Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 08-26-1974CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1030'3 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: 2.52--4505 MINUTES OF TEE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 26 , 1974 IN THE COUNCIL CHAxNBER, CITY B.A.LL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chairman O`Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M. with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe Co_mn absent: None Staff present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Assistant Planner Cowan Deputy City Attorney Wenzel Assistant City Engineer Whitten APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 12, 1974. Moved by Comm, Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to continue the approval of the Minutes of August 12, 1974 to the next regular meeting. Motion carried, 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS Items 2, 3, 4 -- City of Cupertino 7-Z-74, 8-Z--74, 9-.Z-74. Upon recommendation of the staff, it was moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm, Gatto to postpone applications 7-Z-74, 8--Z--74 and 9-Z-74. PC -164 Page 1 7-Z, 8-Z, 9-Z postponed Motion carried, 5-0 0 PC -164 MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING C0."NU.iISSION MEETING Page 2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The Planning Director stated that the written communications concerned items on the agenda and would be introduced at the time of those public hearings. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS . Foothill Junior College students Jaimie Aria and Mary Hamilton spoke against the De Anza Junior College parking lot improvements that had been previously approved. by the Planning Commission and the City Council. They contended that removal of the orchard trees disturbed wild life in the area. Ms. Hamilton stated that the City Council was subject to a lawsuit because an EIR was not required. It was suggested to the students that they contact the Cupertino City Council since the matter is now out of the hands of the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the 1973 Core Area Plan relative to the northwest quadrant of Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Blvd. First Hearing continued. The Planning Director noted that, in further discussions with the Assistant City Attorney, it was determined that the City of Cupertino has the ability to amend the General Plan more than 3 times annually; the limitation is that certain properties may not be rezoned more than 3 times annually. Comm. Cooper felt that Exhibit A -1 was very good; however, she was hoping it would include some examples. The Planning Director felt this document should be broad in nature. _Comm. Gatto said that the problem with listing examples is that it leaves some items unlisted. He believes it .should become more specific at the time of zoning. Comm. Adams was in favor of this document, entitled: "City of Cupertino General Plan Program Description and Standards of Land Use Designations and Policy Statements Concerning General Plan Land Use Element Core Area 1973 - Northwest Quadrant of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling-Road". Chairman O'Keefe stated that in item 3 it is very important that this site be looked at in regard to its historical significance. Chairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the applicant and the audience. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Don Bandley, 10054 South Highway 9., Cupertino, stated that he was representing the applicant. When the specifics are available he believes the Saich Family will be cooperative in regard to the Parrish House. He concurred with the staff's recommendations. Chairman O'Keefe said he believes the Parrish Mouse can be re- stored. The loss of it would be detrimental to the community. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the Public Hearing. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Woodward to approve the staff's recommendation for the northwest quadrant of.Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Blvd. Motion carried 5-0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - Recommendation for Negative Declaration 11. Application: 51 -EA -74 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Within the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Road. Discretionary Action Requested: To amend the Land Use Element, Gener- al Plan - Core Area 1973 from Residential, 12 to 16 units per acre, to Residential/Recreational. Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Gatto to ask the Planning Director to file a negative declaration on application 51 -EA -74. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Gatto to adopt Resolution No. 1336. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES; None PC -164 Page 3 151 -EA -74 neg. decl. Res. 1336 adopted Motion carried, 5-0 1 C 164 :Tre 4 MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COM' ISSION ?MEETING 2. Application 7--Z--74 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: REZONING 20+ acres from R3-2.2 (Residential, multiple, 2,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone to Al -43 (Agricultural/Residential, single-family, 1 -acre lots) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said property is located adjacent to and westerly of Foothill Blvd., opposite the intersection of Alpine Drive and Foothill.Blvd. First Hearing continued. POSTPONED. 3. Application B -Z-74 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: REZONING 13+ acres from R3-2.2 (Residential, multiple, 2,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone to A1--43 (Agricultural/Residential, single-family, 1 -acre lots) zone or whatever zone may -be deemed appropriate by the -Planning Commission. Said property is located at the western terminus of Voss Avenue. First Hearing continued. POSTPONED. 4. Application 9-Z-74 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: REZONING 5+ acres from CG (General Commercial) zone to Al -43 (Agricultural/Residential, single-family, 1 -acre lots) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said property is located approximately 1,200 feet westerly of the intersection of Regnart Road and Lindy Lane, adjacent to Regnart Creek. First Hearing continued. POSTPONED. 5. Application 20 -TM -74 of MAYCO CONSTRUCTION, INC.: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide 3.64 acres into 26 single-family lots with one lot to be held in common ownership. Said property is located adjacent to and westerly of Finch Avenue between Calle de Barcelona and Greenwood Drive. First Hearing. The Assistant Planner said this tentative map application is a follow-up on the zoning. The applicant has traded property with three adjacent owners, and this is included in the tentative map. There was one matter to be cleared up: on the original plan, between units 7 and 8 it talked about 32 feet between them, but it now talks about 15 feet. Also, the staff recommended that the tentative map should indicate private property lines. There are some magnolia, mulberry and a redwood tree on the property. Some are programmed for removal and some for retention. The ones to be removed are not natives. There is the question of whether new trees could be planted or if all, trees should remain at the expense of some of the units being placed in awkward positions. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm. Woodward noted that enlargement of the garages probably resulted in that 15differential. Comm. Adams asked if moving some of the units in order to save some of the trees would violate any of the setbacks. The Planning Director said it would not. Comm. Cooper said she feels strongly about preservations of as many of the trees as _possible. This would not only improve the development but would provide a more mature development. She noted there was some citizen objection to the taking of trees along Rae Lane. Mr. Martin Hall, 21060 Homestead Road, Cupertino, said they will have as many trees as the Planning Commission asks. He said that every tree -that was taken down along Rae Lane was due to City requirements for the widening of McClellan Road. He said there will be more trees on the site when the development is completed than there are now. Some of the trees are being re- located. Comm. Cooper asked if they have considered reducing the size of some of the units or relocating any of the units. Mr. Hall said reducing the size of units would not affect any of the treesthat must be removed. The Planning Director answered Chairman O'Keefe that 26 is the maximum number of units allowable on this site. Density is 7.6. Mr. Hall noted that they are putting in 25 homes. There is one existing residence on a large lot at the corner. Comm. Woodward advised that it would be better to remove the trees at this time than to put the foundations of the units so close to the trees as to cut the roots and eventually lose the trees anyway. It could be a hazardous situation. He called to mind the slide presentation by a citizen as to the condition of the oaks at De Anza Oaks. Comm. Cooper's concern is that when you have a lot with existing trees on it, the idea is to not put too much development on the site, so as to endanger the trees. In order to make the best use of the site the development should be reduced in size. At Use Permit time, this Planning Commission should take into considera- tion what is presently on the site and to permit a development that suits the site. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the Public Hearing. PC -164 Page 5 Motion carried, 5-0 C-164 'age 6 20 -TM -74 approved t:•/c and it ions MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COMIIISSION MEETING Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to approve application 20 -TN --74, subject to the 14 standard conditions and to conditions 15, 16, 17 1n the staff report; condition 18 amended to read "The property lines shall coincide to the greatest degree possible with the building and fence lines delineating privately owned space on the approved definitive plan for the development, labeledExhibit A third revision, 13•-U-74 '; and conditions 19 through 34 in the staff report. AYES : Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 6. Applications 24-Z- 4 and 24-U-74 of ROBERT C. MERRICK: RRZONING 0.4 acre from R3-2.2 (Residential, multiple, 2,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) to BQ (Quasi —Public Building) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to allow construction of private tennis court to be used by owners and their guests. Said property is located at 10346 Alpine Drive, adjacent to and easterly of Alpine Drive and Foothill Blvd. First Hearing. The Assistant Planner distributed copies of a letter received this date from Mr. Anderson regarding this proposal. A transparency of the area and photographs of the site were reviewed. The Assistant Planner said this application is fairly unique because one of the adjacent property owners desires to purchase one of these R-3 'Lots to construct a tennis court on it. Quasi Public would be a zone that would allow this. R-3 does not allow this unless it is in direct conjunction with the develop- ment. There has been a problem in developing this particular neighbor- hood as to the interfacing of the R-3 with the R-1. The tennis court would at least alleviate this problem in one area. There is a mono- lythic sidewalk here, followed by 10 feet that could be landscaped before you get to the end of the tennis court on Alpine Drive. The grade of this property is 2 feet higher than the street. There is no appreciable visual impact to the adjacent property. Comm. Adams asked if the proposal includes a 10' high chain link fence and 14' high practise wail. The Assistant Planner said that it does. There is a 10' setback from the property line. Chairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the applicant and/or audience. Mr. Roy E. Sebrell, 10334A Alpine Drive, said he lives in the unit adjacent to the lot in question. Six years ago, when he was going to build his duplex along with his daughter and son—in—law, he learned his property was zoned for triplex and he had to go through the rezoning nn 'A his bedroom, front ' 1,...i windows process. He said his room and dining room Wi�i uw5 would look out at this 12' wail. EC -164 (MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING P4a,z 7 Mr, Sebrell said that once this BQ zone is legal, we then open the door to other uses. He is afraid this tennis court will eventually result in a commercial enterprise -- not necessarily by this owner but perhaps by a subsequent owner. He is against any use of the property other than what the general plan calls for. He said everyone in the neighborhood takes good care of their duplexes. He was answered by the Planning Director that there would be no lighting of the tennis court. Comm. Adams asked Mr. Sebrell if he objected to a person putting a tennis court on a man's back yard. Mr.. Sebrell said he did not, but he did object to it being in his front yard. Comm. Cooper asked, as far as visual impact is concerned, if Mr. Sebrell would rather have a building and solid fence next to him than an open tennis court. Mr. Sebrell said this proposal means a 12' fence next to him. He noted that there are plenty of recreation areas in the neighborhood, and this tennis court is not needed. Mr. Louis Chetoud, 10327 Alpine Drive, said he lives across the street diagonally fromthe proposed tennis court. He believes this would be out of place in this neighborhood - especially when it is 12' from someone's home. He contended it would look like an animal cage. Also, misdirected balls could land on somebody's property. Once this is approved, he feels there is nothing that could be done it they wanted to add to the height of the fence. Noise would be created that would bother day sleepers and he may lose renters and have to reduce rents. What about spectators? He thinks Mr. Merrick's intentions are honorable but what about subsequent owners? Mr. David Hansaw, 10341 Alpine Drive, said he lives directly across the street from this proposal. He hates to see the existing orchard traded for a chain link fence and asphalt court. Noise pollution will result. He said "Kaiser Blvd" is already on one side of them. He would prefer to see a concentration of the kind of structures already along that street. It was noted that the applicant was not present. He had told the Assistant Planner that he would not be able to attend, but would send a representative. Nobody came forward. comm. Adams called attention to that portion of the staff report which states that the BQ zone allows for private membership clubs, which the staff interpreted to include a private tennis court. the Planning Director answered Comm. Woodward that no structures would De allowed. An indoor court could not he constructed with those setbacks ?C-164 (MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 •,• Comm. Gatto said he could see a number of basic problems with this proposal., BQ zoning would set this lot apart. The tennis court could be removed and the BQ zoning could remain. The fence in relation to the setbacks would not be allowed in any other instance. He would be in favor of continuing this application to allow the applicant to come in and comment. Comm. Woodward said he has a problem with this intended use. This represents the grossest attempt to perverting a BQ zone that he has seen since becoming a Planning Commissioner. He approves of the idea of someone building a tennis court in his own back yard; however, this is not the person's back yard. It is adjacent to someone else's front yard. He'sees no zoning that would allow this setback. Comm. Cooper said she concurs basically with Comm. Gatto's slat-ements. But she does not see the need for continuation of this application because the basic problems of setback are there. Chairman O'Keefe noted that this proposal does not conform with the neighborhood. The overriding factors here show that the impacts on. the neighborhood, as has been stated, would be negative. Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 24-Z-74 and 24-U-74 denied Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Ccmm. Gatto to deny applications 24--Z--74 and 24-U--74. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 The Planning Director said this will go to the City Council_ as a recommendation. 7. Applications 26-Z--74 and 26--U--74 of EDWIN J. MYERS (BETHEL LUTHERAN CHURCH): REZONING 2.83 acres from R1-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) to BQ (Quasi -Public Building) or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to allow construction of a 6500 sq. ft. educational building.. Said property is located at the -southwest corner of the intersection of Finch and Sorenson Avenues. First Hearing. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Assistant Planner said this property is surrounded by a church, the Fontainbleu apartments, triplexes, Cupertino high school and an existing single family home for which the property is zoned for professional offices. Comm. Adams asked if there is a lot line separating this property from the church property. The Assistant Planner said this line would be removed. Architect Edwin J. Myers, 10601 South Highway 9, Cupertino, said he was representing Bethel Lutheran Church. He said he has read the staff report and sees no problems. He answered Comm. Cooper that there is a large tree on the property and he does not intend to remove it. There presently is a hard surface area on the pro- perty for bicycles, etc. There will be landscaping on the property. Mr. Myers answered Comm. Gatto that the "Parish Education Center" is what was formerly called "Sunday School". However, they hope to use the building more than just on Sunday. He does not see this as being used from 6 to 10 P.M. each night, however. Comm. Gatto wanted to amend Condition 16 to replace "Sunday School' with "Parish Educational Activities". Comm. Cooper believes the use of the land is appropriate. She had some concern about the landscaping on the site, however. The only new landscaping indicated on the plan is in one area. Perhap. some of that concrete area could be landscaped. Mr. Myers said the landscaping will be reviewed by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. Comm. Cooper said she would like to see more landscaping around the buildings. Chairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Comm. Woodward questioned the need for the restrictions in Condition 16. Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Woodward to close the Public Hearing. PC -164 Pace 9 Motion carried, 5--0 PC -164 MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 26-Z-74 approved w/conditions 26-U-74 approved w/conditions jMoved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Gatto to approve application 26-Z-74, subject to conditions 1 through 15. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Cooper to approve application 26-U-74, subject to conditions 1 throu 18, with condition 16 modified as per the discussion above. AYES: Comm. Adamsz_C_o_ oper , Gatto,_ Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 Chairman O'Keefe called a recess at 9:40 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 P.M. 8. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Consideration to amend the adopted plan line for the Cupertino Crossroads/Core Area involving the extension of Bandley Drive from Greenleaf Drive northerly to Valley Green Drive. First Hearing. The Planning Director reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council, as can be found in his August 23, 1974 memo. He said four Council Members were present, of which two appeard to favor the Planning Commission recommendation and two did not. As a result, it was sent back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Comm. Adams was answered that there are about 450 feet from the end of the sporting goods store to Bandley Avenue extension. Comm. Woodward was answered that the traffic light will go in at Mariani/Greenleaf and Saratoga —Sunnyvale Road. :hairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the audience. °Is. Eunice Portwood, 10565 Beardon Drive, does not want the traffic to ;o down Beardon. She works nights and sleeps days. Also, the additional :raffic would make it unsafe for the children in the area. She asked iow this would affect her taxes. The Planning Director said that, generally peaking, it would have no effect on her taxes. She then said she was iot notified of the change in zoning that took place here_ MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Ms. Mavis Kashuba, 10475 Beardon, was against having Beardon go through. They don't need any more traffic. She asked why the people living on the longer part of Greenleaf were not notified of this. She hopes some thought will be given to a park for this area. Mr. Allen Garcia, living at the corner of Greenleaf and Beardon, said he was against scheme A. He said there is too much racetrack driving in this area now, and too many accidental. He said he also questioned scheme B, depending on the development of the property. Ms. Elizabeth Minton, 20731 Fargo Drive, was against scheme A and was in favor of scheme B because it appeared to keep the traffic out of the residential area. Mr. Nick L. Ralzathis, 10495 Beardon Drive, Cupertino, objected to configuration A, because he wants the traffic kept off the residential streets. Ms. Sylvia Gillette, 20846 Greenleaf Drive, said they don't need any more traffic, but they do need a recreation area for the children in this area. Mr. Tom Harrington, Palo Alto, said he represented the applicant. He could appreciate the feelings of the people in that area. He and Mr. Falk have tried to be cooperative with the City. He felt the proper place for the traffic light was a Greenleaf. Valley Green Drive already goes through, so that is academic. We are actually talking about 6 residences. He was in favor of Exhibit A The thing Mr. Falk opposes on Exhibit B is that he is in favor of solving the traffic, but does not believe he should have to solve it by himself. He said it will probably be many years before Mariani will put his portion of the road across his property. He does not think Mr. Falk should have to pay for any of that road to solve the traffic problems for the benefit of the property north of Valley Green Drive. Mr. Jim LeDeit, representing Garner Properties, said there are 6 households affected here, whereas on Vista Drive there are going to be many more affected by the Torre Avenue plan line. He does not believe the Bandley Drive extension will alleviate the traffic going west. All the property owners believe Greenleaf Drive is thf best location for the traffic signal. Greenleaf would have a better stacking lane. He said one solution to the development of the Falk and Mariani properties is more green area. PC -1 64 Page 11 ?C-164 MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 Comm. Adams asked about the timetable for development of the Garner property., Mr. LeDeit said the restaurant is approved and escrow has been closed. They are in the process of getting their building permit. The ministorage facility will go forward at about the same time as the Sobrato development. They will go to H -Control on September 4th. Out of 14.5 acres, all but 2.5 acres will be developed almost immediately. They have met the 16 trip end standard on the property. Mr. Dick Pacheco, representing Keith Garner, pointed out the original master plan showed the plan line as designated on Exhibit A. There appears to be a great need for this area to have single uses on large lots. If Bandley Drive goes through it will restrict the use of these two large properties: Falk and Mariani. Dr. Joe Brown, Saratoga —Sunnyvale Road, said the likelihood of this steet going through the Mariani property very soon is quite dim. Greenleaf represents an extension of utilities, even though the street is not paved. He believes the traffic circulation problems have developed over the past 20 years because of the influence of little pockets of residential not wanting access through their areas. If the people had access to a good paved -road they wouldn't have to drive through the orchard. He was in favor of letting everybody share the traffic rather than channeling it all down Highway 9. Ms. Minron said she does not think any of the residents are using the access for Greenleaf. She said Exhibit A would disrupt the entire neighborhood, not just 6 residences. She said the people in the area feel that Plan B would be more favorable. They are in favor of a traffic light at Greenleaf Drive. The Assistant City Engineer said there is the possibility of Valley. Green Drive going slightly west of the present proposal. The staff has looked at the weave plan for going north on Highway 9, and with the anticipated volumes, he could not recommend it. There followed a discussion of volumes of traffic to be generated by development of the properties in the area. The Assistant City Engineer said the City has an Unimproved Street Ordinance, which allows the money to be collected from the property owner when the property developes. Also, iminent domain proceedings could be initiated on the Mariani property. The Planning Director said there is the possibility of Valley Green Drive being dead ended if the industrial traffic becomes a problem. But this would also cut the residents off from Highway 9. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION FETING Comm. Woodward believes that once the signal goes in, people will, seek another, quicker route. He asked what the chances are for approaching this problem by placing stop signs on Beardon. The Assistant City Engineer said the staff has found that just putting up stop signs doesn't do the job. Comm. Woodward would like to consider making a cul-de-sac on Valley Green Drive. Comm. Gatto was in favor of further investigation of Exhibit A with the cul-de-sac of Beardon Drive. He would like to see more study done on isolation of that residential property. He can visualize Beardon being used as a racetrack with either A or B. Chairman O'Keefe said protection of the residents is uppermost in his mind. However, if something can be worked out between the staff members to accommodate the developments and not interfere with the life styles of the residents already there, he would be in favor of it. Comm. Cooper said now is the time to alleviate the problem. Comm. Adams felt it would be wise to send this back to the staff for additional review. If the area is blocked off and emergency vehicles needed to go through, we could have a problem. The Assistant City Engineer answered Comm. Gatto that the cost of a temporary signal at Highway 9 and Valley Green Drive would make it prohibitive. Mr. Harrington said they are not opposed to putting the street through, but they are opposed to paying for it. Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Cooper to continue agenda item 8 to September 9, 1974 for the purpose of additional staff work. Motion carried, 5-0 Chairman O'Keefe called a recess at 11:17 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 11:25 P.M. 9. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Amendment to Ordinance 220(e), Cluster Ordinance, establishing new regulations affecting residential cluster developments. First Hearing continued. ' Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Adams to continue agenda item 9 to September 9, 1974. PC -164 Page 13 Plan line continued Cluster Ord. review cont'd Motion carried, 5-0 PC -164 Page 14 Calif. Canadian Bank cont'd MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS 10. CALIFORNIA CANADIAN BANK - Review and determination as to general plan conformance. Located at the northeast corner of the inter- section of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. The Planning Director called attention to the July 26th letter from the applicant in regard to trip generation factors. Comm. Woodward noted that Mercury Savings and Loan was not approved for higher trip generation than 16 per peak hour with much less traffic every other day of the week. The Assistant City Engineer said the Traffic Engineer has determined that it is not unreasonable to expect 30 trips per hour at a drive —up wondow. The question is whether we are willing to live with that on Friday afternoons. 11r. F. C. Redman, Assistant Vice President, California. Canadian Bank, 1 340 Pine Street , San Francisco , referred to data initetterof July 26, 1974. The drive -up window does affect their trip end ,generation. The bank, during this one hour on Friday afternoons, would exceed the restriction. However, the employees would not contribute to this traffic since they leave at least 1/2 hour after the bank closes. He said the entire parcel, including Timberjack, is figured in here. He said they would be willing to start with one drive -up window, with provision to add a second if warranted. He noted that the submitted data was an overall analysis of their matured bank offices. �Comm. Woodward. asked if an analysis has been done on the entire site. Because of the nature of some of the businesses there, some are very low traffic generators. This type of situation will be occurring in other locations within the City, and some rationale should be developed. He asked the staff for traffic projections the the entire Portal Plaza. Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Gatto to continue item 10 to September 9, 1974, with the staff being requested to bring hack the total traffic generation for Portal Plaza. Comm. Cooper said that she would like information as to the difference between a bank facility with and without for drive -up window. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, [ioodward , Chairman O'Keefe NOES: Comm. Gatto Motion carried, 4-1 • MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1974 PLANNING CO:21ISSIO I MEETING REPORT OF Tf 7T:` TT :N • -�i v.4' LI,L LL:i:il_':G CG.'.:laJlui Comm. Gatto recuested the staff, in regard to density transfer, to do sores background vorl-, as to the setting up of procedures for doing this. Chairman 0 'Keefe suggested Westchester County in New York as one source of information. Comm. Cooper would like an ad hoc committee set up to work with the Historical S ciety to gather information on what older build- ings there are in the area an (1 what can be clone about them. The Planning Director said the County has a Conservation Committee working on this. It is a matter of deciding what is of historical significance and what is not. As to density transfer, Comm. T•7oodward felt this should be handled by the City Council rather than the Planning Commission. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Nothing further. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to adjourn this meeting at 12:20 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, August 28, 1974. Motion carried, 5-0 °APPROVED: is/ Daniel P. O'Keefe Chairman ATT`ES T : Is/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk PC -164 Page 15