cars per lane per hour. In answer to Comm. Gatto, Mr. Whitten said he had obtained a study done. by the State of California for another bowling alley. Based on those figures, they computed 1066 cars for average week day traffic. Mr. Bill Francis. Brunswick Lanes, said they operated 220 bowling centers and very few of them were open before 9:00 a. m. Heavy loads are morning ladiesleagues, early evening league and late evening ..league. They figure 5 persons per lane for 2-1/2 hour. periods. . Comm. Woodward asked about a midnight league. Mr. Francis said this would depend on demand for it and license requirements. He suggested that a condition could be on the hours. r 8 Page 17 -r PC -158 Page 1.8 MINUTES OF THE ADJ0UINED PLANNING COMriISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1974 Comas. Gatto noted that, at the time of General Plan hearings concern for this e expressed. e a o h a i traffic ti residential on pieces had been because of heavy � affix.. at that coiner of Homestead and Stellin_g. The General Plan concluded this could be an extension of residential use with alternate uses considered. One was a specific recreational. use. Bowling .fits that land use category and is consistent with core area amendment. lie referred to staff listing of uses. He said he felt entertainment uses listed were stretching it .a bit, also sporting goods shops. If it :is directly adjacent to function it could be acceptable, but if it is separate it is a. retail store and belongs out of that category. He thought Mr. Iiarper's suggested uses were retail stores and did not belong in recreational zone. Comm. Woodward said, he thought this plot needs peripheral shops. because. o : berm and wall. Noise was a mayor concern. He would like to see 6' noise wall_ on both sides. The most effective barrier is the 22' high building with adequate setback from edge of property. This would make • an effective noise barrier plus allowing for landscaping. He would like to see some uses that would develop this type of concept. He would suggest recreation and/or sport:ing goods combination. The Plann:ian Director pointed out the General Plan designation is recreation, with related cotrnm'ercial activities. Comm. Wbodwar.d said he did not think either list fit this criteria.. He thought sporting goods chop::; could be used, but certainly not ice cream parlor, florist shop; etc. Comm. Adams noted he was a little concerned. The BI.R d:Lc% not prohibit this use, but there was a church across the street., ':es de_Irtial all around, traffic would be increased approximately LO% during significant peal- hour. He was hesitant about the use of 32 lanes on this site. Chairman O'Keefe noted there were two recreational centers being proposedon periphery of. City that would generate traffic into areas he didn't feel, were in the basic design of. the General Plan they had. tried to formulate. There was a' great deal of commercial in the City. This has great impact on residential, church and school; the degree has yet to. be determined.. He thought artists supplies, bicycle stores, or boating stores might be somewhat related commercial. Comm. Gatto felt the traffic should be spoken to. One of the reasons for putting recreation on this site was that it was comparable. to residential use with regard to peak hour traffic generation. Another thing to be considered fully was whether they would go recreation use on this site. If not, then General Plan would nave to be looked at again. The Planning Director clarified the zoning was recreational with related commercial and an underlying zoning of residential with 16 units per acre. 4 tIIN'TES OF THE ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1974 PC --158 Page 19 After further discussion, the Planning Director said the basic question was whether a bowling alley was an acceptable type of recreational use in this area. Comm. Adams said he was not in favor of a bowling alley on this site in this area. Comm. Woodward said he would have opted for residential use on this site, but he would not be adverse to a bowling alley if the plan addressed itself to these severe problems. Comm. Gatto said the use has merit on this site, but he would not approve site plan as submitted. He noted a bowling alley or any other recreational use with proper screening and buffering to residential areas and proper site plan is an acceptable land use. In answer to Comm.- Adams, the Planning Director read the section on Planned Development zone so everyone would understand how it related to General Plan. He noted they would be adopting an ordinance and listing acceptable uses in that ordinance. Mr. Harper asked for direction from the Commission on changes they would like to see, and for establishing uses for rest of center. Comm. Gatto noted he felt it incumbent on the City,- the Commission and the Council to prepare basic list of uses that would be accept- able in this zoning. Once this is done the applicant may find he .s restricted to the point he may want to charge. the bowling alley use. The staff has started list and the Commissioners have expressed? their views. Chairman O'Keefe said he believed the bowling alley in this particular; corner was the best possible site. The developer must deal with separation of rear of property to apartments to east and south. The effect on school and church nearby must also be considered. Comm. Adams said he would reject plan submitted on basis he did not • feel this site should have a bowling -center at this location. He is not- objecting to recreation use. It must be defined what goes into recreation zoning and not leave the applicant up in the air. The Planning Director summarized the Commission's feelings that }. staff should come up with better list of recreational type uses and work with the applicant to see how it would work with his particular plans. Moved, by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Woodward, to continue _ 19•-Z-74 and applications 19-Z-74 and 15-U-74 to meeting of June 24, 1974. continued • Motion carried, 4-0 FC155 Page 20 60-N:A.-;74 Public Storage, Inc Negative Declarat:. lon to ha, flied 42-EA-7'� I Valley 'Flood .Lufiil ing j Amendment Negative Declaration to be :Filed 43 -EA --74 Proposed. Amendment tc Sign Ord. Negative -Declaration to be filed MINUTES OF THE ADJOUIRINED PLANNING CO1 1ISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1974 i ENVIRONMENTAL PEVIEW COMKITTEE: Recommendation for Negative Declaration 5. Application 40--EA--74 Applicant: Public Storage, Inc. Location East side of Blaney Avenue between Olivewood and Freeway 280 Present Zoning: Al -43 (Agricultural/Residential, 1 acre lots) Discretionary Action Requested: Application for rezoning 2,031 acres to P (Planned Development with quasi - public intent, mini -warehouse and residential use);use permit to allow construction of warehouse, landscaping and on -site parking on 1.66 acres. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams, to direct Planning Director to file Negative Declaration on Application 40 -EA --74. Motion carried, 4-0 6. Application 42--EA-74 Applicant: City of Cupertino Project Name: Valley Floor Infi.l ± i ng, Area Amendment to the 1964 City of Cupertino General Plan The Planning Director said the Council recururnen:lati.o' :i_ndicatc^-�I that as part of General Plac revie":7 relative to infilling, the environmental impart had been considered and concluded it would not have an adverse environmental impact. He noted if Negative Declaration was filed, final action would be taken at Public Hearing Monday night and recommended to City Council. Comm. Gatto reviewed basis for infilling decision. Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Gatto, to direct Planning Director to file Negative Declaration on Application 42 -EA -74. Motion carried, 4-0 7. Application 43 -EA -74 Applicant: City of Cupertino Project Name: Proposed Amendment to Sign. Ordinance Discretionary Action Requested:Architectural and Site Approval Committee is recommending revisions to Section 5.11 and Section 7.021. of Sign Ordinance 353. After discussion, itwas moved by Comm.. Gatto, seconded. by Comm. Woodward, to direct Planni-ng Director to file Negative Declaration on Application 43 -EA -74. Motion carried, 4-0 MINUTES OF THE ADJOTJRED PI.?N?lI\G COl24ISSION MEETING 07 JUNE 200,1'974 . I ADJOURNMENT At 12:05 a.m., itwas-unanimously-agreed to adjourn to the regular meeting on Monday evening.,_ June 24,- 1374- -at_-_7:30_ p m. r e Motion carried, 4-O ATTEST: City Clerk t APPROVED: Is! Daniel P. O'Keefe Chairman PC -158 Page 2.1