Loading...
PC 10-10-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4642 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 10, 1988 Meeting Held irt the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Ave. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: 7:30 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Sorensen Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planiting Director Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - None. Staff Present: POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 4: Application 21-U-88 and 10-TM-88 - Mariani Development Corporation - Applicant requests continuance to the Meeting of October 24, 1988. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to Continue Application 21-U-88 and 10-TM-88 - Mariani Development Corporation - to the Meeting of October 24, 1988. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 3-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: . None, CONSENT CALENDAR: - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM h Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 29-U-88 Leo Bernard Same 20556 McClellan Rd.. (South side of McClellan Rd. aDDroxim8telv 200 ft. west of De Anza Blvd.) ..u Parcel Area (Acres): PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 10, 1988 Page 2 PC - 557 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued USE PERMIT: Use Permit to legalize an existirtg second unit on an existing single family lot. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and presented an aerial map; Staff recommended deleting the first paragraph of Condition 3 and addirtg a Condition requirirtg an independent parkirtg space for the second unit ADolicant's Presentation: Mr. Leo Bernard stated that the structure was on the property when he purchased the site; he reviewed his letter of September 22, 1988, the length and width of the existing driveway. He confmned that the structure shown on the aerial map was a storage shed. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. Com. Mackenzie noted the amount of existing square footage on the lot; he confinned that Staff was recommendirtg that street improvements be completed, structures meet the buildirtg code and provide an independent parkirtg space on-site. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearirtg. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 3-0 Com. Claudy noted the structure had existed for a long time; it would be of greater benefit to bring these buildings up to code. Chr. Sorensen and Com. Mackenzie concurred. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of Application 29-U-88 subject to conclu- sions and subconclusions of the Staff Repon and this Hearing per the Model Resolution; Conditions I, 2; Condition 3 first paragraph deleted; addirtg a Condition 4 to read, Approval is granted based on standard street improve- ments as required. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 3-0 ITEM 2: 15-EXC-88 Central Fire Protection District Same 22§20 Stevens Creek Blvd. (Southeast comer of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Prado Vista Dr. Parcel Area (Acres): ..u Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 10, 1988 Page 3 PC - 557 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued EXCEPTION from Section 16.28.040 (1) of Ordinance 6861 to allow a rear and side fence to exceed six (6) feet in height. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and noted the opposition from . one of the adjoining neighbors to the proposal under consideration. Staff recommended that the height of the wall remain constant. ADDlicant's Presentation: Mr. Richard Thaxton, Central Fire District, commented: Proposed wall would increase the privacy of rear and side yard neighbors, screening them from the activities that occur at a fire station Reviewed the activities and work done irt the rear yard area Noted the concerns of the rear yard neighbor over the years regarding these activities Confirmed that a full service generator had been installed as part of a disaster plan; generator was recharged biweekly (one half hour) rather than weekly as recommend- ed by the manufacturer due to complairtts received from rear yard neighbors Agreed that the fence requested would also provide the station with needed privacy Mr. Cowan added that the generator did not meet the Ordinance Standards for noise; due to the limited use on a biweekly basis, an exception was made for safety reasons. Mr. Thaxton added that the wall would help reduce the noise of the generator; furthermore, the request under consideration was consistent with the Fence Ordinance, colIUIlCICial uses in residential areas. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Blayne Jones, 10132 Prado Vista Dr., Cupertino, stated for the record that he was opposed to any more high walls; existing high walls were unsightly and resembled a penitentiary. Examples of such walls on Stevens Creek Blvd. were cited. . Mr. George Mendez, 10116 Prado Vista Dr., Cupertino, commented as follows: Opposed the proposed wall; such would prevent proper air circulation on his site SucIa would trap the heat irt the summer and fumes from the generator on his P10perty Did not object to required work activities occwring at the fire station Wall proposed would not stop the noise from comirtg into their yard Com. Claudy concurred that the existing walls on Stevens Creek Blvd. were unsightly. Ms. Ann Mendez, 10116 Prado Vista Dr., Cupertino, stated that she had complairted about parties that lasted until 2:00 A.M or clean up from these activities; however, she had never objected to the work activities required. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 10, 1988 Page 4 PC - 557 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 3-0 Com. Mackenzie was inclirted to deny the request; the spirit and intent of the Ordinance was to maintain reasonably sized fences irt residential districts, avoiding excessive height. Com. Claudy noted the unusual situation wherein neighbors to the rear did not wish the protection of a fence in excess of the 6 ft. height allowed; however, the Fire Department also wished to screen their activities. If east property owners wished an 8 ft. wall, such should be allowed; however, an 8 ft. wall should not be imposed upon the rear property owners if they did not wish such. He cautioned the Mendez's that the generator noise could further impact their property due to a partial 8 ft. wall. Chr. Sorensen noted that if a 6 ft. fence were built, such would be 7 ft. in height for ad- jacent property owners due to a differential irt elevation; the generator's noise could further impact the Mendez's if a partial 8 ft. wall were built, leavirtg their site exposed. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to reopen the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 3-0 Mr. Jones questioned the setback for standard 6 ft. fences; Mr. Cowan cited requirements. Mr. Thaxton objected to differirtg wall heights; if the Mendez's changed their mind, it would be impossible to add on to a pre-cast concrete wall. Com. Claudy confirmed that he irttended to allow the Mendez's a choice before the wall were irtstalled. Mr. Thaxton stated that complaints were investigated and if accusations were founded, corrections were made; he noted the dedication of the fire fighters. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 3-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Application 15-EXC-88 to a maximum height of 8 ft. per plans submitted but only where the adjacent property owner agrees. SECOND: Com. Claudy ValE: Passed 3-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 10, 1988 Page 5 PC - 557 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 3: Application No(s): 8-U-88 and 15-EA-88 Applicant: Cali -Land Property Owner: Same Location: ,Southwest auadrant of Blane v Ave. and Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel Area (Acres): U USE PERMIT: To complete exterior modifications to an existing 8,600 sq. f1. build- ing, to demolish an existing 6,000 sq. ft. commercial building and construct a 29,000 sq. ft. retail office structure. RETURNED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY COUNCIL ORDER, SEP- TEMBER 6, 1988, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application and presented a series of archi- tectural renderirtgs prepared by the Applicant. Auulicant's Presentation: Mr. Gary Schmidt commented as follows: - Applicants were willirtg to accept a Condition requiring employees to parle underground - Existing leases allowed for such a requirement and/or valet parlång - Opposed any requirement to close the underground parlång at night; however, did not object to restricting underground parking to valet parlång at night - Confll111ed that no work had been done on the Nite Cap as of this date - Noted that the percentage of landscapirtg has been increased irt the revised plans - Applicants were very happy with plans; project was economically feasible to build Com. Mackenzie noted if Hamashusi, which did not have live entertainment/dance bands, took over the Nite Cap, he wished to see the above use cease and not be grandfathered irt. Mr. Schmidt responded that it was not withÌl1 his authority to limit uses permitted by law; both operations were legal, non-conforming uses at this time. Com. Mackenzie asked that this use (live entertainment/dance bands) be modified. Com. Claudy added that even if Hamashusi took over the Nite Cap, such could be a change of corporate entity, not of operation. Mr. Schmidt noted that phasirtg the project was somewhat hampered by the existing five year leases, Mr. Piasecki added that if the Application were approved, a non-conformirtg use would be legitimatized and no longer be non-conforming.' Com. Mackenzie stated that while he did not wish to remove existing uses, he did not wish to confirm uses on this project which were not already existing. Mr. Piasecki suggested that language be added to address this concern. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 10, 1988 Page 6 PC - 557 PUBLIC HEARING Continued In response to Com. Claudy's comment, Mr, Piasecki cited Condition 25 Phasin2: Com. Claudy asked that the Condition include a requirement that the front building be completed no later than the proposed back building. Mr. Piasecki noted that the Phasing Plan could also be submitted to the Commission for review. Com. Claudy noted that the plan presented was the best plan seen; he commended the Applicant on the revised project; Chr. Sorensen concurred. MOTION: SECOND: V01E: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Mackenzie Passed 3-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to grant a Negative Declaration. Com. Claudy Passed 3-0 Ms. Lopez suggested wording be added to Condition 16, Nite Cap, to read, "The Applicant recognizes that this specific use is cwrenùy a legal, non-conforming use and shall remaÌl1 subject to the Oty's non-conforrning use Ordinance." Mr. Schmidt noted some concern regarding phasirtg of this project; the major remodeling of the front building would be held up until constrUction of the rear buildirtg. Motion was modified as stated below. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of Application 8-U-88 subject to conclu- sions and subconclusions of the Staff Repon and this Hearing per the Model Resolution; Conditions 1-15; Condition 16, Nite Cap, modified to read, The Applicant recognizes that this specific use is currenùy a legal, non-conforming use and shall remaÌl1 subject to the Oty's non-conforming use Ordinance." Conditions 17-24; Condition 25 modified to require that the remodelirtg of the front buildirtg be completed in the first phase and that the Phasirtg Plan be brought back to the Commission for approval; Conditions 27-28. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 3-0 NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 10, 1988 Page 7 PC - 557 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Claudy noted the racist comments irt Soundoff and objected to such; however he added that the complairtt that trees were be removed had been heard before. He asked that Staff prepare a report on this concern. He requested information on traffic signals which did not correspond to circulation patterns; Traffic Ellgineerirtg and/or Public Works Staff to address the Commission. Chr. Sorensen requested an update on the Apple Day Care facility. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business. the Planning Commission adjourned at 9: OS P,M. to the next Regular Meeting of October 24, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recording Secretary Approved by the Plannirtg Commission At the Regular Meeting of October 24, 1988 tð~ren~d~ Attest: ~. Dorothy 'us, Oty Cerk