Loading...
PC 07-12-82 ,CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 12, 1982 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Adams, Binneweg, Blaine, Koenitzer, Chairperson Claudy Staff Present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk City Clerk Cornelius Assistant City Engineer Whitten Associate Planner Piasecki APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 28, 1982: Com. Blaine stated that on page 5 pertaining to arterials, it should read, "Prospect east of De Anza Boulevard". It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the June 28, 1982 meeting as amended. POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: It was moved by Com. Adams, seCOnded¡' by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to postpone Applications 7-2-82 of Lynch-Mikulaco and 8-2-82 of Michael Lynch to the meeting of August 9, 1982. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A petition pertaining to Application l5-U-79 (Revised), Agenda Item No.7, was received. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application 7-2-82 of Lynch-Mikulaco: Prezoning approximately .24 gross acre from Santa Clara County ML (Light Industrial) zone to City of Cupertino ML (Light Industrial) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and Environ- mental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Imperial Avenue and Olive Avenue approximately 450 ft. south of Lomita Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 16, 1982. This item was postponed until August 9, 1982. ¡ Î , , PC-390 1 Page 1 ¡ j ~ ¡ , J 1 , ! 1 ¡ ¡ I ¡ I j ¡ ! i ¡ June 28 ! minutes approved as amended 7-2-82 postponed PC-390 p~ae 2 MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2. Application 8-Z-82 of Michael Lynch: Zoning approximately .15 gross acre to the City of Cupertino ML (Light Industrial) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and Environmental Review: The project was previously assessed, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located at the end of Olive Avenue on the east side of Imperial Avenue. This is a portion of the abandoned right of way of Olive Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 16, 1982. 8-2-82 postponed This item was postponed until August 9, 1982. 3. Application 6-U-82 of Berg & Berg Industrial Developers: Use Permit to construct two office buildings totaling approximately 92,500 sq. ft. and Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the west side of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road approximately 300 ft. north of Prospect Road in a P (Planned Development with commercial, office and/or residential) intent zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 19, 1982. I A..oc,"" ,'.on.. ".",ck' c.."'" ok, k'.,.", 0' ,k. "" 0' ,k. I~ proposed development. Prior owners had removed mature trees, therefore, extra landscaping was required of the applicant. Staff had some concern regarding the proposed curb cuts, landscaped frontage and sidewalk setback. Mr. Piasecki stated that the submitted plan does have some problems. There is no consolidation of curb cuts to the south. There was concern regarding tree replacement and sidewalk standard as well as lack of architectural variety. The proposed long driveway is also a concern. In addition, many of the remaining trees are dying. Staff recommended denial of the proposal. John Kontrabecki of Berg & Berg informed the Commission that he felt the staff comments were minor and technical and could be dealt with. Residents in back of the area of the proposed develop- ment wanted a large building to serve as a noise buffer and had expressed no objection to the buildings being proposed. He stated that a joint driveway with the Coach House Center could not be accomplished as power poles served as obstructions and Berg I & Berg had no control over the Coach House Center. He stated that the lack of reciprocal ingress/egress to the Coach House Center and the proposed parking lot was an oversight. He was aware of I the history of the landscaping and the drawings were conceptual. , Berg & Berg does intend to comply with the requirements. The court- yard between the two buildings is landscaped. He stated that I he had worked with the neighboring homeowners and wishes to work I with staff to refine the proposal. He felt that the City's concep- I tual plan for the area was used and that the proposed ~idewalk would be adjusted to comply. ~ ~ ~ I I MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ' PC-390 '! Page 3 :¡ Marv Kirkeby, 7246 Sharon Drive, San Jose, one of the owners of the , property behind Galaxy Lighting, stated that he found no major problems ;¡ with the size of the building but did have concern regarding the access.j Commission discussed the architecture of the proposed building as j well as the driveway and curb cuts. Commissioners felt that the pro- i posed buildings did not address the desires of the Commission that ' had been discussed at an earlier meeting. It was felt that the pro- posed building did not have a suburban look. An example of Town and Country Village was cited. It was suggested that the design be for three buildings rather t~an two with courtyards in between. It was suggested that the design be "flipped" so there was no driveway on the southern border and limited visitor parking in front. Mr. Kontrabecki stated that he felt the design is in conformance with 'j', the conceptual plan. He hoped to work with Mr. Kirkeby regarding access. However, he did want the project to be considered separately from Mr. Kirkeby's. He did not wish a continuance on the application but requested the Commission to take action. It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unan- imously to close the public hearing. , Public hearing closed It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration. Negative Dec. for 6-U-82 It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed with Com. Binneweg dissenting to recommend denial of Application 6-U-82. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not comply with the conceptual plan adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1981, particularly in the following areas: location of driveways and consolidation of curb cuts, architecture of building, sidewalk setbacks and landscaping plans. 6-U-82 den ied 4. Application l-U-68 (Revised) of Dale Applegate & Robert Morgan: Use Permit Amendment to allow general office and commercial uses in a converted residence. The use permit currently allows real estate office use only. Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 270 ft. east of Stelling Road in a CG General Commercial) zoning district. First hearing. Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the application with the Commission. Mr. Robert Morgan, applicant, stated that all he had applied for was an interpretation of the current use permit which refers only to a real estate office. He felt that other uses such as an insurance broker or attorney would also be a reasonable use for the site. He stated he did not apply for commercial use, and he has no plans for development at this time. The previous resolution was too restrictive, and he felt that appropriate office use went beyond real estate. He stated that he felt the staff took liberties because of a possible Community Housing Developers project. A letter received from Mr. Applegate was read. This letter refers to an amendment to a use permit which is a change in a use permit. l'C-39D Page 4 Public hearing " losed '.( _ive Dec. ,'or l-U-68 (Revised) l-U-68 (Rev.) ,lpproved MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Morgan stated that his building had partially burned and the existing tenant had been lost during the rebuilding process. At this time he cannot find a real estate tenant. Various people wishing to rent the building have been turned down by the City as they were not in conformance with the use permit. Mr. Morgan stated that he had purchased the building in approximately 1974 or 1975 and at this time there were no plans to resurface the parking area. Commissioners stated that it was not possible to interpret the intent of the Planning Commission in 1968 when the current use permit was issued. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. The Commission discussed the value of the property the applicants were being asked to dedicate. Mr. Morgan stated that about 180 ft. of frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard had been purchased, and it does have a value because of exposure on Stevens Creek Boulevard. He stated that if the land were taken, approximately a quarter of the value would be taken. He further stated that in the future if development did occur, the street might be elsewhere than what is being supposed at this time. He stated there is value in what is being taken from him. It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed uannimously to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration. It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed with Com.. Binneweg dissenting to approve the application with the following amendments: Condition No. 17, delete "and agree to improve.." Add Condition No. 20 stating that if the property to the south were developed first, that developer would pave Bianchi Way and be reimbursed by the applicant when they develop their property. However, should the applicants develop first, they would pave their portion of the street. This application was approved subject to the findings and subcon- clusions per staff report dated July 8, 1982. Chairperson Claudy informed Mr. Morgan of the appeal procedure. Mr. Morgan stated that he would appeal the Planning Commission decision and would want a transcript of the meeting for court action. 5. Application 7-U-82 of Consuelo C. Moreno: Use Permit to operate a day care home for ten (10) children in a single- family residence and Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declara- tion. The subject property is located on the west side of Bubb Road approximately 175 ft. south of Regnart Road and 700 ft. north of Rainbow Drive (11351 Bubb Road) in a Rl-7.5 (Residential Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First hearing. MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Director of Planning and Development Sisk informed the Commission that a total of six children are allowed in a day care home without a special use permit. He reviewed the application with the Commission. '. . ¡ ! '! '1 í ,I I I Consuelo C. Moreno stated that she has cared for six children locations. If there was concern regarding increased traffic, could stagger the times for dropoff and pickup of children. at other she Concern was expressed by the Commission regarding safety of getting in and out of the driveway. Don Gorman, adjacent property owner, expressed his opposition to the proposed day care center. He stated that traffic on Bubb Road was already bad and felt it would be extremely difficult to see out of the driveway to pullout. He also felt day care in the home would reduce the value of surrounding homes. He felt that ten children could present a nuisance problem to neighbors. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unan- imously to recommend granting of a Negative Declaration. It was moved by Com. Adams, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to deny Application 7-U-82 subject to findings and con- clusions per the staff report and that the traffic situation is haz- ardous. The applicant was informed regarding the appeal process. RECESS: 9:30-9:43 p.m. 6. Application 8-U-82 of James H. Asher: Use Permit to operate a take-out doughnut shop within an existing commercial building and Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recom- mends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Imperial Avenue (10010 Imperial Avenue) within the Monta Vista neighborhood commercial area. The property is zoned P (PLanned Development with commercial, industrial, and/or residential intent). First hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 19, 1982. Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the application and showed an aerial view of the area and site plan. He also presented slides showing the site and the parking lot as it presently exists. The business partner of the applicant stated that the doughnuts for the proposed shop would be delivered and not baked on the premises. There will be minimum area for eating in the shop, but this would not be encouraged. As the proposed doughnut shop would not have the same hours as the Tap Room, the applicant did not feel additional parking was needed. " " ., " 'I :1 E j PC-390 :~ Page 5 ! :! " ¡ i 'I , , , j I -, , 1 Public hearing JClosed ,- j ¡ Negative Dec. ~ for 7-U-82 ! 7-U-82 I denied PC-390 Pa~ 6 ~ublic hearing olosed ~egative Dec. for 8-U-82 g-U~2 approved MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Irene Tolbert, owner of the property, reviewed a history of the property with the Commission. She stated that the Tap Room lease expires in one year and three months and it was not going to be renewed. At that time the center would be renovated. She re~ested that certain improvements not be done at this time but be delayed until renovation of the entire center. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Avenue, stated that there was no guarantee regarding future development and was concerned regarding this. However, she did realize it would be a waste of money to do improvements that would only exist for a short period of time. She expressed support for small shops in the Monta Vista area. City Attorney Kilian said that a deferred agreement could be recorded as a condition of the use permit. Such an agreement runs with the land, whether the use permit continues or not. Also the use permit could be amended at a future time. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unanimously to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unanimously to recommend approval of Application 8-U-82, Conditions 1-14; 15, 18 and 21 per the staff report; Condition No. 22 added putting Conditions 16, 17, 19 and 20 in a deferred agreement for a two year period from the granting of a use permit; findings and subconclusions per staff report. ~ ! I. í I " I J ~ ¡ ! 8. Application 3-U-77 (Revised) of AAA Ambulance Company: Modification of an existing use permit to allow an ambulance company within an existing commercial/office center and Environ- mental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue in a P (Planned Development with commercial intent) zoning district. First hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 19, 1982. 9. Application 2-V-82 of Mark Fantozzi: Variance from Section 8.5.1 of the Rl (Residential Single-family) Zoning Ordinance to permit a height of 17 ft. 6 inches on a detached garage in lieu of the maximum 15 ft. height permitted 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 Linda Vista Drive approximately 650 ft. south of Hyannisport Drive between Evulich Court and Baxley Court at 10915 Linda Vista Drive in a Rl-7.5 (Residential Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 19, 1982. MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-390 Page 7 10. Application 3-V-82 of Donald F. & Connie S. Dooley: Variance from Sections 20.24.060 and 20.08.220(D.6) of the San Jose Zoning Ordinance to permit a rear setback of 18 ft. for the main building and 10 ft. for a deck in lieu of the 27 ft. main building and 15 ft. deck setback required by Ordinance and Environmental Review: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the east side of Bubb Road approximately 150 ft. north of Columbus Avenue (1056 Bubb Road). First hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 19, 1982. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unanimously to continue Items 8, 9 and 10 to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 14, 1982. 3-U-77 (Rev.), 2~V-72 and 3-z-82 contin- ued Mr. James Cox, 10139 North Blaney, addressed Commission regarding Agenda Item No.8. He stated that people could not be notified prior to the Wednesday meeting and requested that another mailout occur for notice as the notice received had stated that the matter would be discussed that night. Mr. Cox was informed that items can be con- tinued to a particular date. The City Attorney stated that the notice is a legal requirement, but if the Planning Commission does not get to the item, it is legal to adjourn the meeting to another time. Earlier in the meeting the Chairperson had said that the Commission would go through as much of the agenda as possible and that members of the audience should stay. 7. Application 15-U-79 (Revised) of Edward Yamaoka: Modification of an existing use permit to allow live music in a cocktail lounge (Heedee's) and Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue in a CG (General Commercial) zoning district. First hearing. Director of Planning and Development Sisk reviewed the application with the Commission. He stated that this application was for live music only and not for dancing. Edward Yamoaka stated that he would like the use permit for live music at this time but would come back with the request to allow dancing at a later date. The proposed music would be non-amplified and would be piano bar type. Stan Shelley, Environmental Consulting Services, stated that he had studied potential noise impacts from live music. He did not feel that the music noise would be an issue as it would have no impact on adjacent areas. He stated that the addition of three feet to the back wall would make no difference in noise attenuation. PC-390 p, 8 I I ¡ ¡ I I I , I f I I ¡ ! , Public hearing ¡ closed ¡ . " ~ 9 ¡ ¡ I MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I Helen Cortese, adjacent resident, said that she felt the addition of three feet to the wall had been resolved and that Mr. Yamaoka and the residents would be happy with the additional three feet. She felt that this particular application would have an effect on property values. Don Mortimer, San Jose, stated that he works at Tandem Computers and does frequent Heedee's Lounge. He informed the Commission that he does bring business associates to the lounge and would not want loud music. Don Wright requested clarification of the proposed conditions. He said that there is motorcycle traffic in the back alley of the center and also debris. He felt the raising of the wall might help the problem. Jerry Frazier, neighbor, said that he had gone to Heedee's Lounge to check the premises. He did not see any potential noise problems. He stated that the alley problems were not necessarily associated with Heedee's. Lee Cheney said that he had gone to Heedee's to check the alley and the surroundings. He found no noise in the alley. Alice Anderson, neighbor, stated that she did like dancing but was concerned regarding a dancehall atmosphere. She requested that the fence be raised. Mr. Yamoaka stated that he felt the addition to the fence would be a waste of money at this time as the shopping center is being redesigned. He requested that the fence issue be deferred until that time. He felt the issue of noise had been addressed adequately. Ann White, resident, said that there had been a noise problem with the bar and asked what the fence requirement was for new development (6 ft.). She felt this was an opportunity to upgrade. Mr. Don Wright said the fence was approximately 5~ ft. from the alley side. He requested the additional fence height for security purposes. A gentleman stated he did not see what these problems had to do with Heedee's. The only way to solve them would be to close the alley. Chairperson Claudy stated the problems pertaîned to the shopping center. The gentleman stated that the only noise he had heard was noise from neighborhood dogs barking. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. Mr, Yamaoka stated that there were concerned citizens on both sides and perhaps raising the wall would solve those problems. Therefore, he would agree to raise the wall. MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unan- imously to accept the ERG recommendation for granting a Negative Declaration. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to approve Application 15-U-79 (Revised) per Conditions 1-14 per staff report; Condition 15 amended to include a statement that the approval is for the present ABC licensee; Conditions 16-21; and findings and subconclusions per staff report. ' At 11:20 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to 7:30 p.m., July 14,1982. APPROVED: // / ATTEST: ,42~ 6~ City Clerk PC-390 Page 9 Negative Dec. for 15-U-79 l5-U-79 (Rev.) approved