Loading...
PC 03-25-85 �A1 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC-462 (J � 10300 Torre AvenuePag e 1 • • Cupertino,Ca. 95014 Telephone : (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 25, 1985 SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7 : 3 0 P .M. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : Com. Mackenzie Corn. Adams Com. Sorensen Vice Chairperson Szabo Staff Present : Dir. of Ping. & Development Sisk Assistant Planning Dir. Cowan City Attorney Kilian (7 : 40 p .m. ) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Com. Sorensen to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of March 11, 1985 as submitted. SECOND : Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent ) POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS 110 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1 . Application 13-TM-82 of D . C .E. (Richard Childress) : Request for Extension of Tentative Map. MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend approval of the Tentative Map extension. SECOND : Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS None . UNFINISHED BUSINESS : 2 . Application 6-U-85 of GREGG C . BUNKER (PHOTO DRIVE-UP) : USE PERMIT to construct a single-story, 4, 930 sq. ft . expansion to the existing 1, 210 sq . ft . Photo Drive-Up facility for a total building area of 6,140 sq . f t . The subject property is located on the northwest corner of South Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Wildflower Way in a P (Planned Development wiht commercial, office and residential 5-15 adwelling units per gross acre intent ) zoning district . Referred back to Planning Commission from City Council meetinL, of March 18, 1935 . Tentative City Council hearings date - April 1, 1985. -462 PLANNING COMiMMISSION MINUTES, MARC 25, 1985 ' age 2- Director of Planning and Development Sisk advised that the Application was now consistent with the South Saratoga-Sunnyvale • Road Conceptual Plan and was satisfactory, in Staff ' s opinion. William Plimpton, Raymond Rooker, 1,Architects, representing the applicant, had concerns regardingiCondition 25, in that because of difficulty in establishing a point of measurement for the height of the mounding, they would prefer to work with Staff for height approval . Also, in Condition 26, they felt that recording: of a further easement for the landscaping on Mr. Yamagami ' s property was expensive, time-consuming and superfluous . • Com. Adams asked Mr. Plimpton to clarify the amount of retail space, since it seemed far More thin the 1, 000 sq. ft . mentioned • at the last Meeting. �. Mr. Plimpton explained that outdated information was shown on their drawings, and that the new building ,mild now mainly consist of corporate office space . 'I Bob Lawrence, General Manager of Photo Drive-Up, confirmed the intended use was primarily corporate office and training space, that there would be no laboratory extension and no extra equip- ment, but. that the retail space might triple, from 1,100 to 3,300 sq. ft . He projected that ten to fifteen percent of the business might be drive-up, and confirmed that parking would meet requirements . Staff ' s concern about the easement T•ras discussed, and Director • of Planning and Development Sisk felt that Use Permit control might be adequate . He also mentioned that Staff was not too concerned about strict mounding height . City Attorney Kilian advised that a written undertaking should probably be required from Mr. Yamagami, the adjacent property • owner, to the eff:ect that he would allow the landscaping and the continued maintenance of same. Com. Mackenzie suggested that the drive-up window be conditioned in such a way that if anything happened to the landscaping on the Yamagami property, the drive-up •aindow on the Bunker property would be eliminated. The consensus of the Commission was to incorporate City Attorney Kilian ' s and Com. Mackenzie ' s suggestions into the Conditions . Vice Chair. Szabo called for public input . There was none . MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration. SECOND : Com. Sorensen VOTE : Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent ) MOTION: Coy:. Adams, to recommend approval of Application 6-U-85, subject to Standard Conditions 1-15; Conditions 16-24 ; Condition 25 modified to leave the • height of the mounding to the discretion of Staff; • Condition 26 modified to delete the landscape I il i + PLANNING COi * ISSI0\ MINUTES, RC . 25, 198, P -462 easement and instead to require a letter from Page 3 the adjacent property owner, Mr. Yamagami, 110 allowing the landscaping and continued maintenance of same; also adding to Condition 26 that if said landscaping is ever eliminated the drive-up window on the Bunker prop sty be eliminated also . SECOND : Corn. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent ) 3 . Guidelines for review of land use activities on surplus school sites. Assistant Planning Director Cowan described Staffis meeting with Mr. Edmiston of the School District , when the main concern had been traffic flexibility; that earlier guideline did not differentiate between sites . He reported the the guidelines had been revised to indicate the willingness of the Commission to examine more intensive uses on well- travelled sites, but emphasizing that the turfed areas must still be available to the public . He further reported on his research on the way in which other cities had handled the situation, that San Jose school sites were zoned R.l with a fairly comprehensive list of uses, and that Sunnyvale school sites were zoned quasi-public, also with a fair amount of flexibility . He advised Staff was recommending their March 25 draft guidelines be sent to the Cupertino School District for approval and then on to City Council . 411 Vice Chr. Szabo questioned the exclusion of warehousing, since- it had been discussed that mini-storage might be permissible . Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that this use had been found to be prohibited under the present General Plan and would hinge upon an Amendment . The matter of counselling use was discussed, and Staff advised that the Commission would have to determine whether this was a quasi-public use . After some discussion, the Commission felt that this use would qualify under the present General Plan guidelines . Co :. Sorensen established with Staff that Mr. Edmiston had not received a copy of the March 25 proposed guidelines unt'41 that day. She requested that the guidelines come back to the Commission prior going to City Council, should there be any major concerns . Vice Chr. Szabo requested that the Commission ' s willingness to expand uses under a new General Plan Amendment be made clear to the School District . He called for public input . Them was none . MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to adopt Staff ' s Resolution of Parch 25, 1985 and to send it on to the 110 Cupertino School District , to be returned to the Planning Commission prior to going on to City Council, should there be any major concerns . SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed II-0 L (Chr. Claudy absent ) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 25, 1985 • • PC-462 The consensus of the Commission was to refer the matter to Page 5 the Public Relations Officer, understanding that a Commissioner might be required toi read a prepared statement . Com. Mackenzie reported on the Mayor' s luncheon, that neighbors ' dissatisfaction with the design of Linda Vista Park had been discussed, as had the new No-smoking Ordinance and the findings of the Transportation 2000 Group study, that the Highway 85 corridor would not support light rail.. Two Committee and Commission openings, due to resignations, had been mentioned, he said. • Com. Sorensen mentioned that she Was still receiving complaints about the junction of Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Boulevard and had referred the complainants to City Council. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR 5. Review of Change in Use for a ilon-Conforming Use - "10345 North De Anza Boulevard", Commercial Parts, Inc . Director of Planning and Development Sisk drew attention to a letter from the owner' s attorney dated March 21, 1985, and advised there was enough information to judge the use as of a lesser intensity, but that, because of the sensitive nature of the area, he had decided to bring the matter before the Commission. Com. Adams mentioned that the owner, had previously said he was not about to change uses . Though he appreciated the owner' s rights, he was not in favorlof the change because of the parking situation and the driveway access, which he felt might create problems or accidents . Patricia Vorreiter, attorney representing Edward J . Murphy, Trustee, the owner, outlined her letter of March 21, 1985, addressing Ordinance No . 1295 and giving arguments why no Use Permit should be required, since there would be no change in the nature of tle use or the intensity of the use or the • traffic . She emphasized there would, be no narking problems, since there would be few in-store customers, and also that the exterior and tl-e landscaping in particular would be cleaned up to benefit the community. \ Com. Mackenzie questioned the enlargement of the retail sales space . I Tom. Clarke, son-in-law of the owner; clarified that .the carpet samples would take up more space than the auto parts, but that the use of the entire building had always b�been and would remain entirely retail . The number of parking spaces was discussed, and the applicant ' representatives could not give details of the number of employees, but the Commission determlhed that the parking would not be a problem with the type of use, and that it was • a lesser intensity use . MOTION: Com. Sorensen, that the proposed change in use of 10345 North De Anza Boulevardlkwas of a lesser intensity and would therefore conform to the Non-Conforming Use Ordinance . � 1 PC-452 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 25, 1985 , Page 4- 4 . Interpretation of the Commercial Ordinance regarding definition of restaurant with bar facility . 110 Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that the present definitions were quite vague and that Staff needed more inter- pretations for borderline requests, and had therefore asked the Commission to examine the three criteria listed in the Staff Report used for classifying a restaurant as a restaurant without bar. He mentioned that Staff might want to bring some border- line cases before the Commission under "New Business" items . Com. Adams suggested that having tables not large enough to eat from might be an indication of a bar area. Vice Chr. Szabo restated his past position that a closing time after 11 . 00 p .m. was a good indication. The balance of the Commission felt that although the after 11. 00 p.m. closing time Use Permit requirment was a good tool, there were still potential problems that would not be addressed by it. Com. Mackenzie suggested adding to the three negative criteria five positive ones; 1 . a separate cashier for drinks; 2 . a separate cocktail waitress; 3 . a seating area unsuitable for consuming food; 4 . a dispensing bar larger than 20 sq . ft . ; 5. more than one dispensing bar, where a customer could walk up and obtain a drink. Using the criterion of liquor as a percentage of receipts was discussed, but was dismissed as being unworkable . 111 City Attorney Kilian established that the Alchol.ic Beverages Commission had no guidelines, and- suggested using the clause, "if it is the opinion of the Planning Director, subject to an appeal to the Planning Commission, that the primary purpose of any particular area in the restaurant, at any time, is to serve liquor or alcoholic beverages, the following list of factors shall be considered by the Planning Department as guidelines for so determining" . Com. Mackenzie established with City Attorney Kilian that the Planning Commission would not have to use the same criteria as Staff would use, when hearing an Appeal . MOTION: Com. Adams, to direct Staff to reconstruct the interpretations of the Staff Report and the findings and subconclusions of the Hearing into a Minute Order for adoption at the next Meeting under the Consent Calendar. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE : Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent ) NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Vice Chr. Szabo relayed a request he had received from the Chamber of Commerce that a member of the Planning Commission prepare a public interest statment on the function of the Cornihission to be aired on KLZE . s x *Cupertino Public Radio Station • • PC-462 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 25, 1985 . • Wage 6 f SECOND : Com. Mackenzie VOTE : Passed 3-1 11/ (Com. Adams voting against the motion, Chr. Claudy absent ) . Director of Planning and Devlopment Sisk requested that the April 22nd Meeting be moved to Argil 29th, because of Staff absences . It was the consensus o,f', the Commission that this should be done . Director of Planning and Developm'',ent Sisk asked the Commission for their opinion on Staff ' s interpretation of "gross density" in the case of two properties where a public street was on one property entirely, the interpretation being that the entire street could be calculated into the "gross density" of the property it was on. Com. Adams, establishing that the street would be split with the adjoining property if the street occurred between them, and that in that case, the same area would be used for the calculation, felt it was reasonable to use the total street for the calculation if it was on one propertyon1y . City Attorney Kilian observed that the two parcels would be entitled to the same density, assuming the same zoning was on h eac . I f The Commission observed that one property would have larger lots, but the same number of units per acre, and therefore there would just be less useable land on the property containing • the street than on- the 'other.. Director of Planning and Developmet Sisk reported that on April 8th when the Planning CommIslIsion would be meeting, there would be a seminar elsewhere in City Hall on the feasibility of 6 City in Cupertino, which had been commissioned bythe p � Council . The Commissioners expressed regret , that because of the timing of the seminar they could not ,attend. Com. Sorensen questioned Director Of Planning and Development Sisk on the projected senior housing onHt'he St . Joseph ' s property that she had read about . Director of Planning and Development Sisk confirmed that he and Assistant Planning Director Cowan dad seen some schematic drawings, and that the project would be in the sphere of influence and urban service area of Cupertino . Adjournment : 8 : 50 P .M. • ATTEST: APPROVE: /s/DorothY Cornelius /s/Nicholas Szabo 411City Clerk Vice Chairperson