Loading...
PC 05-09-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252:4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 9,1988 Meeting Held in 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 Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planiting Director Mark Caughey, Associate Planner Randy Tsuda, Planner II Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Charles Kilian, Oty Attorney Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Mirtutes of the Regular Meeting of April 25, 1988, as presented. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 1: Application l-CDPR3-88 and 3- V -88, Scott Design Associates Applicant requested Continuance to the Meeting of May 23, 1988 ITEM 2: Application 7-U-88 and 13-EA-88, Ken Kay Associates Staff requested Continuance to the Meeting of May 23,1988 ITEM 3: Application 8-U-88 and 15-EA-88, Cali-Land Staff requested Continuance to the Meeting of June 13, 1988 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to Continue Application l-CDPR3-88 and 3-V-88, Scott Design Associates, Application 7-U-88 and 13-EA-88, Ken Kay Asso- ciates, to the Meeting of May 23, 1988 and to Continue Application 8-U-88 and 15-EA-88, Cali-Land, to the Meeting of June 13, 1988. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 ITEM 4: Application l-U-88 and 7-EA-88, Richard Sutherland Staff requested removal from the Calendar; Applicant was involved in lengthy negotiations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9,1988 Page 2 PC - 543 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS Continued MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to remove Application l-U-88 and 7-EA-88, Richard Sutherland, from the Calendar. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from Com. Szabo re: Vallco Ice Rink - Letter from Brownie Ice Skating Troup, May 3, 1988 - Letter from Scott Cunningham, Scott Design Associates, May 3, 1988 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - Ms. Elizabeth Mulford, 10366 Tonita, Cupertino, presented a written statement, citing her disappoirttment at the imminent closing of the Vallco Ice Rirtk. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM :5. Application No(s) Applicant: Location: Pan:el Area(Acres): 5- TM-88 Measurex Coq>oration 1 Results Way .l1 TENTATIVE MAP: To consolidate 4 pan:els consisting of 24 gross acres into one parcel. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application and presented a Site Map; Staff recommended approval of this Item. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Alpheus (Chip) Jessup, Representing Measurex, made himself available for questions. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Adams questioned implementation of a 1,000 sq. ft. bonus that could be requested; he did not wish to see the lots to the rear of the property consolidated, receive the bonus and then be split agairt irtto irtdividuallots. Com. Claudy and Mackenzie commended the Applicant for the improvement on this site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1988 Page 3 PC - 543 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of Application 5- TM-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 ITEM 6: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: l-V-87 Fred Reinell Parkside Lane L. P. So. Blaney Ave. between LaMar Dr. and RodrÌlmes Ave. VARIANCE (I-V-88) From Section 8.3.2(c) of Ordinance 1374 to reduce the required second story setback from twenty (20) feet to fifteen (15) feet FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMlNA TION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 16, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application; Staff recommended denial of this request sirtce extraordirtary circumstances had not been demonstrated. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Fred Reinell, Representing Parside Lane L.P., commented: Application was not in response to the current Emergency Ordinance; rather request was in response to flag lot restrictions which required second floor setbacks Compared a typical flag lot in the R-l Ordinance (interior lot) and Lot 6 in the R-I-6 zoning designation which was bound on only three sides 55 ft existed between the lot edge and the right-of-way on the other side of the Creek Houses across the Creek faced away from it Lots 1 and 7 could extend to within 5-10 ft of the property lirte adjacent to the Creek Asked that Lot 6 not be penalized with the flag lot requirements; such would push this house toward the rear yards of Lots 3 and 4 Presented alternative lot configurations Ordinance Intent would not be met with moving the house closer to Lots 3 and 4 The required 20 ft. setback for flag lots was the vehicle for ensuring privacy; such did not apply to the lot irt question since the Creek provided the intended privacy Lot was unique due to the Creek, angular side lirtes and an untypical flag lot Com. Mackenzie questioned the motivation for a variance since the house could be sited in several locations. Mr. Reinell responded that the site was not very desirable with respect to the elevation; there was also a problem exiting the second story during an emergency due to the roof angle. Com. Mackenzie stated that according to the Variance Firtdings, the uniqueness of the lot (the Creek) had to create the need for the Variance. Mr. Reirtell responded that the unique- ness was the angular portion of the lot which created a non-functional area on the lot. Applicant was arguirtg that the intent of the flag lot restrictions was privacy; such would be better met by the lot reconfiguration. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1988 Page 4 PC - 543 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Adams also had difficulty justifying a Variance request in that at the time of Tentative Map approval, distribution of subdivision lot lines were reviewed in order that there wouldn't be any potential for a Variance. Mr. Reinell cited changes made to the Application at the time of approval by the Council. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Szabo stated that this was a case were the rules insuring privacy worked against the Item; he felt that the goal was more important. It was the responsibility of the Commission to establish rules which would not have allowed a situation such as this to happen. This was a unique circumstance; nothing would be gained by requiring the house to be placed closer to Lots 3 and 4. He would vote irt favor of the Variance request. Com. Claudy noted that the request was reasonable; however, the request did not meet the Variance requirements. Any hardship was at the creation of the subdivider of the property. With respect to the Variance Findirtgs 1) there was no unnecessary hardship; 2) such was not applicable since the house could be built without a Variance; 3) such was correct, the variance requested would not affect the health and safety of others. Com. Adams, Mackenzie and Chairwoman Sorensen concurred with Com. Claudy; consensus reached that a Minute Order would be sent to Council noting the sympathy MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to recommend denial of Application 1- V-88, being unable to make the necessary Firtdings. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed, Com. Szabo dissenting 4-1 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to send a Minute Order to Council indicating that while the Commission voted to recommend denial of the Variance, they were sym- pathic to the Applicant's request. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 ITEM 7: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-U-88 Lan:)' K. Yamaoka Portal Plaza Properties Stevens Creek BlvdIPortal Ave. within the Portal Plaza ShQppin~ Center NLA Parcel Area(Acres): USE PERMIT (6-U-88) To operate a bakery up to 3,200 sq. ft. with 10 seats withirt an existing retail center. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1988 Page 5 PC - 543 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 16,1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Tsuda reviewed the Application and called attention to illill:.s.: Parkin!! and Development Intensity; Staff recommended approval of this Item. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Larry Yamaoka stated in response to Com. Claudy's question that it was his understandirtg that the bakery would have only 10 seats. Mr. Yamaoka responded to Com. Adams' question, stating that it was not within their plans to expand the proposed space. Com. Mackenzie suggested modification of Condition 2. Approved Uses. prohibiting alcoholic beverages; he cited traffic impacts until the Center were completely renovated. Condition to be added to prohibit alcoholic beverages. Mr. Piasecki stated that it was not uncommon for a business of this type to have a lunch trade which included the sale of beer and wine. Com. Mackenzie noted differences between a bakery and deli and reiterated concerns regardirtg the irttensity of use at this time. Mr. Yamaoka responded that he wished to give the operator of this bakery as much oppor- tunity as extended by the City to other bakeries; he cited changes in the expanded Center and asked to move forward on this Application. In response to Commissioner's questions, Mr. Tsuda stated that the Staff Report Traffic Count was based on similar operations in the City; Mr. Piasecki added that Staff wrote Conditions as broadly as possible to prevent repeated applications for minor changes. Com. Adams had reservations about the granting of another liquor license irt the City. 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. Szabo moved to recommend approval of Application 6-U-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing, per the Model Resolution. Com. Claudy noted that Condition 2. Approved Uses clearly implied that alcoholic beverages could be served. MOTION: Com. Szabo amended the Motion, Condition 2. Approved Uses to read, "Beer and wine sales are approved along with a separate bar." SECOND: Com. Claudy seconded the Amended Motion. VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1988 Page 6 PC - 543 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 8: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 45-U-87 and 46-EA-87 Carl Karcher Enterprises Jose.ph Franco Southeast corner of Homestead Rd. and Franco Ct. !!...5i USE PERMIT (45-U-87) To construct and operate a drive-up service wirtdow and vehicle lane for an existing take-out restaurant. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 16,1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application and discussed the Barton- Aschman Associates Traffic Report; he presented a Photo Study of the existing trees. Staff suggested a Condition obligating the developer to retain an Arborculturalist prior to building, to address whether the trees were capable of being relocated and if so, where they could be placed. Com. Claudy's cited concern about Traffic Circulation Patterns and Stacking. Mr. Caughey responded that criteria required that 8 vehicles be able to be stacked; design pro- posed was adequate. Various design configurations were discussed by the Commission. ADplicant's Presentation: Mr. John Waddel noted that original site designs were again being used; he reviewed design, traffic circulation patterns and landscaping plans. He offered to present Traffic Studies completed by Carl's Jr. Com. Szabo noted the waiting time for orders and cited traffic impacts and air pollution; Mr. Waddel provided information on service time and the measurement of service time. Com. Adams suggested consideration of a Continuance of this Item to allow the Applicant to consider various design alternatives discussed at the Hearing. Com. Szabo noted that Homestead High School students were the beneficiaries of the drive up lane; he favored elimination of the drive up window, citing traffic and air pollution. Com. Claudy commented that drive up windows was allowed and added that few sites had less impact on adjacent residential use; Chr. Sorensen concurred. Consensus reached by the Commission to approve the Application, referring design altematives to Architectura1 and Site Review. Com. Adams had no objection. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1988 Page 7 PC - 543 PUBLIC HEARING Continued MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of Application 46-EA-87 (Negative Declaration) SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed, Com. Szabo dissenting 4-1 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to recommend approval of Application 45-U-87 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing; Condi- tions 1-12; Condition 13 deleted; Conditions 14-18; adding a Condition 19 to state, "The U shaped access/stacking lane was not approved. The Applicant will prepare two alternatives, one an L shaped stacking lane, one an serpentine stacking lane going from east to north per discussion of the Commission. Alternatives to be presented to Architectural and Site Review (ASAC) to be evaluated for parking and stacking capacity; most appropriate alternative of these two or other suitable alternative to be approved. Landscaping plan will also be reviewed by ASAC. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie ValE: Passed, Com. Szabo dissenting 4-1 NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 9: Review of 5- Year Capital Improvement Program ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 16, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Report of May 9, 1988; Staff recommended adoption of the Model Resolution fmding consistency with the General Plan. Mr. Whitten answered questions addressed by the Commission about certain projects listed therein. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to grant a Negative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to make the Finding that the Fiscal Years 1988-89 to 1992-1993 Capital Improvement Plan is consistent with the General Plan. SECOND: Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Claudy asked for a review offence setbacks on Palm Ave. and San Paulo Ave. Com. Szabo asked for an accounting of the square footage at Valko He questioned the number and location of kiosks at the Shopping Center; evaluation to be conducted by Staff PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1988 Page 8 PC - 543 REPORT OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION Continued Chr. Sorensen commended Ms. H. Wong on replacement of a tree at construction site. She noted for the record her disappointment the untimely closure of Vallco Ice Rink and noted the disappointment of many who had planned end of the school year parties REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: In addition to the written report submitted, Mr. Cowan presented photographs of the Trilogy Building as requested; the Commission asked that the mechanical equipment screening by a parapet be agendized for a hearirtg. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:35 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of May 23, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recording Secretary Approved by the Plannirtg Commission At the Regular Meeting of May 23, 1988 / ~ Ç/l{//(lk ~ ~#,1Z> vi, í:alee Sorensen, aIrWoman Attest: