Loading...
PC 06-16-88 , CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 16, 1988 Meeting Held irt the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Ave. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: 7:30 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Sorensen Vice Chairman Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Szabo Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planning Director Randy Tsuda, Planner II Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. Staff Present: POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: None, PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 1: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 13-U-88 and 20-EA-88 Tandem Computers. Inc. Valko Park. Ltd. Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. 5 5 +- net acres USE PERMIT (13-U-88) To construct an 8 story office building equalling approxi- mately 300,000 sq. ft. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 20,1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki presented Revised Conditions and Sue-e-ested Modifica- tions to Resolution 13-U-88 provided by the Applicant. Comments as follows: 12. Valko Parkwa,y: Applicant requested deletion of a phrase, "Said driveway, may be limited to right turn-irt and right turn-out only" Com. Claudy felt that phrase should remain; he noted that the Director of Public Works could require such whether or not the phrase was deleted in the text. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 16, 1988 Page 2 PC - 547 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 13. Stevens Creek Blvd. Drivewa.y: Applicant requested deletion of a phrase, "to ensure safe irtgress and egress to the sites." Mr. Piasecki noted that such estat:ished intent. Mr. Jon Boyes, Representing Tandem Computer, stated that it would be impossible to list all conditions where turns and/or other traffic movements might be required; the phrase "subject to approval of the Director of Public Works" would seem all that was necessary. Consensus reached to delete phrase, "to ensure safe irtgress and egress to the sites." 14. Diversion of Traffic From Neie-hborhood Streets: Applicant requested the require- ment be limited to Tantau Ave; the Director of Public Works asked that Finch Ave. be included, leaving the potential for traffic leaving the site to use this access. Mr. Boyes stated that Firtch Ave. would be more impacted by the property to the west. Mr. Piasecki stated that upon discussion, Staff agreed that specifying only Tantau Ave. would be appropriate; traffic circulation patterns were reviewed. Mr. Boyes questioned the "Said improvements" and objected to requirÌl1g decorative elements. Consensus reached that Condition state, "or other functional improvements." 21. Fire Suppression B) The Fire District asked that wording originally proposed remain; however, they would accept wordirtg as follows, "...as determirted to be necessary by the City Staff irt consultation with the Fire District." F) Condition to read, "The applicant shall satisfy access requirements, possibly irtcluding fire truck access to the south side of the building and access by Fire PersoMel irtto the parking structure." Reference to fire hydrants deleted. 23. Securi\y Review: Condition amended to read" ...a minimum 33 feet..." 27. Bicycle Parkine-: Applicant requested bicycle "parkirtg spaces" be substituted for "locker." Staff did not object to such provided that they be located irt a low risk area; Consensus reached to add "...one bicycle lockirtg facility providing security and protection from the elements. " Mr. Boyes stated that Tandem felt that the Condition as previously worded would be an uMecessary expense; bicycle parkirtg areas were either adjacent to a security station or in this instance, located irt the garage area. He assured the Commission that security and protection could be provided without the expense. 29. Modified Site Plan: Applicant's amended wordirtg acceptable to Staff. Mr. Boyes stated that Applicants wished to defer this Item until the specific Site Plan was submitted to the Oty Council. Com. Mackenzie reiterated his irtterest in seeing more activity irt the comer area bordered by Stevens Creek Blvdrrantau Ave; Com. Claudy concurred. Consensus reached that language be added to read, "...with an opportunity for activity to be visible from the street and sidewalk." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 16,1988 Page 3 PC - 547 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued 30. Transfer of Develonment Credit: Applicant wished to delete the word "'additional' square footage allotted;" Staff used the word "additional" sirtce this was the way the 450,000 sq. ft. space was referenced in the General Plan. Mr. Boyes noted that additional square footage need not come from the additional credits; there was an opportunity to transfer unused FAR credits from the balance of the property. Mr. Piasecki noted concern sirtce the amount of property beirtg land banked was unknown. Mr. Boyes added that a covenant would be submitted addressing site transfers; such would speak to this issue; Com. Mackenzie responded that it was a planning issue as to what building credits were allocated to specific sites. Mr. Boyes presented a revised Site Plan, elimirtating the at grade parking at Stevens Creek Blvd.{l'antau Ave. comer; he reviewed on-site traffic circulation patterns and landscapirtg. Chr. Sorensen asked that a Tree Protection condition be added; Applicant had no objection. Responding to a question, Mr. Boyes stated that Tandem had a day care referra1list. Mr. Boyes asked that the Use Permit be granted for a period of five years. Com. Adams expressed concern that over a five year period there might be design changes or even a change of ownership; Com. Claudy responded that changes were not an issue of ownership but rather an issue of irtterpretation; the Use Permit went with the land. Consensus reached that the Use Permit would be granted for a three year period with the option to renew for another two year period. Ms. Josie Perry, Counsel for Tandem, commented as follows: Questioned whether a five year use permit had ever been issued or. irt the case of a three year permit with the option to renew. additional conditions had been imposed Noted the inability of Tandem to predict the market place or their capacity to build If studies enabled projections to be made on future impacts pursuant to conditions, such conditions could be imposed at this time and a five year use permit granted Requested assurance that additional Conditions would not be imposed in such manner as to make it impossible for Tandem to build Com. Claudy and Adams could not recollect any use permit granted in excess of two years; however. extensions had been granted without additional conditions being imposed. Mr. Piasecki suggested that the Applicants address this issue with the Council if concerns remairted; however, a three year use permit was generous. Mr. Piasecki S11mmarized the amendments to Revised Conditions. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 16, 1988 Page 4 PC - 547 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to grant a Negative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOlE: Passed Com. Szabo remained concerned about traffic and cited the D- Level of Service (LOS) Rat- ing in the Barton-Aschman Traffic Study; he felt that traffic impacts had to be addressed. Com. Claudy concurred that D- Ratings were undesirable; however, the Applicant was requesting usage in conformity with the General Plan designation. It would be inappro- priate to prohibit the Applicant from building; impacts would have to be addressed at a General Plan level. 5-0 Com. Szabo cited the cumulative impacts of individual developments. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 13-U-88 sub- ject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution and Revised Conditions: Conditions 1-12; Condition 13 modified to read, "... or otherwise modified to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works." Condition 14. modified to read, "The applicant shall modify or irtstall traffic diverterslsignal modifications or other functional improvements to ensure..." Conditions 15.-20; Condition 21.B., add "...as determined to be necessary by the Oty Staff in consultation with the Fire District." F) amended, "The applicant shall satisfy access requirements, possibly includirtg fire truck access to the south side of the building and access by Fire Personnel into the parking structure." Condition 22; Condition 23. amended to read "..the office complex (including trellises and canopy materials.)" Add to end, "Adjustments in the minimum landscape depth may be approved in the vicinity of the bus duck out." Conditions 24.-26; Condition 27. delete "lockers" and substitute "facility" throughout; Condition further modified to read, "The applicant is obligated to install one bicycle facility providing security and protection from the elements for every...." Condition 28; Condition 29, modified to read, "... comer with an opportunity for activity visible from the street and sidewalk." Conditions 30.-31; Add Condition 32. to read, Use Permit Validi\y. The Use Permit shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval of the City Council. The applicant may seek extensions prior to said date. Add a Condition 33, Tree Protection. The specimen pine tree located irt the south west comer shall be retairted. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 ITEM 2 Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-U-88 and 6-TM-88 Terry Brown Construction Same North side of Granada Ave.. auuroximatelv 300 ft. East of BYrne Ave. .60 net .72 !!TOSS Parcel Area (Acres): PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 16, 1988 Page 5 PC - 547 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued USE PERMIT: (9-U-88) To construct 2 new residential units and expansion of 2 existing units TENTATIVE MAP (6- TM-88 To resubdivide 4 lots irtto 4 lots with lot sizes rangirtg from 4,850 sq. fL to 8,450 sq. ft. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 5,1988 (9-U-88) Staff Presentation: Mr. Tsuda reviewed the Application; he presented revised Conditions: 20. Future Construction allowirtg construction of sirtgle story structures within designated areas with the modification that two additional garage/driveway spaces to be provided; second story additions to be referenced irt the second paragraph. 21. Fire Sprinklers: Applicant had indicated that flTe sprirtk1ers may be installed; how- ever, he would like to retairt the option of utilizing an emergency vehicle easement to the two flag lots (Lots 2 and 3) ADDlicant's Presentation: Mr. Terry Brown asked for greater flexibility in Condiûon 19. Drivew!\y Modifications: there was ample room for a turn-around area on Lots 2 and 3. He asked that the 18 ft. width not be specified; applicant to work out details with Staff. An expanse of paved area would encourage parking. In response to questions, he stated that lot lines were drawn for Tentative Map and drive- way easement purposes; utilization of the area could be somewhat different. He had no objection to a common driveway area with some landscaping irtsta1led. The Public Hearirtg was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearirtg. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Szabo moved approval of Application 6-TM-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of Staff Repon and this Hearirtg per the Model Resolution. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to recommend approval of Application 9-U-88 subject to conclusions and SUbconclusions of the Staff Repon and this Hearirtg per the Model Resolution, Conditions 1-18; Condition 19. modified to read in pan, "The driveway leadirtg to Lots 2 and 3 shall be a minimum of 18 fL and maxi- mum of 20 ft. irt width. Planters shall be provided.." Revised Condiûon 20; Revised Condition 21; Condition 22. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 16, 1988 Page 6 PC - 547 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 3 Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 1O-U-88 and 17-EA-88 Terrv Brown/James Hemphill Same West side of Pasadena Ave.. anproximately 75 ft. North of Granada Ave. .30 net .48 woss Parcel Area (Acres): USE PERMIT: (10-U-88) To construct a 2,600 sq. ft. office/commercial/residential addition to an existing commercial building. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 5, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Tsuda reviewed the Application. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Brown stated that the design seemed to work very well; both uses had been occupied sirtce the fIrst day available. The Commission commended the Applicant on the mix of uses; such was irt character with the Monta Vista area. The Public Hearirtg was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Adams moved approval of Application 17-EA-88. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE; Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Adams moved approval of Application IO-U-88 subject to conclusions and subconc1usions of Staff Report and this Hearing per the Mode: Resolution. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie V01E: Passed 5-0 Break: 9: 10 - 9: 17 P.M. ITEM 4 Application No(s) ll-U-88 and 18 EA-88 Applicant: Yukio Iwamoto Property Owner: Allan G. Bver Location: East side of De Anza Blvd.. apnroximately 5()() ft. South of SiIverado Ave. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting ofJune 16, 1988 Page 7 PC - 547 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued USE PERMIT: (112-U-88) To operate a 90 seat, sit-down restaurant in an existing 3,600 sq. ft. buildirtg. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 5, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application; he suggested addirtg a condition addressirtg the hours of operation. In Condition 2, the number of seats should read, "92." He discussed parkirtg alternatives in response to the Commission's inquiries. Applicant's Presentation: The Applicant stated he would comply with conditions imposed. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearirtg SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Adams questioned whether Condition 2 should expressly prohibit take-out service. Mr. Piasecki noted that an explicit statement would prohibit irtcidental take-out at sit down restaurants; he suggested a statement could be added, "Take-out service shall be incidental." Language from the General Commercial (CG) Qrdirtance could be used. Consensus reached that Hours of Operation shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. MarrON: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of Application 18-EA-88. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of Application l1-U-88 subject to conclu- sions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearirtg; Condition 1; Condition 2 amended to "92 seats;" add to second paragraph, "Restaurant activities shall conform with full service restaurant definition contained withirt the General Commercial (CO) Ordirtance" Conditions" and "Hours of opera- tion sha1I be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M." Conditions 3-7. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 ITEM 5: Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: l2-U-88 and 19-EA-88 Arthur G. Gunther (P¡zz~ria Uno) Steven Gazzera South side of Stevens Creek Blvd aporoxim~~~ 250 ft east of Blanev Ave. {J9930iï9936 St~.~..s Creek Blvd. .96 net 1. 04 vross Parcel Area (Acres): PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 16, 1988 Page 8 PC - 547 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued USE PERMIT: (12-U-88) To add approximately 900 sq. ft. to an existing cocktail lounge/restaurant building for a total of 5,500 sq. ft. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 5, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application and presented Site and Revised Elevation Plans; he called attention to the Barton-Aschman Traffic Report. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Jim Jackson, Representing the Applicant, commented: - Discussed the Pizzeria Uno concept and product and reviewed the history of the site - Noted that the project proposed would be a substantial up-grade - Cited the following issues irt Recommended Conditions of Approval: 14. Use Limitation: Noted that an outdoor dining area under a canopy was proposed; such was irtcorrectly identified in the Recommended Conditions 13. Masonrv Wall: required irt Conditions; noted the existing 8 ft. wooden fence 22. Parkin~ Area Li!!htin!!/Layout: There were existing 10 fL high lights; Applicant did not wish to see the height reduced due to concerns for public safety 16. In~essÆ~ess Easements: Applicants were strongly opposed to an ingresS/egress driveway on Stevens Creek Blvd. for the following reasons: - Incoming traffic would not be encumbered by exiting cars - Narrowness of the entrance corridor to the restaurant; two-way traffic would cause patrons leavirtg the restaurant to step irtto the irtcomirtg traffic lane - Insufficient area for irtgresslegress without loss of parking spaces; in addition, the back up area for these parkirtg slots would be irt the path of on-site traffic Hours of Qperation: Hours to extend to Midnight on Fridays and Saturdays; prohi- bition of such would be unfair to this Applicant Mr. Nelson Hilger, Project Manager, commented as follows: - Cited Guidelines for Drivew¡¡v Desi~n recommendation that two way driveways be 40 ft. width; such could not be accommodated at this site - Narrow proximity between incomirtg traffic and pedestrians crossing into the restau- rant could be a problem; potential liability to the restaurant cited - Staff Recommendation for a 21 fL driveway would create impacts previously noted - Previous restaurant owner had no problem with the existing configuration - Elimirtation of parking on the east property line could not be accommodated; 10 park- ing stalls along the frontage had already been lost due to 50 ft. landscapirtg requirement irt addition, to the loss of some spaces on the easterly property line. Mr. Jackson reviewed the professional and personal accomplishments of the Applicant. Mr. Arthur G. Gunther, Applicant, commented as follows: - Cited professional aspirations for Pizzeria Uno and citations received by this operation - Busirtess was positioned as gourmet pizza, aimed at families and busirtess people with mirtimal waiting time for orders to be completed; alcohol was an accommodation - Request for extended hours on Fridays and Saturdays were due to the fact that these evenings represented 40-50% of total restaurant sales PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 16, 1988 Page 9 PC - 547 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued In response to Com. Adams' question, he confirmed that the design and operation of this restaurant would discourage bar hoppers and/or drirtkirtg on-site. Mr. Jackson reviewed the Recommended Conditions as follows: 13. Masont:)' Wall: Applicants had no objection to such; however, it was noted that the neighbors may prefer the existing wooden fence rather than a masonry wall 14. Used Limitation A. add, "no seating outdoors except under the canopy" or "as shown on Exhibit A I" C. add, "except 12 Midnight on Fridays and Saturdays." 18. Buffer to Adioinin ,! Residential Use Areas: add, "as shown on Exhibit L I" 22. Parkin ,! Area Lil1'htinl1'/L&,yout: lighting as suggested above or as approved by ASAC; delete second paragraph The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Vic Dervin, 10109 Mello PI., Cupertino, presented photographs arid commented: Reviewed the history of rezonirtg of this property and previous tenants of the site Noted violations and disturbances occurring since 1982 and his efforts to rectify such Cited specific problems: absence of landscape buffer, floodlights installed illegally, individuals livirtg irt a rear structure, disturbances, trash accumulation, health hazards Felt that attitude of the owner/tenant was vital irt securirtg compliance with conditions With respect to Staff Report, he commented as follows: - Use Pennit: to irtclude a take-out wirtdow; correct square footage should read 1400 sq. fL addition, totaling 6,000 sq. ft.-- a 30% increase over existing floor area - Proiect Data: figures corrected as stated irt Use Permit with a FAR of 0.14 - Traffic Intensity Performance: trips adjusted for a 6,000 sq. fL area totaled 64 trips, double that stated or projected for the proposed use; such was not insignificant - Trip Accountine:: bottom line deficit to read <3.77> Trips--25% below standard; proposed use was similar to Chilies--a 13% smaller site with.6% increased occu- pancy, 6% less parkirtg and a residential perimeter of 37 % --a 100% increase - Desi!!:n Issues. Sitin ,!: traffic would be exiting adjacent to residential use on Blaney; In 4) southerly landscape berm was 30 ft., not 25 ft, as stated - Architecture: unable to identify canvas topped seating area on drawings presented; noted the raisirtg of the buildirtg and objected to the proposed signage to be added - Qperational Issues 2) Clean-U'p/Can-Washin~: Orchard Valley Market Place opera- tions closed between 9:00 - 10:00 P.M; enforcement problems were cited Staff Recommendation: disagreed that there were no significant impacts Recommended Conditions of Approval: 13. Masont:)' Wall: cited the existing 5 ft. 8 in. masonry wall on the south side; however, such was below the depressed grade on the parking side. Request- ed a minimum 24 in. addition to the top 14. Use Limitation: statement on outdoor seating nor the additional square footage had been clarified, cited lack of landscaping buffer on the south side 23. Parkin!!: ArealRestaurant Service Activity: Noted that the City had received numerous complairtts regarding violations Summarized above statements and concluded that this Application should be rejected PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 16, 1988 Page 10 PC - 547 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Paul C. Goodley, 19990 Breulla Ct., Cupertino, fully concurred with the problems stated by the previous speaker; he presented an exhibit showirtg the location of eight establishments which served alcoholic beverages Mr. Jackson responded that he sympathized with residents problems with prior operators; however, the current Tenant would provide the best operation that had existed on this site. The 1983 Planned Development Zoning District would provide enforceable use permits. Mr. Gunther concurred with Mr. Jackson and cited his record of restaurant management; he confIrmed that previous complairtts would not reoccur. He offered to elimirtate the out door seating area if such were unacceptable. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy noted the architectural improvement of the design proposed. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to reopen the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 Mr. Gunther added infonnation on the ingress/egress of the site; he offered in install signage directing traffIc if such would be benefIcial. Mr. Dervin cited the projected traffic count; he reviewed late night noise problems and asked that the easement not be used for traffic exiting on Blaney Ave. Mr. Gunther responded that it was up to the Commission to address the use of the site. MOTION: Com Szabo moved to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy commented as follows: - Outdoor dirtirtg area was well designed and appeared pleasant - Favored restoration of the 1andscapirtg area to the rear of the property - Felt that one way irtgress and separate egress was the best confIguration - Questioned whether traffIc issues had been adequately addressed; however, he noted that this was primarily a sit down restaurant - Questioned the best buffer--an 8 ft. masonry wall or the redwood fence With respect to hours of operation, Cupertino did not seem to be a late night dirtirtg area Com. Adams commented as follows: - Favored signage directing exiting traffic on Blaney Ave. toward Stevens Creek Blvd. - Sympathized with neighbors regarding past problems and favored hours of operation as stated irt the Staff Repon; such could be reviewed and reconsidered irt a years time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 16, 1988 Page 11 PC - 547 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Com. Mackenzie commented as follows: Concurred that the proposal was similar to Chilies Restaurant irt style and irttensity Suggested Conditions 13, 14, 18 be amended an stated in the Motion Add a Condition 25 composed of second paragraph of Condition 23; if problems exist irt the Use Permit itself, such could be reviewed with consideration for a prohibition of advertisirtg of and/or the take out operation. Mr. Piasecki suggested that a Performance Standard be included irt the Use Permit, addressing the take-out operation. Com. Szabo favored the 8 ft. masonry wall and deletion of the take-out window; Consensus reached to leave the take-out window as currently proposed. Chr. Sorensen commended the proposed site improvement; she favored the 8 ft. masonry wall and preferred hours of operation until 11:00 P.M. untilfurtherreview. MOTION: Com. Adams moved approval of Application 19-EA-88 SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 12-U-88 sub- ject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearirtg per the Model Resolution; Conditions 1-12; Condition 13, modified to require an 8 ft. wall; Condition 14 amended to read "...maximum seating capacity of 190 for indoor and outdoor seating as shown on ExhibitA 1." B) amended to read "Activities are limited to those allowed for sit down restaurants as prescribed in the General Commercial (CG) Ordinance. Additional take-out activities shall not exceed 10% of the operation. Conditions 15-17; Condition 18, to read, "A substantial landscape buffer as shown on Exhibits shall be provided on the west and south site boundary adjacent to existing residential properties. The south side shall have a minimum 24 irt. box canopy trees..." Conditions 19-21; Condition 22, second sentence to read, "The plans shall irtsure a safe use of the parking area while minimizirtg lighting irtterference to residential area." Delete second paragraph; third paragraph add sentence, "Stevens Creek Blvd. to be well marked subject to approval by the Planning Director. Condition 23, trans- fer second paragraph to a new Condition 25; Condition 24; Condition 25 to read, "The foregoing steps are indicative of protective actions to be taken and are not exhaustive. Should the City receive complaints about unauthorized activity, noise or unsanitary practices, light intrusion, parking or traffic. The Use Permit may be subject to public hearirtg for purposes of adding conditions or possible revocation of said Use Permit. Possible additional conditions to irtclude reducirtg seating capacity, restricting hours of operation, prohibiting advertising or signs indicating the take out operation, prohibiting phone orders and eliminating take out activity or other Conditions as deemed appropriate." Add a Condition 26 the "The Applicant shall demonstrate that the parcels have been consolidated into one parcel." SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTEs Regular Meeting of June 16, 1988 Page 12 PC - 547 NEW BUSINESS: . None OLD BUSINESS: - None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: - Com. Szabo reponed on the recent Mayor's luncheon. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: . Written Repon submitted DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: . None ADJOURNMENT: Havirtg concluded business, the Planning COmmission adjourned at 11:40 P.M. to the next Regular Meetirtg, June 27, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recordirtg Secretary Approved by the Plannirtg COmmission At the Regular Meeting ofJuly 11, 1988 irJ, ~>;i~," IL.dÍ ee Sorensen, halrWoman Attest: ~