PC 12-11-85 r
. CITY OF CUPERTINO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA P 4E_;'.•
10300 Torre Avenue,Cupertino,CA. 95014 Pae I
• Tel: (408) 252-4505
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF TE , PLANNING CCM-
MISSION, HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 1985
SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 7: 30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Present : Coin. Mackenzie
Com. Sorensen
Vice Chr. Szabo
Staff Present : Dir. of Ping. & Comty. Devel. Cowan
Assistant Planning Director Piasecki
City Attorney Kilian (9: 00 p.m. )
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
9. Application 45-U-85 of J.C. LAGIUSA/BOBBY BELL, north-
east corner of Pasadena and Lomita Avenues, 0.34 acres.
USE PERMIT to construct a triplex by adding two residential
units to an existing single family house.
Mr. Cowan, reviewing the Staff Report, stated that, since
privacy was the issue, it was suggested bedroom windows be
moved and the Exhibits changd to reflect this.
Jere LaGiusa, Applicant, 1939 Camden Avenue #6, San Jose,
agreed with Staff.
-OTIO ;: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 3-0
MOTION: Com. :Mackenzie, to recommend approval of
Application 45-U-85, subject to the
Findings and Conditions of the Staff
Report, with Condition 16 modified to
reflect the first revision of the Exhibits.
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 3-0
Mr. Cowan advised that (a) and (b) of Condition 17 would be
eliminated from the final draft .
10. Applicatiazl7-U-84 (Revised) of GILBEAU7HULPERG, south-
east corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Orange Avenue,
0 . 36 acres. USE PERMIT - amendment of a previously approved
use permit to construct a 5,300 sq. ft . office building.
The amendment seeks to modify conditions relating to recip-
rocal ingress and egress easements with adjacent properties.
First Hearing. Environmental determination: categorically
exempt. Tentative City Council hearing date, December 16,198 , .
Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report, emphasizing denial
was recommended, since there were no grounds for compensation
411 in this case.
The Applicant was not present .
ti
PC-483/A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECE EER 11, 19c5
Page 2 MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Mackenzie ,
VOTE: Passed -0
The Item was briefly discussed, and the Commission supported
Staff' s viewpoint .
MOTION: Con. Mackenzie, to recommend denial of
Application 17-U-84 (Revised) based on the
Findings of the Staff, Report .
SECOND: Corr.. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 3-0
(Chr. Claudy and Com.' Adams absent)
11. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Amendment to the Trailer Ordinance
regulating parking and storage of recreation vehicles,
trailers, mobile homes and similar vehicles in all zoning
districts. Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of
November 25, 1985. Environmental determination: negative
declaration. Tentative City Council hearing date: December
16, 1985.
Mr. Piasecki described the new changes, and said the only
issue was whether all utility vehicles should be eliminated
from the front and side setbacks, or only those filled with
trash.
Ann Anger, Cupertino resident, felt larger lots should not
be allowed to have more vehicles, and that the length of a
vehicle was not as important as its condition
She felt the Ordinance was too liberal, especially with
regard to junk carsrand wanted more citizen protection.
James A. Lepetich, 20570 Scofield Drive, said the front yard
was the only place he had to keep his trailer, because of
narrow sideyard setbacks, and advised that only indoor and
expensive storage space was available in Cupertino, and there
was a waiting list.
Com. Sorensen established with Mr. Lepetich that it was
impractical to keep his trailer in the garage.
James Dyer, 21685 Lomita Avenue was concerned that private
property would be over-controlled. He did not think vehicles
in a backyard should be controlled by the City.
Vice Chr. Szabo observed that backyards could become junk car
eyesores if not controlled.
Joyce Kehnley, 20640 Scofield Drive, was concerned about the
control of trailers in front setbacks and felt homeowners
should have the right to determine what was best for their lots.
Ms. Anger felt that freedom had to be weighed against
responsibility, and that some people did not understand the
latter, so that controls had to 1be imposed. She felt there
should be more controls on vehicles parked in backyards also,
to ensure they were licensed. S
Mr. Lepetich suggested the Ordinance be changed to reflect
that trash could occupy a trailer for a limited period of
time before code enforcement .
Mr. Piasecki advised the Ordinance read the same as the Muni-
i
I
I
PLANNING CO:C4ISSICN XIIUTES, DECEUEER 11, 1985
cipal Code with regard to vehicles in backyards and was more PC-483/A
restrictive than the current Ordinance regarding vehicles Page 3
in front setback: areas .
11/ MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Mackenzie
VOTE: Passed 3-0
Cori. Mackenzie suggested modifications for Section 5.1
caragrapb. B._
There was a discussion regarding the handling of the trash
situation, and Mr. Piasecki suggested this could be monitored
and the wording of the Ordinance modified, if necessary, at
a later time.
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend the granting of a
Negative Declaration
SECOND: Cori. Mackenzie
VOTE: Passed 3-0
MOTION: Cori. Mackenzie, to recommend that City Council
adopt the draft Ordinance from the Staff Report
with the deletion of Section 4. 5 and the
replacement of Section 5. 1, paragraph B with a
statement as follows: "Any open vehicle containing
trash or debris is not permitted" .
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 3-0
(Chr. Claudy and Con. Adams absent)
• 12. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Amendment to the CG (General
Commercial) zoning district . The amendment will concentrate
on provisions of the ordinance relating to uses permitted in
the zone. Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of
November 25, 1985. Environmental determination: Negative
Declaration. Tentative City Council hearing date,
December 16, 1985.
Mr. Piasecki summarized the Staff Report .
Com. Mackenzie established that the letter from Arco of
December 9, 1985 had been addressed, in that Arco did not
want further restrictions and the Ordinance did not contain - y.
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 3-0
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend the granting of a
Negative Declaration.
SECOND: Com. Mackenzie
VOTE: Passed 3-0
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend that City Council
adopt the CG Ordinance with Findings and Changes
as in the Staff Report,and Subconclusions of the He-' ing.
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 3-0
® MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to send the Minute Order set
out in the Staff Report to City Council.
SECOND: Com. Mackenzie
VOTE: Passed 3-0
(Chr. Claudy and Com. Adams absent)
\\,)
PC-483/A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 11, 1985
Page 4 It was decided, since the Applicant for Item #13 was not in
the audience and was expected„I to hear that Item at the end
III
of the Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
Request by Vallco Park to delete the Planning Commission' s
requirement to construct a model for the Marriott Hotel Application.
Walter Ward, General Manager, Vallco Park Limited, explained
that until they knew more details of thehotel and the square
footage of the new department ''stores anticipated, it would
be impossible to make the required model. However, they had
already submitted proposed uses and could discuss concepts and
circulation, but could not indicate heights, etc . , he said.
He was sure Marriott would be 'providing a model of the hotel
itself and felt an aerial perspective of the rest would be
more significant than a model, explaining there would be
many blanks.
Com. Mackenzie noted the importance of a complete model to
judge neighborhood relationships and said he might not be
able to vote for the hotel without it . He felt the existing
buildings, future buildings as blocks and the hotel in detail
would suffice.
Mr. Ward felt the blocks would then be construed as fixed,
but was assured by Vice Chr. Szabo this would not be so.
Michael Kelly, SIF and Vallco Architect, explained that
clients would be discouraged if things were too definitive . III
Vice Chr. Szabo established with Mr. Kelly that conceptual
outline drawings had already been submitted.
Mr. Cowan felt a model was needed to visualize the design
and therelationship with surrounding neighborhoods, and so
suggested an abbreviated model showing the relationship to
existing areas across Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Mr. Kelly advised this request should be put to Marriott
Corporaton, since it was their jurisdiction. He suggested
the hotel would be the hub of he new phase of Vallco, and
would not relate to the two storey buildings presently
there but to future developmen .
Vice Chr. Szabo thought Vallco was concerned that the height
of the building would influence the Commission, and assured
that the Commission could visualize the future buildings around
it .
Com. Mackenzie questioned Mr. Cowan on City design guidelines
and controls.
Mr. Cowan advised that Vallco Park prepared its own long range
plans, and the only guidelines in the General Plan concerned
the 1. 5-1 horizontal/vertical relationship which was maintained
fairly rigidly and was the reason for a redesign being
considered.
PC-�23/:ti
r 1985 pa�e . 5
Tr ES DECEMBER ll, schematic
CO,,u►ISSION MINUTES, was to require, i95 pa
f
• PLANNING the Commission Creek Boulevard
the edge of Stevens next to the
up
The consensus of r edge of the
toscale block form includingo the office buildincone hotel
Road,ncingalle° Parkway andthe the
?�olfelarge model of
hotel buildings,including plus a fairly
Tantau buildings F cooperate with
itself• - • Vallco Park would
Kelly confirmed that provide these.
air• fi Corporation to p conforming use,
Marrio •t legal non-conforming
of change of
EIPO - Interpretation
�'R. under
CHARLES AND SHARON BECKL operation was approved
Becker d had been appealed by d liven
Mr. towan jurisdiction
the bute the County t right
County because ictin in 9 parking, oi co ty
{ of inadequate P on the adi ft • of space
City six parking spaces sq. same
f
credit forto utilize supplies, under the felt
The request waseed and petand Staff
of way• employees, He described
ownershipw the retailing of additional emp he the aban-
donedwith nouse, said.
and intensification of in the area plan in
a was not anro more parking parking space.
plan ot provide the commercialfor office i
roadway, and mentioned lenient than that
Vista, which was more 1 business as
Monta Co-applicant, described the by
Becker, h apwalk-in with bulk sales handledd.
• Sharon neighborhood traffic
Mainly neig v and not much Applicants there was no
order and deliver with the App parkins
established development of the
Coln• Mackenzie a g in the
�roble.:. in participating
had
lot descibed Becker, Co-applicant , said
the feed store that
C°usl occupied by two microfilm complaints the
Charlesthat all comp and they
taken space previouslyHe stated checked out
had gone into ttord�the City had been
Fire Department
health" • faint from the
had a clean been a complaint
denial,frmhe
explained there had the case ofviolation.
Mr. Cowan e advised that in code
the I
ciirmunity• would commence action on a objection City Attorney complained. She had no was sub-
had comp h the building to the
Ann Anger said she use, though she objectedlding
tot the original so Be th . parking, butwithout a
so was the P and the new use same
standard andcontrol sideline under the
plack of architectural ven if it was a
permit, and felt make a difference. issue was
ownership, it did not ned that the architectural intensity
Vicet Cho• Szabo theirs decision, whichwas one that the of
rote si y
involved in Mr. Cowan isign
not with ` Site Control=CoT� be
ld
only• He established Beckers could not
go before established
lishe l and though the the intento of
. 10 Mr. a Kilian eom selling
offtha the new use,
�• Report was to limit employees to
from selling off
prevented the Staff P
Condition 2 °�u�ber. •
the existing
i
• \\.„1
PC-483/A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 11, 1985 •
Page 6 Mr. Dyer explored the M t '
y p parking agreement and .�onta Vista Irn s
participation. He was concerned about the parkin! in that •
whole section, he said, and also about the builcin: facade.
Mr. Becker agreed that he would like the building; to look
better, but they had been advised by the City it was to stay
as it was, _and they had also been requested by the City to
back out of their parking agreement with Southern Pacific,
he advised.
Mr. Cowan explained the lease with Southern Pacific had not
been permanent enough for Cityjrequirements.
The Commission stressed the Beckers ' participation in the
parking lot, when appropriate. )
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to find that the 250 sq . ft .
feed store was not a more intense use, incor-
porating the Findingst'of the Staff Report .
SECOND: Corn. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 2-1
(Vice Chr. Szabo votirs against the motion,
Chr. Claudy and Cos. Adams absent)
13. Application 6-U-85 of GREGG BUNKER. Interpretation of
Minor Amendment, northwest corner of S. Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road and Wildflower Way, 0. 7 acres. MINOR AMENDMENT to
specify that the applicant is not required to improve the
driveway curb cut used to access the driveup window on the
adjoining property. Tentative City Council hearing date, .
December 1.6, 1985.
The Applicant was not present . ',Ir. Cowan indicated there
was a time constraint .
Er. Cowan referred to the rlan a_prroved b;; City Ocuncil and
advised that a standard driveway was necessary to accommodate
new construction. He explained the Applicant ' s position,
that the plan showed no curb cut, but advised it was implicit
and had been discussed with the Applicant ' s representatives
before the prior approval.
Com. Mackenzie noted that the Applicant had received prior
modification for a drive-up window at Council level, though
the Planning Commission had not approved it . He noted there
was an entrance on the back of the building.
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend to City Council
that the amendment is rot minor and that the
Applicant be required tb install a driveway.
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 3-0
(Chr. Claudy and Com. Adams absent)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ,
Com. Mackenzie mentioned problems with the new barrier at
the 7-11 site on Bubb Road.
410 Mr. Cowan noted that the Public Works Department and the
Applicant were working on extending it .
1
w <
;- a I 7t.c.r"i } 7c y r G.,,s- S Ztr( 1 t�,y„',"'-��t.s ry,
PLANNING „COA�h:zSSION MIAUTES, DECEMBER 11,` 1985 ?. PC=-483/A
REPORT OF, THE PLANbING DIRECTOR ;Page:'7
® Mr. Cowan announced a new legal requirement for•�an ,ordinanee
allowing; for vested tentative maps.'
Mr. Kilian advised that a model ordinances had been .
prepared by the League of California Cities, which he
recommended be adopted because of time constraints, and
changes naps later, if necessary.
It was decided to initiate action for a Publio Hearing on
the Vested Tentative Map Ordinance for January 13, 1986.
The Commission was advised that City Council had' adopted a
new fee structure for Applications.
AdJ ournment: 10:43 P.M.
r
APPROVED:
`city"kirk «''•� °�, � , fir" Vice Chairperson