Loading...
PC 05-13-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 13, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Mahoney, Harris, Chairman R~oberts, Commissioner absent: Doyle Staffpresent: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Vera Gil, Associate Planner; Tom Wiles, Planning Intern. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 22, 1996 meeting: The following changes were made to the April 22, 1996 meeting: Page 3, 2nd last line on page: Change to rea~l: "Commission act as an umbrella to examine the issues involving planning. The ASAC was disbanded for that" Page 8, 8th Paragraph: Delete paragraph and replace with "Ms. Bjurman explained the process followed in Los Gates, Los Altos, Palo Alto, and Santa Clara, cities that were certified. She said that they had extensive public information progran~ in the cemmunities with publications available to the public." Page 9, 3rd Paragraph from bottom, second line: Change to read: "given, rehabilitation has been referred to as the middle of thc road, but actually is the least" Page 9, 3rd Paragraph from bottom, third line: Add the word "as" before "they" Page 15, 4th Paragraph, second line: "billed" should read "built" Page 19, line 1: Change street name to "Balustrnl Ct." MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin Harris moved to approve the April 22, 1996 minutes as amended. Chairman Roberts Corns. Harris Com. Doyle Passed 3-0-1 Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 13, 1996 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Roberts noted correspondence pertaining to Item 3; a revised staff report on Item 4; and a letter pertaining to Item 5. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 1-V-96 (Appeal) Dan Askorinam Same 10496 Byme Avenue Public hearing to consider appeal of Director of Community Development decision to approve a modification of Application No. 1-V-96. Appeal was filed by the applicant, Dan Askorinam. Application No. 1-V-96 requested a variance to construct a 3,095 sq. ft. single family residence with a floor area ratio of .55 versus .45 for 10496 Byme Avenue. The Director of Community Development approved a variance to allow a 2,700 SCl. ft. residence or a .48 FAR, whichever is less. ENVIRONIVIENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 20, 1996 Staff vresentation: Mr. Colin lung, Associate Planner, explained that the application waz an appeal of variance modified and approved by the Director of Community Development. Mr. Jung reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Jung explained that the three state mandated variance findings required to grant a variance are: (1) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property which do not generally apply to other properties ia the districts. The Director of Community Development found that the size of the dedication itself and that two 10-foot dedications required construed a unique dedication of land. (2) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right. The Director found that an additional entitlement above the .45 FAR was a reasonable grant of an additional entitlement to the property owner. The Director granted a FAR as if it were a 6,000 sq. ft. lot. (3) That the granting of such application will not affect the health and safety of residents or workers ia the district or will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in said neighborhood. The Director of Community Development found that the granting of the application would not materially or adversely affect the health, safety or residence of workers ia the District or be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements, in that the applicant was able to demonstrate through some conceptual site plans that he was able to construct a 3,000 square foot house; and thus a 2,700 sq. ft. house that met all the setbacks, floor coverage, height requirements of the district, although not meeting the FAR requirement. Plann/ng Commission Minutes 3 May 13, t996 Mr. Jung stated that the Director of Community Development granted the variance for the 2,700 sq. fi. house. The applicant is appealing the request, stating that he n~ts the 3,095 sq. ft. house in order to make the development of the property workable. Mr. Jung presented Exhibit A, the applicant's appeal of the variance granted. Staff reoommends that the Director of Community Development's decision be upheld. In response to Chairman Roberts' question about options available, Mr. Jung explained that the Planning Commission is the recommending body to the City Council and is able to hear the appeal as if no variance was granted on the application. The Planning Commission has the right to modify, deny the application, or uphold the decision. There are no constraints in the deliberations of the recommendation. Referring to the county assessor parcel maps, Mr. Jung illustrated the lot arrangements and discussed the various sizes of the neighboring lots. He pointed out that County development practices do not have FARs for their housing projects. Com. Harris noted that the request was for a 10% increase in FAR, but in reality it is a 20% increase in square footage. Chairman Roberts questioned what the net lot area would be if, instead of a 10 foot setback on Byme Avenue, the dedication was only 5 feet? Mr. Jung said that the plan for Monta Vista was devised 10 or 15 years ago and the road widths were established in the past; and exactly how wide they wanted them in the future when these properties did come into the City. He said that any astute buyer who was looking to redeveloping the property should have come to the City to find out in advance exactly how much area would be taken in roadway dedication; it would not be recorded with the title. Mr. Morey Nelson, civil engineer, representing Mr. Askorinam, stated that the applicant meets the requirements of the three findings listed in the code, and noted that they are exceptional conditions not applied to properties in the same district. Mr. Nelson addressed the first finding, noting that the parcel was located on the northeast comer of the intersection of McClellan Road and Byme Avenue. In order to construct a new structure on the parcel, a dedication for public fight of way would be required on the frontage of both streets ns discussed earlier. The dedication of 1,844 sq. ft. results in a significant 25% reduction of the parcel's area. Other parcels in the area front only on one street and if the dedication were limited to a strip of land 10 feet wide on Byme Avenue, the reduction in the area would only be 10%. Relative to the second finding, Mr. Nelson stated that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property fight and to prevent unreasonable property loss or uunecessary hardship since the applicant is already yielding 25% of his property for a public dedieatien. With the price of land in the area at a premium, the only way he could preserve the property values would be to construct a residence with a floor area of 3,095 sq. ft. He noted that Mr. Askorinam is not asking for a variance to the setback requirements, nor the allowable lot coverage of 40% of the net lot area; therefore there would be room for yard area and landscaping. The third finding, the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to the properly in the vicinity and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, nor convenience, since the applicant intends to apply with the setback in lot coverage requirements. All construction would meet the government building codes, it would be connected Planning Commission M/nut~ 4 May 13, 1996 to the Cupertino Sanitary Sewerage District facilities and to the Cupertino water system. Replacement of the existing structure would be an enhancement to the area. Mr. Nelson asked that the Planning Commission consider the responses to the findings and approve Mr. Askorinam's request. Mr. D. Askorinam, 10496 Byme Avenue, stated that before anyone purchased the property, the dedications are not included or excluded, when the property is'purchased it would be a 7,500 sq. f~. lot, not a 5,600 sq. ft. lot which means a substantial loss, and the only way to recoup it is to build a bigger house. He submitted a hst of eight homes on Byme Avenue and Delores, whose square footage exceeded 3,000 square feet. He pointed out that his proposed home would not be much larger and because it is within the setbacks, it would not be outside the parameters. In response to Com. Harris' questions, Mr. Askorinam stated that the house was a 5 bedroom, 2-1/2 bath home with a 2 car garage. He said it would be difl~calt to fit a 5 bedroom home in the square footage the Planning Commission recommended. He stated that he had submitted preliminary floor plans for the proposed home, and he felt it would be an enhancement to the site. There was a brief discussion regarding the neighboring lots on Byrne Avenue wherein Mr. Askorinam answered questions about the square footage of the lots. Mr. Jung stated that the proposed home would be larger than most of the existing homes in the neighborhood, noting that the existing homes were older homes. He said that the homes listed on Mr. Askorinam's list included homes within the city and also in the county; but none of the homes within the city jurisdiction had requested a floor area ratio variance. Chairman Roberts asked if Mr. Askorinam had checked at City Hall about the dedication requirements before he purchased the home. Mr. Askorinam responded that he was aware of the dedication but after the purchase he realized the difference in the FAR. Clmirman Roberts pointed out that according to the map, them were properties on McClellan and Byrne where the l0 foot dedication was already carried through. He referred to Exhibit E where there were several properties shown on the map from which 10 feet has already been taken off. Referring to the map, Mr. Jung explained that annexation in the Monta Vista area is done on an incremental basis. He illustrated two properties that had a requirement of a 10 foot dedication. Chairman Roberts opened the public hearing for public comment. As there was no public input, the public input portion of the hearing was closed. Com. Austin stated that the 45 FAR was reasonable; the dedication was known well in advance and she was in favor of upholding the Director of Community Development's decision to grant a .48 FAR. Com. Mahoney explained that when the request was first presented at .55 he was concerned; but when it came back with a no response, and as a .48 he was reassured. He said that he felt the .48 was reasonable. PlannJn~ Commi.~ion M~nutcs $ May 13, 1996 Com. Harris said that the .45 is a little low, especially in light of the dedications, but if the Director's variance is considered, the 2,700 square feet less the typical 450 square foot garage, tber¢ would be a 2,250 square foot house which would accommodate 3 or 4 bedrooms, which is relatively typical and appropriate, and not a detriment to the substantial use of thc property to have 2,250 square foot of living area. She said she was in favor of the Di~ctor's approved maximum building area of.4g FAR or 2,700 square feet, whichever is less. Chairman Roberts concurred; stating that as a further consideration that the allowance of 2,700 square feet was more or less what would have been obtained if the dedication on Byme had only been 5 feet and if we were to apply the .45 FAR. It is not an unreasonable constraint and does not preclude reasonable use of the property. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris endorsed that. the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council thc approval of thc Planning Director's variance to .48 FAR or 2,700 square feet, whichever is less Com. Austin Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Chairman Roberts explained to Mr. Ask0rinam that the Planning Commission supports the decision of the Director of Community Development and recommends to the City Council the .48 FAR or 2,700 square feet, whichever is less. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 1 -TM-96 Donald Bald Frank Graham 22366 Hartman Drive Tentative Map to subdivide a .69 acre parcel into two lots. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Mr. Jung reviewed the application to subdivide a 0.69 -acre parcel into two lots, ns outlined in the attached staff report. Referring to the tentative map, he pointed out that the lots were slightly larger than normally found in a R1-7.5 zone primarily because of PG&E right- of-way along the back of the property. He illustrated the PG&E right-of-way on the tentative map. Mr. June pointed out that the architect attempted to design a two story home which fits within the triangular developable portion of tbe lot. Staff recommends approval of application for the two lot subdivision in accordance with the model resolution. Com. Harris questioned the response letter from PG&E which indicated that the required horizontal clearance was insufficient. Mr. Jung responded that PG&E had initially required the right-of-ways for their electrical transmission corridor in 1943 and 1953 which was 13 years after construction of the subdivision and probably before the subdivision was constructed and afar the electrical lines were in; and now they are saying that because of certain PUC requirements, there has to be a certain distance PlanningCommissinnMiantes 6 May 13, 1996 requirement that is placed betweefi the electrical conductors and the house itself which is outside of the easement lines they have acquired. What they are asking 'for is an additional clearance outside their easement line in order to meet safety coneems. Mr. Jang said he has been talking to PO&E, as well as Mr. Bahl talking to them about the issue and asked that discussion be withheld until Mr. Bahl can provide his perspective on this particular issue. Mr. Donald Bahl, Bahl Homes, said that he was the original developer of the property in 1966. Mr. Bahl explained that the power lines came through in 1943 and were the premier tower lines about 60 feet tall. What PG&E is claiming, and is a result of the storms last winter, is that they did some calculations and if there was a 56 mph wind and the temperature of the conductor was 60 degrees that it is possible that the conductor or what are called the power lines, could sway outside of their easement line and therefore they need a horizontal cleanmce. They do not mention about a vertical clearance; the maximum height to build a home in the city is 28 feet from the pad elevation and that is to the peak of the roof and the power lines are up at least 50 feet. He said he felt the 22 foot vertical clearance was sufficient to satisfy the 6 foot horizontal clearance they were requesting.. The other question raised with them is that it is 1100 feet to the next tower;'the next tower sits on Alpine; the mid span is 550 feet. It is true in the center that the power line might swing outside the easement, but the lines are attached to those towers and there is no way that the line is going to deflect that much at 117 feet and if it does, he said he could not imagine how far outside the easement it is at 550 feet at the mid span. Mr. Bahl said that he and Mr. Jung agreed that they will aUempt to resolve the issue with PG&E. They are discussing it with their transmission people and are also looking at what rights they have outside their easement line. Com. Harris asked if they were specifically referring to a California PUC rule, and if Mr. Bahl was hoping to get a variance from that ruling a change in the ruling. Mr. Bahl said he was attempting to get a reasonable ruling. He said he felt PG&E was asking for something thatbeyond their rights. It is not a safety problem; it is such a significant difference between the conductor height and the very peak of the building itself. He said he was willing to go ahead and allow the condition in the resolution and to resolve it with PG&E. In response to Mr. Bald's request for furtber discussion on the park fee, Ms. Wordell indicated it would have to go through the City Council for a ruling on park fees. Chairman Robcrts pointed out that the City Attorney would probably advise against making legal decisions if asked to comment on thc validity of this particular claim. Mr. Jung pointed out that staff's primary concern with the subdivision is that it is done in a safe maaner; that it meets PG&E standards for a safe separation between building site and the electrical transmission lines. That is why the condition was put in, and Mr. Bahl has agreed to work it out with PG&E. Mr. Bahl is also pursuing a separate vacation of public land along the front of his property and if he obtains that it would increase his building area. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. As there was no public input, the public input portion of the meeting was closed. Com. Harris said she did not want to create a non-buildable lot that may result in the need to build on because the Planning Commission created it, and she stated that every lot has to be able to be Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 13, 1996 used. She said resolution with PG&E is necessary; there is a negotiation with PG&E relative to it being outside the easement and it is apparently a safety issue to PG&E. If it is a safety issue it becomes a Planning Commission issue, and she said she would be willing to look at the issue once it has been resolved. She said it was a significant issue and did not want to approve a subdivision that that has caveats in it. Com. Harris said she was not comfortable approving this as written until the PG&E issue is resolved. She said she did not want to put herself in a position of evaluating whether PG&E is wrong; they have roles and laws they apply consistently and once they make their decision on the appeal that is before them she would gladly act on it. Com. Maboney said he concurred with Com. Hams in many aspects, except the difference between a 4.3 foot clearance and a 6.0 clearance. He said that as long as the applicant is proceeding knowing that this is the lot size and these are the constraints at this point in time, he was willing to go along with approval consistent with that. He said it was buildable with something smaller. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 1-TM-96 according to the model resolution. Com. Maboney Com. Doyle Com. Austin, Mahoney Com. Harris, Chairman Roberts Failed 2-24) There was a discussion about whether to continue the application as opposed to a denial of application. Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, explained that the procedure is that if approved by Public Works and all public utilities, it would go to City Council to order the vacation; then it has to go to one more meeting, and the time couM possibly be shortened. Chairman Roberts pointed out that from his perspective, a majority of the Planning Commission is in favor of approving the subdivision if the question of the public right-of-way vacating is decided favorably. There was a brief discussion about whether or not the item could be continued after the motion to deny the application was made and voted upon. There was consensus to rescind the vote on the previous motion and act on a new motion. Mr. Bald said that he would prefer a continuance until the issue was resolved with PG&E. MOTION: SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to rescind previous denial of application I-TM-96 and to continue the application to a future date when applicant can resolve the issue with PG&E. Com. Mahoney Corns. Austin, Harris and Mahoney Chairman Roberts Com. Doyle Passed 3 - 14) Planning Commission Minutes g May 13, 1996 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 2-TM-96 Emily Chen Ruby Mae Cole 21901 Dolores Avenue Tentative Map to subdivide a .45 acm parcel into one lot and one remainder lot. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Mr. Vera Gil, Planner II, reviewed the application to subdivide a .45 acm parcel into one 11,470 sq. ft. flag lot and one 8,401.25 sq. ft. remainder lot, as outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Gil explained that the subdivision has a major drainage problem. In order to achieve adequate drainage for this parcel since there is no storm drain on Delores Avenue, the rear of the property needed to be elevated in order to achieve the drainage to the front of the property. The proposed building pad needed to be elevated to allow the property to drain to the rear into the front of the proposed pad into a concrete swill which comes around and out to Delores Avenue and the runoff goes onto Byrne Avenue. The problem that it poses, in order to achieve the drainage, the elevation is higher in the rear of the property resulting in a retaining wall of 4 feet with a six foot fence atop the retaining wall. Because of the elevation of the building pad, there will be some loss of privacy for the property owners in the rear. Staffhas suggested that in order to eliminate the need for the 4 foot retaining wall, applicant explore obtaining a drainage easement on the rear property where part of the lot would drain to the front onto Dolores and part of the rear of the lot would drain back through to Alc~-~r. The rear property owner who would have the drainage easement on their property would have an unsightly concrete swill through their property. Staff has discussed with Public Works some ways of covering that and possibly requiring a grate to be placed on top of it. It would be noticeable through their property. The applicant has agreed to explore the possibility of obtaining a drainage easement from the rear property owner, and possibly providing some landscaping so that it won't be as noticeable. It is one of the conditions of approval that the applicant will explore and report back to staff. Ms. Gil reviewed the engineer's comments which have not yet been addressed on the tentative map. Applicant has stated the comments will be addressed by them prior to the final map. They are all covered under the Public Works conditions of approval. Some of the engineer's comments include: relocation oftbe water meter, design of the retaining wall, removal of the telephone pole, etc. Staff feels that the drainage problem is not significant enough to deny the subdivision, and recommends approval of the application. Responding to questions from Com. Mahoney, staff explained that the lot drains to the rear comer of the lot. Ms. Lynaugh stated that a pump is not an acceptable solution because during storms, power outages cause more problems. Ms. Emily Chen, applicant, explained that the property owner was unable to attend the meeting. She said that she had discussed the drainage problem with the engineer, and ifa retaining wall was Planning Comm/ssion Minut~ ~ May 13~ 1~96 built it would not be 4 feet high. She said she was also going to try and negotiate an easement with the neighbor in the back. Ms. Chen said two other possibilities existed: a service drain and an underneath pipe, depending upon what the difference is between the two lots. Appropriate landscaping could also be utilized. She reiterated that. the drainage is a major problem with the subdivision. She pointed out that the water meter had to be relocated also because of its small size. A brief discussion ensued regarding thc correspondence received from thc neighbors. Ms. Chen said she was aware they were not happy with a 4 foot retaining wall and that it probably could be reduced to less than 3 feet. Another alternative to discuss with the neighbors is putting pressure treated wood fence in combination with the concrete block retaining wall. She also discussed thc building pad. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Liling Fuag, 21900 Alc~,~r Avenue, said she was the owner of the property behind the subject lot. She expressed concern about the drainage problem because according to their proposed plan they want to elevate the building pad by 4 feet. She said she did not want the landscape destroyed because of the neighbor's subdivision and didn't feel they should be the victim of the developer's plan. Also, according to the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the applicant had not contacted her, so she felt she could not trust the applicant about what the future plans would be. She recommended that the application be denied until the drainage problem was resolved. She said a further concern was that the division of land on the neighbor's side may cause flooding on her side eventually, beeanse if the neighbor's land was higher, her side would be lower. Ms. Fung said she felt the applicant was insensitive to the neighboring residents. The drainage problem should be resolved in a more sensible way but not at the cost of the neighbor's interest and the destruction of the original landscape. In response to a comment contained in Ms. Fung's letter, Com. Mahoney asked if there was a map with the pattern of development indicated. Ms. Fang referred to Exhibit A, the Assessor's Map, and said she was concerned with the method of lot division. She said she felt the lot division would render a poor image for the whole area. She suggested building the drainage system for Delores Avenue to alleviate the reoccurring problem every time development occurs. Chairman Roberts asked staff if there was a plan for general drainage improvements in this neighborhood, and if it was the general pattern that all of the streets drain on the surface over to Byme and that there are storm sewers on Byme. Ms. Lynaugh responded that the City did not have the funds for installing drainage systems along those streets. She said that on Delores and Alc~Tar there are high points in the middle of the length between Orange and Byme which causes the drainage to go both ways. She said she did not think that there were substantial storm facilities such as the master drainage in this area. Discussion continued regarding the drainage problems, wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. There was a brief discussion about flag lots. Ms. Gil referred to Exhibit A and reviewed the background of the property and answered Commissioners' questions. Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 13, 1996 Com. Maboney remarked that even though the Planning Commission doesn't like flag lots, they ~ntinue to be approved. Com. Harris said she had no comment. Chairman Roberts noted that there was a pattern of flag lots subdivision in the area. He questioned if the drainage was particalar to this property. Ms. Gil said that staff has examined other subdivisions in the area and discovered that there are none with such a high retaining wall, most of the others are resolved with very small retaining walls of one to two feet or other drainage solutions utilized. Com. Harris said she felt it was beneficial for people to be able to subdivide their property appropriately, but the neighbors should not have to bear the burden of it. She said she felt she was not prepared to approve the application until the drainage problem has been resolved in such a way that will keep the neighbors whole, and not with a ten foot fence and retaining wall. She stated that she would have to see the details worked out before she could approve the subdivision. Com. Harris said that whatever decision is made would apply to the next two lots and it needs to be considered a community event. Hopefully Public Works will be willing to work on solutions that are attractive, aesthetic, functional and not just practical. She recommended a solution be reached where everyone can be a winner. Coins. Mahoney and Austin concurred with Com. Harris. In response to Com. Austin's question about the zoning which indicated the applicant had erroneously listed it as R1-75, Ms. Gil said it did not affect the application as the applicant would make the correction. She said that although flag lots were thought to be discouraged, it appeared that more would be approved, and she felt that it was not an ideal situation. Ms. Wordell explained that where a flag lot pattern already existed, as did in Monta Vista, the pattern was permitted to continue. She said that when there is no pattern, staff has not recommended creating flag lots. Discussion continued about flag lots wherein Ms. Wordell answered questions. Chairman Roberts said he was skeptical about flag lots, and that there is flag lot development in this particular neighborhood. Where the creation of the flag lot exacerbates some existing problem, and drainage is a problem in that area, it is an argument against permitting the flag lots. Chairman Roberts said that until such time as the drainage problem can be solved in a satisfactory manner to all parties, he would not approve the subdivision. The alternative is to continue the item until the drainage problem is solved or deny the application. Following a brief discussion, Ms. Chen requested the application be continued for one month. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Application No. 2-TM-96 to the June 10, 1996 Planing Commission meeting Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Plannin~ Commission Minules Il May 13, 1996 Com. Harris said if staff had more information on thc other lots, she would like to have it to get a broader picture of what is occurring in the micro community. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 45-U-87 (Mod.) Womar, Inc. Womar, Inc. 20680 Homestead Road Use Permit modification to locate a play structure at an existing fast food restaurant. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staffvresentation: Mr. Tom Wiles, Planning Intern, discussed the application for the addition of a play structure at Carl's Jr. restaurant located at 20680 Homestead Road. He reviewed the site location, scope of the project, parking, and the impact on the residential area, as outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Wiles pointed out that concerns raised by the Central Fire District in their May 6 letter would be complied with before any issuance of the building permit. The applicant has talked with Mr. George Barnes of the Central Fire District, and Mr. Barnes and the applicant have agreed to those tern. An acceptable landscape plan will also be completed for the site before the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Wiles said that parking will not be affected unless seating is installed in the play area. If installed, it must be in accordance with the city's parking regulations. Staff recommends approval of the modification to the conditional use permit 45-U-87 subject t6 the model resolution. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Wiles confirmed that the conditions listed in the Central Fire District's letter of May 6 were listed in the revised model resolution. Com. Roberts expressed concern that the addition of the play area would contribute to a parking problem of too few sites for the restaurant. Mr. Wiles responded that the present site meets the parking regulations and the owner does not plan to put any additional seating in, which would not increase the demand for parking, ffthey do plan to put in additional parking, an agreement would have to be re, ached with the shopping center owner to allow the use of additional spaces. Com. Mahoney indicated that he has not experienced a parking problem for the establishment. Mr. Ken Pastmff, Lab Analysis Associates, agent for the applicant, said that he concurred with Mr. Wiles' presentation, and that the applicant agrees with ail specified conditions including the Central Fire District conditions. Chairman Roberts opened thc meeting for public input. As there was none, the public input portion of the meeting was closed. PlaaningCommissionMinutes 12 May 13,1996 Com. Harris said she approved of children's play'facilit/es and that it helped the city's parks use and is a wholesome activity for children. She sa/d if a parking problem surfaced, it is a large parking lot and it could have shared use with other parking, such as building C. Com. Harris said that she supported the proposal. Corns. Austin and Mahoney concurred with Com. Harris. Chairman Roberts said that he also concurred, as long as parking was not a problem. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahon~y moved to approve Application 45-U-87 according to the model resolution. Com. Austin Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 33-U-87 (Mod.) and 7-EA-96 Bethel Lutheran Church Bethel Lutheran Church 10181 Finch Avenue Use Permit modification to construct a 3,653 sq. ff. classroom addition to an existing church and school. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staffo~sentation: Ms. Wordell reviewed the application for aa addition to the existing school site as prescnt~ in the attached staff report. Referring to the site plan, she discussed the surrounding building uses. Ms. Wordetl discussed the issues staff identifie~l, which included moving the stage area, and relocation of trash container. Staffis recommending approval of the application. In response to Com. Harris' question about ~placement of the magnolia trees, Ms. Wordell said that there, was no plan to replace the trees. Following a bricf discussion, them was consensus that mfe~nce to the maximum student enrollment be included as a Condition 5 in Section IH of thc resolution. Mr. Roger Griffin, Paragon Design Group, representing Bethel Lutheran Church, referred to the site plan and discussed the relocation of the trash receptacle. He said that a purple leaf plum tree would be relocated in order to allow for the trash receptacle relocation. He noted that the proposed location for the stage area was not known, and it would be presented at a later date, if it was to be moved onto the site. He requested approval for relocation of the trash receptacle and also approval of the modifications and additions to the building. discussion ensued regarding the recommended condition relative to student enrollment. Planning Commission Minutes 13 May 13, 1996 Mr~ Davis Fields, Bethel Lutheran School, discussed the enrollment numbers in the school. -He stated that there were 217 full time students enrolled in the school, fi-om preschool through sixth grade. He illustrated how the fencing would be rearranged to create more space fxom the parking lot for the play yard. He noted that the parking lot was closed offduring school hours. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Griffin explained that the magnolia trees which would be removed because of the building addition, would be replaced. He said that the trees would not be relocated to the area where the new addition would be located. Staffwill be consulted regarding the location of the replacement trees. Ms. Wordell indicated that landscaping along the new addition was not practical. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. As there was none, the public input portion was closed. Chairman Roberts noted correspondence received fi-om residents at 10197 Finch Avenue registering concerns about the proposed addition. A brief discussion ensued regarding the concerns addressed in the letter. It was noted that the first concern was addressed; the second one applicant will return for; the third concern could be dealt with at the time the application for the stage is presented; the fourth concern is City policy. Ms, Wordell explained that the requirement for construction to be halted at 5 p.m. would not be required by City policy. There was consensus to amend Condition 3 to indicate the trash container would be located in the southwest comer of the property with specific design and landscaping designs included, approved at the building permit level. A fifth condition will be added to include reference to previous conditions. Com. Austin said she was in favor of the application. She said she wns in favor of restricting the construction times during the week fi'om 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and not before 9 a.m. on Saturday, stopping at 5 p.m. on Saturday. Ms. Wordell pointed out that specified hours might be a problem because most of the workers were volunteer workers and would be working at the later hours. Com. Austin revised the stoppage hours to 8 p.m. to accommodate volunteer workers. Com. Mahoney said he approved the application under the current conditions. Com. I-~rris said she was in favor the application, provided the previous conditions were carried forth. Chairman Roberts concurred. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Ma,honey moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 33-U-87 (M) Com. Austin Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 33-U-87 (M) with conditions as amended. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 14 May 13, 1996 Com. Harris requested that staff remind the Planning Commission when the request to move the stage is submitted, rather than submit it too far in advance so that the resident's concern could be addressed. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Ms. Wordell provided a brief ulxlate on the RHS Ordinance Amendment as outlined in the attached report form. There was a brief discussion about the housing mitigation for office/industrial uses being revisited during the annual General Plan review. In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Wordell stated that staffwould present the options to the Council. Ms. Wordell reported that the Historic Preservation ordinance would be presented this week. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 28, 1996. Approved as amended: June 24, 1996 Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary