Loading...
PC 02-14-83 PC-408. Pa~" 1 .CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 T~lephone' (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 14, 1983 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Chairperson Adams called the meeting to order in the Council Chamber, City Hall. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Blaine, Claudy, Koenitzer, Chairperson Adams Binneweg Director of Planning and Development Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Engineer Whitten Deputy City Clerk Campagna-Blaise Associate Planner Piasecki Deputy City Attorney Foster Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 24, 1983, It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to approve the January 24, 1983 minutes as submitted. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 31, 1983, It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy to approve the January 31, 1983 minutes as amended. Page 3, Planning Commission Consensus Position regarding Land Use Intensity changed to read as Follows, The Commission agreed on the Planning Commission Consensus Position regarding Land Use Intensity (Attachment to February 11, 1983 memo to the Commission from Assistant Planning Director Cowan, Applica- tion of Tentatively Approved General Plan amendment Policy to Pending Development Applications) amended to read as follows, 1. Areas outside of the Core Area a. .25 FAR for commercial b. .33 FAR for industrial and office 2. Inside the Core Area a. 16 one-way trip end performance standard is retained for North De Anza Boulevard, Stevens Creek boulevard and Town Center. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-408 Page 2 2. b. Traffic Intensity Performance Standard Manual should be modified to prohibit the transfer of trips among individual property owners within the same sub-area and from one geo- graphical sub-area such as North De Anza Boulevard to another sub-area such as Stevens Creek Boulevard. Property owners will be able to retain existing building areas and a~~ivities, however, new buildings and activities would be judged based upon application of the trip per Acre standard. Surplus trips exceeding the 16 one-way trip end standard cannot be transferred to other sites. c. A .25 FAR for commercial. A .37 for office and .33 for industrial would be permitted in the Crossroads area and Vallco Park due to their not having any trip end constraints. POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Com. Claudy expressed concern over the fact that the applications are for development of properties intensities somewhat above the base tier intensities. Perhaps they could discuss the staff's memo on application of tentatively approved General Plan Amendment policy so the Commission could see how to treat them. Com. Adams agreed. He stated that three items are affected by first and second tier discussions, and he would hate to lose the second tier availability. Com. Claudy said the Commission did not have a firm reading on the amount of intensity or whether or not there would be any at all, pending Director of Public Works Viskovich's report regarding traffic and circulation. He suggested that possibly the Commission should take a stand that until such time as the General Plan is adopted and the base tier and second tier maximums are established and prioriti s discussed they should not go above the first tier level. The applicant could withdraw his application or ask for a continuance if the density requested is above the first tier. Com. Koenitzer agreed. He said that the Commission could not guess what was going to happen. Com. Blaine asked staff for some input before Commission reached a decision. Assistant Planning Director Cowan described three courses the Commission could follow that were in the staff's report. 1. Not approve any application until everything was settled. 2. Ignore the General Plan hearing and act on each application case by case. 3. Adopt interim guidelines, meaning it would be wise to be cautious. He also said the Commission could allow additional intensity to occur, regardless of how much space is available for the second tier growth; areas like the Crossroads which has a high FAR of .3 (Service Merchandi e store) which was not developed under current standards. He also PC-408· P-"'.3 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING said if the Commission "freeze" the intensity of .3 growth, Le. no growth in second tier, it is hard to entice property owners to make site improvements. Staff is suggesting guidelines to perhaps establish a limit of 100,000 square foot second tier to make it work. Com. Koenitzer felt that before the Commission recommends an allocation for the amount of secorrd tier for small parcels, perhaps they should not look at greater intensity. Com. Adams agreed and asked for a legal opinion. Deputy City Attorney Foster said the Commission could approve the plan even though there is an upcoming amendment to the General Plan, but it would not be wise if it is going to conflict with the objectives of the General Plan. He suggested the Commission may want to defer, but it is at the Commission's discretion. Chairperson Adams said he woul~ ask each applicant whether to continue, withdraw his/her application or have a decision made. Mr. Kelley, applicant, said that at a previous meeting he accepted a continuation. He now desires an opinion. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application l2-U-82 of WILLIAM KELLEY: USE PERMIT to construct a six-story office building equaling approximately 52,000 sq. ft. in a P (Planned Development with commercial/office intent) zone and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the west side of North De Anza Boulevard approximately 250 ft. North of Stevens Creek Boulevard. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date-February 22, 1983. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the application. He high- lighted four options for a four story building. He said each plan still maintains a 1.0 FAR. The difference between the plans was the location of the buildings to De Anza and access to underground parking. He also added that the Fire District reviewed the plans and felt they were suitable and that they could service the project. He said staff is recommending Alternate Plan 2 or 3. Robert Bernstein, architect from Foug and Associates, said they were still presenting their original six story, 51,000 sq. ft. building. He felt it was a solution to the Crossroads area. After Planning Commission's direction to look at a four story building, they presented it to ASAC. He also presented some site plans of the six story building. Some of the high points of the six story building were that most of the mass of the building was: 1. up in the air and you could look through the site and see the foothills and 2. the setback and under- ground parking allows for a public plaza, possibly a statue. MINUTES OF THE FEBURARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION c-408 Page 4 Mr. Bernstein then read an excerpt from an ASAC meeting Mr. Raymond Rooker, Committee member, spoke_ Mr. Rooker of the six story building with the plaza effect and had about a four story building. in which was in favor mixed erno t ions Mr. Bernstein then said that the ASAC felt the same way. By working and planning, he said, they pushed the four story building back to come up with some alternatives, especially with the parking. He then explained his exhibits and presented a small scale wooden model of De Anza Boulevard with all the "buildings included. William Kelley, 305 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, said that he has been before ASAC, Planning and Council for more than a year now concerning two buildings on De Anza and Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said the first building contains 30,000 sq. ft. of underground parking and 30,000 sq. ft. of office building on the surface and above the thrid story height for a FAR of one to one. He said the second building would be of the same construction. He reminded the Commission that they did not turn down the six story building but had suggested that he look at a four story building. The difference between the two stories, he said, is that the six story building has less of a silhouet e and the ground floor an absence of space. He said the four story is more of a bulk silhouette. If the four story is approved he said the parking would be short, so they may need a 28 ft. variance. He stated he requested a decision tonight. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to close the public meeting. Com. Blaine stated she wanted to remark on Raymond Rooker's comment. She complimented ASAC for looking at the application and his doing a good job as a member. However, she stated they had been charged to look at the architecture of the building and its siting on the property with other property around it and they were charged to look at the landscaping and building materials, etc. But they are not charged with looking at traffic or first and second tier allocations; the Planning Commission must look at the broader picture, such as how the application fits into the City. She also remarked on the General Plan and the concern of square footage and FARs. The base tier had bee set and this building is three times the base tier for this site. The guidelines for the second tier have not been set. She felt they could not approve something that is this far into the second tier and that th Commission's recommendation was that the second tier be used for Town Center and Vallco. Com. Koenitzer said that the second tier is floating somewhere between 400,000 sq. ft. and 2.4 million sq. ft. He said it becomes difficult to look at parceling out unknown amounts. He mentioned other applicant I proposals in square footage. Com. Blaine had some concerns about the second tier and how it would reflect on Director of Public Works Viskovich's report on numbers. PÇ:408 F 5 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Claudy liked the six story building as a citizen, but as a member of the Planning Commission he is concerned once again for the second tier. He waid until the General Plan is adopted he did not feel they should approve any buildings. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy to recommend denial of Application 12-U-82. Com. Blaine clarified her denial based on the fact of the second tier with reference to the General Plan hearing and some question as to how much square footage there will be for a second tier and what will be available for priority areas. In reference to the design of the building, the Commission had asked for a four story building of a .6 FAR. After some discussion, by consensus it was decided to send a minute order to Council that if they determine if a 1.0 FAR is adequate that it be sent back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelley concurred in their decision and said that unless a 1.0 is granted for this site, they would be building a building without underground parking that is exactly to the existing code. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy to recommend the granting of the Negative Declaration for Application l2-U-82. 2. Application 19-U-82 of JOHN VIDOVICH (DR. JOSEPH BROWN): USE PERMIT to construct a 62,000 sq. ft., three-story office building. The subject property is located on the west side of DeAnza Boulevard approximately 250 ft. north of Lazaneo Drive and 450 ft. south of Mariani Avenue in a P (Planned Development with commercial, light industrial and residential, 4-10 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zoning district. (Returned to Planning Commission from City Council meeting of January 17, 1983). Tentative City Council hearing date - February 22" 1983. Chairperson Adams asked the applicant if he would be willing to have a decision now or would he want a continuance. The applicant asked if he would have to respond if they were not exceeding the General Plan. Director of Planning and Development Sisk said it was consistent with the General Plan based upon the determination made at the Council level concerning the ability to transfer trips from Stevens Creek Boulevard. It was his opinion Council would allow trip ends to be transferred. Claudy asked if the transfer of trips is now permitted. Sisk "eplied that policy would have to be amended. Com. Claudy said the Commission has recommended against the transfer of trips and until the Council says they have changed the rules, the existing rule stands which means the trip end could not be transferred. J MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION PC-408 Page 6 The applicant asked to proceed with the project. Sisk then clarified the facts regarding denying the application or possibly reviewing the project to provide input to Council. Commissioners Adams and Blaine requested that the Commission hear the application. Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the application and referred to the staff report dealing with trip policy, No. De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan, with Council willing to consider two driveway approac es. He said ASAC suggested the building could possibly be reversed. Vidovich, applicant, discussed the materials that would be used; such as gray tile or a glass reinforced concrete material similar to the Sobrato building and highlighted with a blue tile bound with gray glass. He said the building has been pushed back 50 ft. He said ASAC took another look at the building that evening and their consensus was that the building is oriented in a most preferential way for automobiles. He said they were not asking for extra tiers. He also said they purchased the few remaining trips because he felt Council was in favor of it. Com. Koenitzer asked about a service entrance and/or elevator. Denis Hemni, 1550 Bryant, San Francisco, architect, felt Council wanted to enhance the view of the foothills and with the 115 ft. setback he thought you could see the view. He also said he felt that entering and exiting a City is important. Com. Claudy asked if there was going to be a back door. Hemni replie that there were secondary exits in the rear. Com. Claudy mentioned compact car spaces vs. regular spaces and sugge ted possibly compact cars could be away from the doors. Com. Koenitzer did not think that reversing the building was feasible especially for the entrance from the parking lot. Vidovich replied to the question of the auto parts store and said that his attorney said that the owner wanted to be left alone. Com. Adams asked the City Attorney about clarification on improvement on the auto parts store if it is to remain. Deputy City Attorney Foster, replied that if he were carrying on a non-conforming use, he had the right to do so. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Avenue, said she had followed the development and felt it would be an asset and was in favor of it. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenizter and passed unanimously to close the public hearing . PC-408 P -, 7 "MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Blaine asked when on trip end transfers. would be informal, but He also said that next Manual. Council would receive their recommendation Assistant Planning director Cowan said it the actual General Plan would be in March. Tuesday, February 22, they could change the Com. Claudy suggested that although he was opposed, staff could prepare a document that if Council changes trip ends, they should go ahead, but it should not be a General Plan change. The Commission agreed. Com. Blaine discussed the building and said she was pleased with the design and site plan and if Council goes ahead with the transfer of trips, then it would be fine. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed with a 4-0 vote for a Negative Declaration. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine to approve Application 19-U-82, findings and subconclusions as per staff report. It was moved by Com Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to send Council a minute order that trips not be transferred between N. De Anza and Stevens Creek area. RECESS: 9:15-9:30 p.m. 3. Application l-U-83 of STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER ASSOCIATES (JOHN VOLCKMANN): USE PERMIT to construct three office buildings totaling approximately 52,000 sq. ft. within the existing Stevens Creek Office Center and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The proposed buildings are two stories in height over underground parking. The Stevens Creek Office Center consists of 6.4 acres lcoated on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 250 ft. west of Saich Way; between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Alves Drive (20823 Stevens Creek Boulevard). The subject property is zoned P (Planned Development with General Commercial use intent). First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - February 22, 1983. Chairperson Adams asked the applicant if he wanted to be heard or would he consider a continuance. The applicant replied that he would like to be heard. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the application. He said the applicant wanted to go from a FAR of .26 to .45 so the application would be in excess of the normal development intensity that the Commission has reviewed in the past. He presented some site plans and said staff felt the second tier General Plan space was "precious" and that it should not be allocated to this property. Staff felt the second tier space should be allocated to sites where the City could foster developments. Mr. Cowan referred to the additional square , MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION PC-408 Page 8 footage oriented to Alves Drive and was sure staff was looking for greater intensity on Stevens Creek Boulevard traffic. He said that the new growth would add 42 additional all day trips and 5 would be at peak hours, but the greater portion of the trips would be assigne distribution to De Anza to gain access to the freeway. Staff felt the traffic generated to this development was not enough to deny the project on that issue alone. The problems on Alves is the existing 1,650 cars. This issue would not be solved by this development, but there is no solution at this time. He felt that perhaps as the Commission got into deliberations on the General Plan on February 28, when the question arises of an acceptable level of traffic for a local street or collector street, the standard would be no commute traffic. However, there is mixed character of land uses in this area. John Volckmann, 20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard, in reviewing his appli- cation, said he felt that placing a .37 on every lot on De Anza and Ste ens Creek excepting Town Center and Vallco was wise. He said they had prepared another traffic survey that would be minimal for the proposed development. He said out of the 1,650 cars, four cars came into the Alves resident along from Stelling to the Stevens Creek Office Center during peak hours and one went out. At night peak hours, 8 cars went out and none came in, and this was according to a street counter. He asked tenants to stagger their hours and he said prior to 7:30 a.m., 24% arrived at work, from 7:30 to 8;30 49% arrived, after 8:30, 27%, so that half arrived during peak hours and the other half before or after. When they leave, 33% leave prior to 5 p.m., 46% during peak hours (5 to 5:30) and 21% after 5:30, and this dis- tribution is working for the existing tenants. The project is asking for 1.4% of the 1,400,000 sq. ft. of the second tier development potential and the project is in the center of the core area and should have part of the 2 millions square feet or 1%. He mentioned that ~ll the parking is not used for the amount of people working now. ASAC, he added, went on record that they strongly approved the addition 1 development requested by the applicant, even though it was beyond the tier of one development. He felt that although staff has suggested the No. 3 building be dropped and Nos. 1 and 2 be reduced, it would not be economically possible, i.e. parking and the columns of the building. He asked approval of the project as presented. He also referred to the County RIDES program for his tenants and he said it is now being used by 10% of the tenants. John Barksdale of Palo Alto referred to the placement of the building with respect to underground parking to present a low profile on Alves. He felt by reducing the size of the buildings, one would lose parking and conformity. Douglas DeVries, 20927 Alves drive, opposed the project as do his neighbors. He presented a chart showing how he felt traffic flowed. He said that the street is not classified to carry the load it has, and safety was a basic concern with reference to pedestrians and bicycles. He said there were no sidewalks. He referred to a De Anza student in a wheelchair who was killed by a hit and run driver. He also mentioned the possibility of fumes coming from underground parking lots. He also referred to the Nolte report of 180 trips per hour. He said the project did not look at foot traffic or speeding cars of future buildings. He wants to preserve the neighborhood PC-408 pa..ge 9 MINUTES OF THE FEBURARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION as residential and have a high level of personal safety. He recommended having a reduced level of buildings, perhaps having a temporary barrier like a cul-de-sac to divert traffic to De Anza or Stevens Creek. Janice Burriesci, 20900 Alves, was concerned about dense buildings and wanted to have a residential neighborhood rather than commercial. Robert Musetti, 20916 Alves, mentioned buses exceeding the 25 mph limit concern with safety. He said the YMCA is used as a temporary church and they use Bob's Restaurant parking lot for their parking which overflows onto Alves. . He felt that cul-de-sacs would allow traffic to go onto De Anza and Stevens Cr.eek and they were designed to handle it. Mr. Volckmann said he would not object to putting up a barrier. He stated that not all parking was underground and there was an existing sidewalk. There was some discussion of fumes coming from the underground parking. Byron Larson, traffic engineer for Nolte and Associates, said that although he was not an air quality expert he could not really comment on the fumes. Adams referred to the traffic contribution to the site area and asked the Assistant City Engineer for a comment. Assistant City Engineer Whitten replied that the City Council would have to have a public hearing to consider a closure with certain findings and possibly look at where the 1,650 cars go, but they could not do that until the General Plan on traffic is finished. The Commission could recommend to Council that they would support that position. Com. Koenitzer was concerned about illegal left turns for the amount of cars on Alves and asked if the cars could be deferred to other rou tes. Chairperson Adams asked Com. Koenitzer what the FAR of the building No. 1 would be. He felt the other two would exceed the FAR for the area and until the Commission knows the limit on the second tier he would not be in favor of going any further. Com. Koenitzer replied that building No.1 has a FAR of .235. Thomas Magnuson, 20899 Alves Drive, asked about another driveway and where it would be in reference to access for fire trucks. Com. Claudy did not feel that from a traffic point of view this development would cause any real additional problems. He felt he could approve Buildings 1 and 2 with an FAR of .39 which is high but has underground parking and an attractive building and a cul-de-sac. He suggested approving Buildings 1 and 2 and recommending to Council that as soon as the General Plan is adopted they hold a public hearing to consider a method of eliminating the problem of traffic, possibly a temporary barrier. Com. Blaine agreed and said most traffic is probably generated by Gemco, and when Council can they should have a public hearing, but --~ ~- ~---_&_- ~---~~.- MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION PC-408 Chairperson Adams thought he could accept building 1 and opposed 2 and 3, but with the cul-de-sac that presented other options and he could consider buildings 1 and 2 but would put in a condition that when the traffic study and General Plan are finalized it would be made a cul-de-sac. Pa ge 10 Associate Planner Piasecki said that possibly the Commission could have the applicant's traffic engineer conduct an analysis on the impact of closure. Mr. Volckman thought the cónsiderat:onswere fair but felt it would be a mistake to close off the back onto Alves. He said he would put up the barrier if requested. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was move by Com Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine ånd passed unanimously to make a Negative Declaration. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to approve I-V-83 with the exhibits being changed to reflect the deletion of Building 3 and only one driveway cut on Alves be permitted, and the existing cut be moved to a different location which would delete the westerly cut and that the applicant agree to a cul-de-sac on Alves if the traffic study permits, Condition No. 16 be amended not to exceed a FAR of .39. Add another condition that the applicant have his traffic engineer do a study on the effects of the cul-de-sac on Alves Drive. The Planning Commission requested that staff ask the City Council for a decision regarding Mr. Volkman's degree of participation in any traffic control measures deemed necessar by Council. 4. Application 2-U- 83 of MITCHELL BROS. AUTO PARTS: USE PERHIT to allow the reconditioning of engine parts (machine shop) in an existing retail automotive parts store and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located within the Monta Vista Commercial Area on the northeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Adriana Avenue in a P (Planned Development with neighborhood commercial, incidental industrial and residential intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - February 22, 1983. Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the application and showed slides showing the location with reference to where improvements would be made. Com. Claudy asked what happened ro the site that went before ASAC for signing. Associate Planner Piasecki said that Council had asked that a set of design guidelines be set for Honta Vista to include signage (refer to Condition No. 26). Deputy City Attorney Foster was informed that there was a fairly major improvement being planned for the whole center and that it may be appropriate to add another condition which would make the owner pay his share. pc-408 Page 11 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION Assistant City Engineer Whitten replied that it was the Adriana Impr ovemen t s . Jim Mitchell, 38803 Kenya Heights Drive, Fremont, said that the auto parts and machine shop were an integral part of their operation and he felt that the staff recommendation was extensive. Assistant City Engineer Whitten reviewed the improvements on Stevens Creek, i.e. curb, gutter, sidewalk, and Adriana. Mr. Mitchell said that although they rent they were operating some machines and he found when they needed to rewire for 220 that they needed a use permit. Maurice Mitchell of Cupertino said he had small compressor inside and when they ordered new equipment and found they needed a new electrical permit, this led to the need for a use permit. He said they had received no complaints. Com. Blaine was concerned about the larger compressor being outdoors, particularly in regard to the noise level. Kenneth Mitchell of Cupertino stated that he had had a survey at the shopping center and said there was not a noise problem. He felt they could get a sound engineer to see that it is adequately enclosed. As to the sign he said Council would be willing to waive certain improvements, and because they are a small company they have limited finances but would be willing to do their part. There was some dis- cussion on the renter VB. property owner doing improvements, and Associate Planner Piasecki said that the application was signed by both. Ken Mitchell asked if they could do it gradually. He said they were willing to make the improvements. He also said he was seeking the permit as the applicant and the owner's signature was reques ted. Chairperson Adams said that the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that Council could accept or reject their recommendations. Director of Planning and Development Sisk informed the applicants that they should be prepared for council and they could ask about timing of any improvements. Ken Mitchell said most of the area including Adriana are customers and they have never had any complaints. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Avenue, was speaking for Wes Williams, Monta Vista Homeowners Association. She said the Mitchells have been in violation for quite awhile because they never have had a use permit. The only reason they were here was for the 220 wiring. She said the City has put a lot of money into Monta Vista to help upgrade it and she reminded the Commission of the amount of money the City spent on improvement, i.e. streets, water mains, future signals, widening Mann Drive and trees. New applicants have to do improvements she said and she wants to see the conditions completed. PC-408' P~~ 11 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION Assistant City Engineer Whitten replied that it was the Adriana Improvements. Jim Mitchell, 38803 Kenya Heights Drive, Fremont, said that the auto parts and machine shop were an integral part of their operation and he felt that the staff recommendation was extensive. Assistant City Engineer Whitten reviewed the improvements on Stevens Creek, i.e. curb, gutter, sidewalk, and Adriana. Mr. Mitchell said that although they rent they were operating some machines and he found when they needed to rewire for 220 that they needed a use permit. Maurice Mitchell of Cupertino said he had small compressor inside and when they ordered new equipment and found they needed a new electrical permit, this led to the need for a use permit. He said they had received no complaints. Com. Blaine was concerned about the larger compressor being outdoors, particularly in regard to the noise level. Kenneth Mitchell of Cupertino waid that he had had a survey at the shopping center and said there was not a .~oise problem. He felt they could get a sound engineer to see that it is adequately enclosed. As to the sign he said Council would be willing to waive certain improvements, and because they are a small company they have limited finances but would be willing to do their part. There was some dis- cussion on the renter VB. property owner doing improvements, and Associate Planner Piasecki said that the application was signed by both. Ken Mitchell asked if they could do it gradually. He said they were willing to make the improvements. He also said he was seeking the permit as the applicant and the owner's signature was requested. Chairperson Adams said that the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that Council could accept or reject their recommendations. Director of Planning and Development Sisk informed the applicants that they should be prepared for council and they could ask about timing of any improvements. Ken Mitchell said most of the area including Adriana are customers and they have never had any complaints. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Avenue, was speaking for Wes Williams, Monta Vista Homeowners Association. She said the Mitchells have been in violation for quite awhile because they never have had a use permit. The only reason they were here was for the 220 wiring. She said the City has put a lot of money into Monta Vista to help upgrade it and she reminded the Commission of the amount of money the City spent on improvement, i.e. streets, water mains, future signals, widening Mann Drive and trees. New applicants have to do improvements she said and she wants to see the conditions completed. .MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION I pc-408 Page 12 It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. Com. Claudy stated that the site is now in great need of upgrading. Com. Blaine agreed with Com. Claudy and was all for the conditions. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. C1audy and passed unanimo sly to approve 2-U-83, Conditions 1-21 per staff reports, Condition 22 delete "on the side of the building", 23 change southerly to northerly, Contitions 24-27, add Contition 28 to require the applicant/property owner to participate in cost sharing of improvements to Adriana according to his benefit. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to grant a Negative Declaration. 5. Application l-TM-83 of JAMES F. RILEY (BARCLAYS BANK): TEN- TATIVE PARCEL MAP to subdivide 2.7 acres into two parcels consistin of approximately 1.7 and .9 acres and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue in a CG-da (General Commercial) zoning district. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the application and re- commended approval. James Riley, project engineer, introduced himself., It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to grant a Negative Declaration. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to approve the application. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson Adams reported on the Mayor's luncheon and said that ASAC would be responsible for making a model of the Core Area. It was suggested that possibly seniors or scouts could do such a model as a project and it would be a tool to look at. It was also suggested that possibly $200 be spent for materials. REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR - None At 11:35 p.m. the Commission adjourned to 7:30 p.m., Monday, March 1, 1983.