PC 01-09-84• ' .. 'CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 TORRE AVENUE TELEPHONE: (408) 252-4505
MINUTES OF Tiii:: REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAtJNIHG COMMISSION
HELD OtJ JANUARY 9, 198it IN THE COUNCIL Cf!AMBER,
CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALffORNIA
Chairperson Blaine called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Adams, Claudy, Koenitzer, Szabo,
Chairperson Blaine
Starr Present: Dir. of Planr:'ing & Development Sisk
Assistant Planning Director Cowan Deputy City Clerk Villarante
Assistant Engineer Whitten
City Attorney Kilian
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Elmer Baum, 22166 Rae Lane, addressed Commission regarding a par•king problem.
It was suggested by
Commission during the concern.
Chairper30n Blaine that Mr. Baum address the
public hearing perfod of the application of his
Chairperson Blaine stated that she felt items B & 9 of the agenda should be heard first.
It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously to hear i terns 8 & 9 of the agenda first.
Discussion ensued between staff and Commission regarding the setting of a new date for public hearing of Application 17-U-69.
It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by C1m. Cic1udy and passed
unanimously to charlgc the public hearing date of Application 17-U-·69 to Wednesday February 8, 1984.
Chairperson Blaine gave a brief explanation of item 9.
There being no further discussion it was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by
Com. Adams and passed unanimously to extend Application 13-TM-82 to July 12. 1985.
-1-
e
'MINUTES OF THE JAfiUARY 9t 198'1 PLANNING COMHlSSION
PUBLIC Hf.AR.INGS
1. Application 33-U-83 c>t SAN DIEGO ARMOUR OIL COMPANY: USE PERMI"f' to .
operate a mini-market convenience store, ;LnolUding tbs sale of beer
and wine, at an existing gasoline station. Existing gasoline
dispensing facilities will be retained. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The projeot is oategorlcally exempt, hence, 110 ac ti.on i3 required. The subject property is located on the west side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road, south of and adjacent to the future West Valley Freeway,
approximately 300 ft. north of Wildflower Way in a P (Planned
Development with commercial and/or residential intent) zoning
district. Fir.st Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing
date -January 16, 1984.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan pr~:.':iented a staff report to tho
Commission and explained Architectural and Si tc Committee recommendations
regarding the application.
Commission discussion. , ensued with Assistant Engineer Whitten. regarding
long terrn plans on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and ingress/egress at the site.
Bob Bell, 1700 s. River Road, Sacramento, explained to Commission his
objections regarding a north entrance at the site and statoo that the
proposal needed to be cleared with the State.
Commission ctiscussion ensued with Mr. Bell regarding stac~ed traffic and
and functions at the site.
Mr. Bell commented to the Commission on the recommendations made by
Architectural and Site Apr·~val Committee.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan stated to Commission that the
application should go back to Architectural and Site Approval Committee
for review after changes had been made.
It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and pass\9d
unanimously to close the public hearing.
Com. discussion ensued regarding landscaping r-.\Cl ingress/egress at the
site.
It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Adams and passed with a
5-0 vote to recommend approval of Application 33-U-83 with conditions 1-25
as per ;., ... u1-i 111emo. condition 25 to :'·equire participation by the applicant
in the De Ana Boulevard median construction, condition 26 to as.sure
pedestrian easements at the parcel with a sout~ curb cut as exit only and
findings and subconclusions as per staff report.
2. Application 12-U-78 (Revised) of T!!ORNWOOD ASSOCIATES (PIZZA PEDDLEH,
INC.): USE PERMIT to operate a restaurant (Pizza Padou1") wit.hin the
exisl:.ing Homestead Lanes (Brunswick) Center and EUVIRONMEllTAL REVIEW:
The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required.
The Homestead Lanes Center is located on the southea~t corner· of
Homestead Road and Stelling Road in a P (Planned Oevelopment with
recreation, entertainment and limited commercial intent) zoning district. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing
d~te -January 16, 1984.
-2-
. l
i I I
1 I
• MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION
3. Applioation 38-U-83 or THORN'WOOD ASSOCIATES: USE PERMIT to operate a,
hair salon within th~ existing Homestead Lanes (Brunswick) Center ·· and
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is oategor-ioally exempt, hence, no ,
action i:s required. The Homestead Lanes Center is looated on the.:.· southeast corner of Stelling Road in a P (Planned Development with .·· recreation, entertainment and limited commercial intent) zoning
district. F:!.rst Jielllring continued. Tentative City Council hearing
date -January l6, 1984.
Oirector or Planning and Development Sisk presented a start' report to the
Commis&ion.
Com. Koenitzer questioned staff as to whether or not the Xa0Dor1ald' s
drive-up window would be coming before the Commission.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk explained that the application would be presented before the Commission.
Ron ~mithson, 6358 Snell. San Jose, stated to Commission that the parking
lot at the center was full only during brief periods in the day and that
he had only one driving employee. He went on to state that 60% of hi:s bu3iness was take out and that he was trying to expand due to aocomodate
an increased lunch crowd.
Discussion ensu~d between Commission and Mr. Smithson regarding the
parking situation at the center.
· Terri Kent, leasing agent, stated to Commission that the beauty salon · was
anticipating business to be generated from persons using the center and
that vehi.cal traffic would be minimal. He went on to state that employees of the salon would use the back entrance.
Com. Claud y commented on the pal"' king to employee ratio at the center.
· l I It was moved by Com. Adams~ saconded by Com. Koenitzer and p~ssed
unanimously to close the public hearing.
Commission discussion ensued regarding use of the rear parkillg lot at the·
center.
It was moved by Corn. Adams, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed with a
5-0 vote to renommend approval of Application 12-U-83 with conditions
1-18, 19 amended to state that the rear entrance would be designated and
employees encouraged to use the rear parking lot with findings and
subconclusions as per staff reµort.
It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed with a 5-0
vote to recommend approval of Application 38-U-83 with conditions 1-17, 18
to state that the rear entrance may be used, 19 to stated that employees
are encouraged to use the rear parking entrance with findings and .subconclusions as per staff report.
-3-
·e
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 198~ PLANNING COMMISSION
It. Applications 11-Z-83 arid 39-U-83 of EDWIN J •. MYERS (ALLAN G. BYER): REZONING approximately 4.8 gross acres from CG \General Commercial} zone· to P (Planned Development) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning C~mmission; USE. PERHI1 to add ap9roximately 5,300 sq. ft. to an existing oornmero:l.al center and. c.>nstruot a neH retail oorm1eroial building oonshting of 3, 600 sq~ ft.
and ENV:CRONMENT'1L REVIEW: . The Environmental Review Conmittee
recommends the granting of a N·~gative Declaration. The subject property is located oh the east e~de of South De Anza Boulevard approximately 350 ft. north of Bollinger Road and 125 ft. south of
Silver ado Avenue. First. Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date -February 6, 1984.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan presented a
Commission and presented Arohiteotural and Site
recommendations.
staff report to the
Approval Comnittee
Commissio>l discussion ensued regarding trash enclosure locations at the
Site.
Edwin J. Myers, 10601 s. De Anza Blvd., stated to the Commission that service entrances oou1ld enable employee parking in the rem' and statf)d
that Los Altos Garbage siervioed the :lite early in the morning.
Discussion ensued between staff, Commi~sion and Mr. Myers r~garding use of
rear parking lots at the site.
Mr. Meyers commented to Commission that he applications at both Architectural and 3ite
Planning Commission on the same evening.
was confused at having Approval Committee and
Commission discussion ensued with Mr. Meyers regarding current usage and
signage at the site.
Henry Pa the, Silver ado Avenue questioned Commission regarding traffic
entry on Silverado Avenue.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained the traffic plan to Mr. Pathc.
Ken McKay, 20388 Clay, questioned Commission as to the significarioe of the
change to a PD zone.
Chairperson Blaine gave a brief explanation of PD zones and their
restrictions.
Mr. McKay, expressed his concerns to the Commission regarding the
elevation of the addition and employee parking in the rear of the complex.
It was moved by Com., Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to close the public hearing.'
Commission discussion ensued regat"ding site use, lan~scaping,. parking,
trash enclosures and architectural consistency.
It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Claucty and passed
unanimously to recommend the grantJ.ng of a Negative Decl<lration.
-4-
~nNUT£~ OF THE JANUARY 9, 198'1 PLANNING COMMISSION
It was mo•!ed by I.om. Koenitnr, seconded by Com. Adams arid approved with a,·.·
5-0 vote to recommend approval of Application 11-Z-83 with nonditionrs .1 ... 16 and findings and suboonolusions as per staff teport. ·
It uas moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and approved with a
5-0 vote to recommend appro·1al of Application 39-11-83 with conditions.
1-17. 18 shall go fer ASAC review, 22, 23 shall have rur entranoe, 24 shall have employee parking in the rear, 25 ASAC shall review trash
enclosures and with findings and suboonclusions as per staff report.
RECESS: 9:35 p.m.-9:45 p.m.
5. Application 12-Z-83 of HARGARETICH GONSTRUCl'ION: REZONING approximately .4 gross acre from Rl-10 (Residential Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. m.inimum lot size) zone to R1-7.5 (Re:sidential
Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot .size) zone or whatever zonci
may be deemed appropriate by the Pl.::mm,;,g Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIf:.11: The Environmental Review Committee reoomroends the granting of
a Negative Declaration. The subject property h located on the south
side of Cresecent Road approximately 400 ft,. no1~th of Oro hard Court
and 400 ft. east of Hillorest Road opposite Amelia Court. F'ir st
Hearing. Tentative City Counoil hearing d1:1te -February 6, 198ll.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk presented a staff report to the
Commission.
Bob Margaretich, 10125 Ct'e::1Cent Rd., stated to Commissfon
have completely changed from what was presented in the
they have dedicated 10 ft. of the depicted lot to City
gutters. He went. on to .state that they ~uld like to
half which would make comparable lets as are in the area.
that the areas slides and that
for . ourbs and . split the lot in
Discussion ensued between staff and Comm1.ssion regarding General Plan
references to size of lets and current make up of the area.
Louis De Lowe, 22273 Cupertino Rd., stated to Commission that he does not
want a 40 ft. street and that he felt the application should be approved.
Beulah Graves, 10170 Amelia Ct., stated to Commission that she was
concerned that they would be setting a precedent for more building in the area by approving the application and that the result would be more
traffic.
Hugh Jackson, 226011 San Juan Rd., stated to Commission that he was in
favor of the application.
It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unanimously
to close the public hearing.
Commission discussion ensued reg8rding the application culminating in a
concurrance that the zoning ordinance ti id not need to be changed.
It was moved by Com. Claudy. seconded by Com. Adams and passed unanimously to approved the granting of a Negative Declaration.
-5-
~-
MINUTES Of THE JANUARY 9,, 198ll ?LANNING COMMISS!ON
It was moved by Com. Claudy, seoonded by Com. Koeni.t:i:er and approve<( wiJ.h:'':·< a 5-0 to vote reaonrnend denial of Applioation 12-z .. a3 wil:.h ao1lditions 1 .. 3 ··
and findings and suboonalusi<Jns as per-staff report. . · .. :>,:i
6. Applications 13-7.-8'3• ·and 21-TH-83 of RAL!"H SA.ICH: REZONING.
approximately 1.2 gross acre from t1-lt0 (Agricultural-~i!s1.dential,, · ··
lt01, 000 sq. ft. minimur1 lot :::ize) zone to R1-7.5 (Residential
Single-family, 7, 500 :sq. ft. minimum lot size) 1.one or whatever zone ·
may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISIONS MAP to .subdiv~de approximately 1.2 aoros into five
parcels ranging in stz~ from 8,900 sq. ft. to 10,700 sq. ft. and
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee reooiJ&nends . the granting of. a Negative Declaration. The subject property is
located cm the northeast side of Rae Lane approximately ~00 ft. west.· of the intersection of Hyanni~port Drive and Linda Vista Drive. First
Hearing. Tentl.ltive City C.ouncil hearing date -February 6, 1984.
A:.:isistant Planning Director Cowan presented a staff report to the
Commission.
Mr. Hicks, Rae Lane, stated to Commission that he \-K}Uld like them to do
something about the traffic problem on Rae Lane.
Elmer Baum, 22166 Rae Lane, remarked to Commission that there was . a
definite parking problem on Rae Lane and commented on the blind curve as
being a safety problem.
Discussion ensued between staff and Counnission regarding the application
and the safety hazards present in the area.
It was moved by Com. Claudy seconded by Com. Adams and passed unanimously to close the public hearing.
Commission discussion ensued regarding aocui~ate placement of specimen
tree~ on the map and park~ng problems in the area.
It. was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unanimously to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration.
It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Adams and passed with a 5-0
vote to recommend approval of application 13-U-83 with findings and subconclusions as per staff recommendation.
It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed with a
5-0 vote to recommend ~pprqval of Application 21-TM-83 with conditions
1-17, 18 modified to specir"y all non-orchard specimen trees and findings
and subconclusions as per staff report.
7. Application 26-U-83 of ANDRE.W P. JARA (GEORGE SOMPS, ET AL>": USE
PERMIT to construct an 18,000 sq. ft., two-story office building on a
rear parcel and in st all improvements, including a future building pad ,
-6-
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 90 1984 Pl.ANNING COMMISSION
on a rrol't parcel and ENVIRONMEN'fAL REVIEW: The Environmental ·Review. Committee reoori1111e11ds the granting r1f a Neg9tive Declaration. TM subject
property is looated on the i10rth side of Stevens Creek Boulevard · 200 rt. west of Blaney Avenu\3 in a P (P'.Lanned Development) zoning district. First Hmaring continued. Referred baolt, to Planning Commission fr"om C:t.ty Council
meeting of November 7. 1983. Tentative City Council hearing date ·. -
January 16~ 1984.
Director of Planning and Development Sisl< presented a staff report to the
Commission and gave a brief history of the application.
A brief discussion ensued between staff and Commission r~garding the
parking spaces and bike lookers at the site.
Ray Rooker, arch~. tect, presented to Commission an explanction of the
current disposition of the proper•ties.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Rnoker and the Cormnission regarding the
arohi tecture of the site. •
John Vido\'ioh stated tc the Commissfon that he wUl have the option to buy
the parcel only if the development is approved.
Discussion ensued between Ml'. Rooker, staff and Commission regarding tile parking lot ond landscaping of the frontaga property.
Mr. Clark, 20054 Wheaton Dr., explained to Commission that he was
concerned with <'onformity of the buildings colors on the adjncent lots and with allowance of less parking space.
Tom Siron• 200614 Wheaton Dr., commented to the Com::ii&sion that he was
amazed that the application was all.owed to come befo1'e them si' quickly and
that he was disappointed with the proposed parking. H'4 went on to comment
on a nuisance problem on an adjacent parcel.
John Vidovich, stated that he would prefer to nee the landscaping in e:.s
soon as possible and that he would like Commission to defer working on Mr. So.nps pare el for 2 year 3.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Rooker, staff and Commission regarding landscaping and architecture at the site.
It was moved by Com. KoenitzeC', seconded by Com. Adams and passed
unanimously to continue application 26-U~83 to the meeting of January 23,
1984.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairperson Blaine request•~d that staff investigate the parking problem in
front of the AAA funbulsnce site.
Commission requested staff to investigate possible nuisance situation at
the PJ Mulligans site. _.,_
••• MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 19811 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairperson Blaine requested that staff investigate the traffio prc>blems on Ra" Lane, Clay, and Martindale.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Director of Planning and Development Sisk questioned Conunission as to their attendance at the upooming Planning Comm:l.csioners Institute and
commented that he l«.>uld like to take the issue of off site improvements to City Council.
Com. Koenitzer requested that staff investigate some newspaper only boxes being installed around town.
Com. Claudy commented that the City had alleviated the garbage ptoblem at the Bateh Bros. Liquor Store.
Chairperson Blaine commented on truck traffic on Foothill Blvd. and requested extra surveillance by the Sherrir:•s Department.
The meeting was adjourned at 12: 10 p.m.
Chairperson Blaine reodled the m<-'eting to order at 12:10 ri.m.
Ken Brooks, owner, Stevens Creek Stables stated to Commission that he would like the public heal"'ing rescheduled to another day due to business.
Commission discussion ensued.
It was moved by Cor11. Ko·~nitzer 1 seconded by Com. Claudy and passed
unanimously to change the public hearing date fol" Stevens Creek Stables to
Fe~ruary 22, 1984.
Meet!.••6 was adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
-8-
·i