Loading...
PC 08-09-1993 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252 -4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 9, 1993 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Vice Chairperson Mahoney Commissioner Doyle Commissioner Bautista Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Austin Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner II Charles Kilian, City Attorney POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - No discussion ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Application 12 -TM -88 - Robert Leong: Request for a one year extension of a tentative Map. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve the Consent Calendar. SECOND: Com. Bautista VOTE: Passed 3 -0 -2 ABSENT: Coms. Austin, Roberts PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Application No(s): 3 -U -93 Applicant: Jabar Singh Property Owner: Richard Messina Location: 20803 Stevens Creek Blvd. USE PERMIT for a 92 seat restaurant in an existing building. Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report noting the request is for a full service restaurant. He 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 9, 1993 Page 2 noted there are no technical issue:; regarding parking and traffic. Mr. Cowan stated in the long term, a more substantial restructure may be appropriate as a result of the Stevens Creek Blvd. plan. He added staff is recommending approval of a Use Permit for 5 years and also refurbishing the existing landscaping. Mr. Cowan noted a tree, which is in bad condition, will be removed and a condition requires the applicant to replant a tree. In response to Commissioners questions, Mr. Cowan stated the intent of the 5 year use permit is to not lock the use in. Regarding the tree removal, Mr. Cowan stated it is the property owner's option to remove the tree. Vice Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Jabar Singh, 20803 Stevens Creek Blvd., stated he is aware of the 5 year use permit. Mr. Singh addressed the requirement for landscaping. Planner Bjurman stated the applicant would be required to maintain the existing landscaping along Saich Way and renew the landscaping along Stevens Creek Blvd. She noted he would have to comply with xeriscape guidelines. Mr. Cowan stated ASAC will review the detailed landscaping plan. In response to Com. Buatista's question, Ms. Bjurman stated the existing roof top equipment is a concern and any new mechanical equipment needs to be screened. Mr. Alan Moll, 1058 Elwell Ct. Palo Alto, Good Earth Restaurant, stated the premises has been vacant and is now infested with rodents and this is a serious problem. Mr. Moll recommended prior to issuing the use permit the prior owner and Mr. Singh be charged with the responsibility of handling this problem. He expressed concern that when renovation begins there will be a mass exit of rodents etc. He added this is a significant health hazard. Mr. Moll stated he did talk to experts who will be able to take care of this problem. He also noted there are homeless people living in this building. Planning Director Cowan stated the appropriate action would be for the Planning Commission to direct the Planning Director to contact the County Health Department. Mr. Moll stated his concern is when construction starts and noted the Health Department pay more attention to operating businesses. Ms Sheri Grant, 20863 Stevens Creek Blvd. Ste. 500, representing property owners, stated there is considerable history with their pest control company regarding this building. She noted she had - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 9, 1993 Page 3 not contacted the County Health Department. Mr. Singh stated he did talk with the Health Department and will have a meeting with them to discuss the problem. Mr. Cowan suggested wording for condition 7 "The applicant shall retain the services of a license pest control company to implement a pest control plan prior to start of construction improvements on the site. It should also be approved by the County Health Department ". MOTION: Com. Bautista moved to approve application 3 -U -93 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modification and addition: Cond. 5 add a sentence "The intent of this requirement is to refurbish existing landscaping and irrigation systems consistent with the City's Xeriscape Ordinance; add Cond. 7, The applicant shall retain the services of a license pest control company to implement a pest control plan prior to start of construction :improvements on the site. It should also be approved by the County Health Department." SECOND: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 3 -0 -2 ABSENT: Corns. Austin, Roberts 3. Application No(s): 4 -U -93 Applicant: Pollo's Property Owner: Hunter Properties Location: 10525 De Anza Blvd. USE PERMIT to locate a fast - -food restaurant in an existing shopping center. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report and outlined the location of the property. She noted this is a change of use. She added a traffic report was conducted which indicated an increase of one 1 pm peak hour trip would be generated, but is not considered a significant impact. Regarding parking, Ms. Bjurman stated under the new use permit there would be a deficit of 3.5 parking spaces. She noted staff conducted a study and no problem exists. She added conditions of approval require deliveries to begin after 9:00 a.m. on weekends. She stated staff recommends approval. In response to Com. Doyle's questLon, City Planner Wordell stated estimates were used to analyze parking requirements. Vice Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Mr. Ray Kline, Developer, noted when he passed the building at 6:30 p.m. tonight there was 40 empty parking spaces. He stated he will PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 9, 1993 Page 4 answer any questions at this time. Regarding the garbage pickup, Ms. Bjurman stated the condition can be changed so pickup is adequate. Vice Chr. Mahoney closed the public hearing. In response to Com. Doyle's questions, Ms. Bjurman stated the remodeling will be extensive. MOTION; Com. Doyle moved to approve applicant 4 -U -93 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing and modifying Cond. 6 indicating adequate garbage pickup is required. SECOND: Com. Bautista VOTE: Passed 3 -0 -2 ABSENT: Coms. Austin, Roberts 4. Application No(s): 5 -U -93 Applicant: Brinker ]:nt'l dba Chili's Property Owner: Robert Erving Location: 20060 Stevens Creek Blvd. USE PERMIT for a 656 sq. ft. addition including expansion to the kitchen, bathrooms and entry. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report. She presented a material board and photos submitted by the applicant. Ms. Bjurman stated the applicant will be restriping the parking lot, adding additional parking, landscaping and lighting. She also noted ingress /egress is required to the adjoining property to the east. Ms. Bjurman explained the development allocation as part of the new General Plan. She noted staff believes that the additional square feet should be allocated to Chili's restaurant as it provides service employment and it provides a restaurant in a low to moderate income range. She noted the additional trips will not change the level of service at Stevens Creek Blvd. and Blaney Ave., therefore a traffic study was not required. Planner Bjurman addressed the public improvements noting a condition requiresthe applicant to place a deed restriction on the parcel stating that if square footage is increased for a total of 25 %, that streetscape standards would be required. Ms. Bjurman addressed the rear elevation and noted staff's concern is the proposed architecture for the fire wall is not consistent with what is currently existing. She stated staff recommends that this roof height be reduced to 30 ", which is required by UBC, and that all mechanical equipment be rerouted to the existing mechanical well. She noted staff recommends approval. In response to Commissioners questions, Mr. Cowan stated the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 9, 1993 Page 5 ingress /egress was a condition of approval for the Blaney Center. He also noted the traffic model will be updated when a major application is submitted or when CMA does a study. In response to Com. Bautista's question regarding the 4 ft. fence, Ms. Bjurman stated the purpose of the 6 ft. masonry wall is for sound and the Sheriff's Department have not received any complaints regarding noise, therefore staff would not recommend increasing the height of this fence nor incurring the expense of the masonry wall for an increase in 48 seats. Com. Bautista stated that the lower existing wall should remain. Vice Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Ms. Kim Woodward, representing Brinker Int'l, noted she is requesting approval to remodel the existing Chili's restaurant and outlined the changes. She stated one area of concern is the ingress /egress required. She added this is a cost issue and will also take up 2 -3 parking spaces that Chili's feel are required. She also noted they do not have cross parking with the property owner to the east and expressed concern about the possibility of utilities in this area. She stated the second concern is the wall plain on the east elevation and noted the architect did a drawing reflecting their concern. Ms. Woodward requested that Condition 3 be changed to allow operation to midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. Regarding Condition 13, Ms. Woodward stated they would like the structure to remain until remodeling is started. In response to Commissioners questions, Ms. Woodward stated additional seats will be added through the remodeling and landscaping will remain as is, with minor improvements. Vice Chr. Mahoney closed the public hearing. In response to Com. Mahoney's question, Ms. Bjurman stated the condition regarding the hours of operation could be amended to allow operation to midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. The Commissioners discussed the 2 hour fire wall and noted there was a condition that this would be worked out with staff. Regarding the ingress /egress Ms. Bjurman stated it is City policy to require this. She stated staff prefers the ingress /egress as opposed to 2 additional parking spaces. She noted the property to the east has a deed restriction for ingress /egress. Mr. Cowan stated the ingress /egress is a strong general plan policy. He addressed the allocation of square feet and noted a spread sheet will be presented to the Planning Commission in a report on a yearly basis. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 9, 1993 Page 6 MOTION; Com. Bautista moved to approve 5 -U -93 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Cond. 3, hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights; Cond. 13, amend 30 days to 180 days. SECOND: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 3 -0 -2 ABSENT: Coms. Austin, Roberts. NEW BUSINESS: 5. Consideration of a request to set a public hearing for a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of APN's 342- 52 -003, 342 -05 -054, 342,05 -056, 342 -05 -060 (a portion of the "Diocese Property ") from 5-20 slope density to foothill modified 1/2 acre with a maximum of 293 residential units. Staff Presentation: City Planner Wordell presented the staff report dated August 9, 1993 noting the request is to change the designation on the Diocese Property. Ms. Wordell outlined the diocese property and noted the proposed development consists of 32 acres. She stated the proposals consists of three alternatives: 1) 293 units, 51.9% remain open space; 2) 225 units, open space which remains in private open space would go into common open space; 3) 225 units, more clustering. Ms. Wordell reviewed the findings required to set a public hearing as outlined in the staff report. She stated, since there are some benefits that may come to the community, as a result of a General Plan Amendment related to open space preservation and preservation of sensitive natural areas, further consideration of the General Plan is warranted. She noted the request is also for early review which staff recommends. Com. Bautista stated in the event the Planning Commission can not make one of the findings what recourse does the applicant have? City Attorney Kilian stated a request for a General Plan amendment can be made to the Planning Commission or the City Council. He noted in this case the applicant has requested consideration by the City Council on August 17, 1993, but it has been the practice of the City to present such requests to the Planning Commission for their input. He stated if the City Council elected to start the process of a public hearing there would have to be a focused EIR done on this area taking approximately 2 -3 months. There would then be a public hearing before the Planning Commission before the matter was considered by the City Council. He pointed out that the City Council or Planning Commission is not bound by the plans submitted by the applicant and can consider other plans. He stated the question is, does the Planning Commission or City Council want to consider something different than what is existing on the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 9, 1993 Page 7 property as a result of the Gereral Plan? He stated if the Planning Commission or City Council want to consider something different from the General Plan, a General Plan amendment is required. Mr. Kilian stated in the letter from the Diocese outlining the reasons to start a public hearing process, the Commission is not bound by these statements. He stated as part of a focused, EIR all alternatives should be considered and assessed. Mr. John Sobrato, Sobrato Development, stated he concurs with the staff recommendations and would like the process to move forward. He stated at the conclusion of the Council's General Plan process they encouraged the Diocese to submit a General Plan amendment. In response to Mr. Kilian's question, Mr. Sobrato stated the provision for open space will be for private open space. He stated the open space will be kept private, but they will accept restrictions on it that it would always remain open space. Ms. Nadine Grant, representing OAKS, stated OAKS objects to the General Plan Amendment and feels the accelerated process should not go forward. She noted the full Planning Commission should be present to address this issue. She questioned the current legal situation with this property and the Planning Commission's ability to speak freely about this matter.. Mr. Dennis West, Cordova Rd., addressed the General Plan goals and objectives. He noted 41 homes was determined for this property and this was a goal. He feels the General Plan process is being re- opened. Mr. West stated the Planning Commission should not make any decisions until a full Commission is present. Mr. Kilian stated it is not appropriate for the Planning Commission to decide to re -open the public hearing as this is a Council decision. He noted the Planning Commission will make a recommendation. Ms. Barbara West, Cordova Rd., stated the Seminary property was a matter of public debate for years. She believes there is a rush on this issue and it should be continued to the next meeting when a full Commission is present. Ms. Diane Moreno Ikada, FAIR, stated an agreement has to be reached regarding this property. She noted the Planning Commission are not bound by the alternatives presented by the applicant. She addressed the issue of devaluating the property. Mr. Steven Haze, San Juan Rd., questioned the deadline for General Plan Amendments? City Attorney Kilian stated major General Plan amendments must be filed in September for the December deadline. He noted the purpose of this request is to have this matter heard prior to the September PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 9, 1993 Page 8 General Plan Amendment. Fr. Michael Mitchell, 10110 De Anza Blvd., spoke in support of setting a public hearing. He stated the Commission have just conducted business on three items previous to this matter on the agenda and should conduct business on this matter. He stated the Diocese was directed by the City Council to file an application for a General Plan Amendment and believes they are, at the very least, entitled to a public hearing. Mr. Kilian stated the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council no consideration for a public hearing or consideration for a public hearing. They could also recommend this be heard in September or recommend that the Council not take action on August 17th until a full Planning Commission is present to hear this matter. He added that the City Council did not direct the applicant to file an amendment but are willing to listen to any proposals if the process is followed. Com. Bautista stated the Planning Commission should recommend a resolution of the situation, and if that requires recommending that the City Council consider a public hearing, this is what the Commission should do. He stated the Commission should also recommend that the City Council and Planning Commission take into consideration the policies of the General Plan. He stated it is important that the resolution of this conflict be resolved in a public forum. He stated, although two Commissioners are absent, they did receive input from one Commission and would recommend to the City Council that a public hearing be set. Com. Doyle stated based on the findings regarding setting a public hearing, he feels none of the findings comply, therefore there is no compelling reason to have a public hearing. Com. Mahoney stated he has been through this process, but noted the new Commission have not discussed this matter. He stated he would favor opening a public hearing to discuss the matter more fully with the new Commissioners. He stated timing is important, but noted he can not make a finding, as proposed by staff. Mr. Kilian stated the Commission can make one of two motions, take a formal action recommending a public hearing be set, or a motion that the Commissioners comments be transcribed and sent to the City Council without a formal recommendation. Com. Mahoney read Chr. Austin's comments into the record, "I feel it is a good policy to have a public hearing on this issue, however I think the timing is unfortunate. I understand that no specific plan will be considered at this time. The three plans I saw in my packet were unacceptable to me because of the location and number of housing units." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 9, 1993 Page 9 Com. Bautista suggested sending written comments to the Council of the Planning Commission's discussion. He agreed that the particular alternatives do not support the existing General Plan goals. It was a consensus of the three Commissioners that the discussions at this meeting be transcribed and passed onto the City Council prior to the August 17th meeting. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: - None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 8:45 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C ck_Aicty tyt I\l ' � z Q G t Lta ► Catherine M. Robillard, Recording Secretary 1 Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Donna Austin, Chairwoman Attest: Kim Smith, City Clerk