Loading...
PC 09-14-83 ",' CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 TELEPHONE: (408)252-4505 PC-424ad Page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1983 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Chairperson Adams called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Koenitzer, Claudy, Blaine, Szabo, Chairperson Adams Staff Present: Dir. of Planning & Development sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Engineer Whitten Deputy City Clerk Villarante City Attorney Kilian PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Application 26-U-83 of ANDREW P. JARA (GEORGE SOMPS, ET AL): USE PERI1IT to construct an 18,000 sq. ft., two-story office building on a rear parcel and install improvements, including a furture building pad, on a front parcel and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard 200 ft. west of Blaney Avenue in a P (Planned Development) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - September 19, 1983. Director of Planning and Development Sisk presented a staff report to the Commission. Discussion ensued between staff and Commission regarding integration of architectural styles found along Stevens Cree Boulevard and the proposed site. Andrew Jara, architect, addressed the Commission with a presentation of the proposed building and stated that he was caught between the wishes of the owner and the Commission recommendation as to the architectural style used. He went on to give an explanation of the parking situation. Chairperson Adams, requested a summary of plan options for th site from Mr. Jara. P~-424ad Page 2 MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION -- Commission discussed at length with the applicant the use of various materials to improve the facade and questioned whether the applicant wished a continuance or a decision that evening. william Clark, 20054 Wheaton Drive, concurred Commissions comments regarding conformity of styles and did not wish the application approved. with the architectural Tom Siron, 20064 Wheaton Dr., also concurred with Commissions comments regarding the integration of architectural styles and went on to state that he felt it was the obligation-of the Planning Commission to preserve the neighborhoods. He went on to state his concerns with the height of the building and that he would like the application denied. Sam Pool, 20084 Wheaton Drive, stated to the Commission that he concurred with Mr. Clark's and Mr. Sirons opinions and stated that the two buildings fronting the property should be raised and that the proposed building should be brought forward to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Commission devoted considerable discussion to the principle concerns of architectural integration, parking and building use. Mr. Jara, architect, explained to the Commission the changes in the parking and landscaping and commented on the separate treatment of Parcel A with regards to the p~oposed site on Parcel B. Director of Planning and Development Sisk commented to the Commission the possibility of conditioning future development of Parcel A. Com. Claudy commented that the project design was inspired by economy and that it was architecturally unsatisfactory. Mr. Jara stated to the Commission that he did not want consideration of this application continued to another meeting. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously to recommend a Negative Declaration. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine to deny application 26-U-83, Andrew Jara, as it-does not meet the parking standards requirements of one space per 230 sq. ft. of office for this type of development and because of concerns over the quality of architecture. .oJ;' !1INUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION PC-424 Page 3 It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to amend the motion to state that denial is based on the lack of meeting parking standards, the architecture is below standards for that site (dictated by economy, not design) and that a conceptual plan should be submitted showing possible long term integration of the new structure with existing structures. The motion for denial was approved with a 5-0 vote. 6. Application 28-U-83 and 14-TM-83 of DENNIS KOBZA (WILLIAM MAROCCO) : USE PERMIT to construct a 74,000 sq. ft., two-story office building; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP to consolidate two parcels consisting of approximately 4.5 acres into one parcel and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 300 ft. west of Portal Avenue and 200 ft. east of Blaney Avenue in a P (Planned Development) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - September 19, 1983. Assistant Planning Director Cowan presented a staff report to the Commission commenting on a potential parking lot problems. Dennis Kobza, 2483 Old Middlefield Way, Mountain View, addressed the Commission explaining the changes he had made in the site plans as per ASAC recommendations. He went on to give a brief description of the proposed driveways and stated that he had talked with the adjacent property regarding the driveways. Commission devoted considerable discuss'ion to the topics of traffic deterents, trash enclosures, and reciprocal driveway fo the proposed building site. Herman Hijmans, owner, Top Furniture, stated to the Commission that the driveway width for his store was 18'6" ft. on the side and that he was willing to work with the applicant on a reciprocal access driveway. John Callahan, 19954 Wheaton Drive, commented to the Commissio that he was surprised at the size of the project. He went on to list his concerns of traffic generated by the project, use of hazardous materials for research and development, noise and lighting of the parking lot. Dennis Kobza, stated to the Commission that the building woul not be used for research and development, that access to the P.J. Mulligan site was at the request of the city and that ther would be a 15'ft. landscape buffer from the homes bordering th site. MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION .Commission discussion ensued with regards to defining research and development and possible restrictions. Rosemary Callahan, 14495 Wheaton Drive, stated to the Commission that she would like to see all research and development . prohibited. She went on to question the height of the building, lighting and use of speed bumps in the parking lot and exclusion of night work at the site. Discussion ensued between Commission and staff regarding traffic controls and building use. tlr. Kobza stated to the Commission that fencing could be used between P.J. Mulligans and the proposed site. Shirley Malcolm, 1153 Bordeax Dr., Sunnyvale, stated to the Commission that the building was slated for multi-tenant use. Mr. Callahan, commented to the Commission regarding problems at the P.J. t1ulligans site and reiterated his concerns regarding traffic and research and development at the site. t1rs. Callahan, commented to the Commission regarding early morning parking'lot sweeping at the P.J. Mulligan site. Assistant Planning Director Cowan, stated to the Commission that staff would contact the owners of the shopping center concerning the street sweeping. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. commission discussion ensued regardin the various conditions. It was moved by Com. passed unanimously to declaration. Koenitzer, recommend seconded by Com. Claudy and the granting of a negative It was moved by Com. CIaudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed with a 5-0 vote to recommend approval of application 4-TM-83 with conditions 1-14, condition 15 amended, condition 16-19 with findings and subconclusions as per staff recommendation. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed with a 5-0 vote to recommend approval of application 28-U-83 with conditions 1-14, 15, 16, condition 17 amended, 18, 19, condition 20 amended, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and findings and subconclusions as per staff report. RßCESS: 9:58-10:05 p.m. 7. Applications 27-U-83 and l3-TM-83 of CßCELIA MASSEY: USE PERMIT to construct a residential duplex; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP to subdivide approximately .27 acre into two parcels and -$ MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION PC-42" Page ' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Cleo Drive and Gardenside Lane in a P (Planned Development with residential multiple family intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date for Use Permit - September 19, 1983. Director of Planning and Development Sisk, presented a staff report to the Commission. Discussion ensued between staff and the Commission regarding the application. Cecelia Massey, 10328 Brittany Ct., addressed Commission stating that it would be a quality duplex, that the building could be moved and that the ASAC recommendations could be managed. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to close public hearing. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously to recommend the granting of a negative declaration. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed with a 5-0 vote to recommend approval of application 13-TM-83 conditions 1-14, 15, 16 deleted and findings and subconclusions as per staff recommendation. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. passed with a 5-0 vote to recommend approval 27-U-83 with conditions 1-14, 15-19 with subconclusions as per staff recommendation. Koenitzer and of application findings and 8. Application l5-TM-83 of EDWARD J. HAHAMIAN (PHILLIP PFLAGER & NANCY BROWN): TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP to adjust lot lines between four parcels and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the south side of Palm Avenue approximately 125 ft. west of Palo Vista Road and 500 ft. east of South Foothill Boulevard in a RI-IO (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan presented a staff report t the Commission. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to close public hearing. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and approved with a 5-0 vote for application l5-TM-83 with conditions 1-14, 15, 16 and findings and subconclusions as pe staff recommendation. ~ 1'-C-424ad se 6 MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. Application 2-V-83 of HOMER & DEBBIE GEE (BEST BUILDERS) : VARIANCE from the Rl (Residential, single-family) zoning Ordinance to permit a second-story setback of 7 ft. 6 inches in liu of the 10 ft. setback required by Ordinance and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the west side of pennington Lane (1043 Pennington Lane) between Pumpkin Drive and Woodlark Way in a Rl-6 (Residential, Single-family, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - September 19, 1983. Director of Planning and Development Sisk presented a staff report to the Commission. Commission discussion ensued with clarifications of the plans by staff. Homer Gee, 1043 pennington Lane, addressed the Commission stating that the addition would integrate with the original structure and was not distracting to the neighborhood. Nancy Newton, 1047 pennington Lane, stating that as a next door neighbor objections to the addition. addressed the to the site Commission she had no Mike Antuzzi, building question of setbacks wanting additions. contractor, stated to the Commission that would be an issue for pre-existing homes Di rector of Commission Ordinance. Planning and Development that there might be a Sisk, commented need to revise to the the Rl Commission discussion ensued regarding findings for a variance. City Attorney Kilian, cited an interpretation of the variance statute to the Commission. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer,secondedbyCom.Claudy and passed unanimously to close public hearing. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed with a 4-1 vote, Com. Szabo dissenting to recommend denial of application 2-V-83 as per recommendations set forth in the staff report. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discussion ensued regarding the Town Center Properties denial.