Loading...
PC 03-14-94 -ì CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 14, 1994 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners Present: Vice Chr. Doyle Com. Harris Com. Roberts Com. Austin Commissioners Absent: Chr. Mahoney Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Tom Robillard, Planner II Michele Bjurman, Planner II APPROVAL OF MINUTES Com. Austin amended the minutes of 2/28/93 as follows: Page 2 , insert the word "SECOND" in the motion and delete "Doyle". Com. Harris amended the minutes of 2/28/93 as follows: Page 5, 3rd paragraph, delete the words "this as an additional example". and insert the words "more specific examples". Page 8, Com. Harris' comments, should read "Com. Harris asked if any comment from the City was going to be made about these faults?" MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of 2/28/94, as amended. Com. Harris Passed 4-0- I Com. Mahoney WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No discussion POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14,1994 CONSENT CALENDAR -None Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING 1. Application No(s): Applicant: Location: 81,150 and 16-EA-93 City of Cupertino Citywide An Ordinance amending Chapter 19.96, parking and keeping vehicles in various zones and Chapter 11.29, on-site parking, ofthe Cupertino Municipal Code. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting at the January 24, 1994 Planning Commission meeting the Commission directed staff to explore additional alternatives to solve the problem of vehicles parking across the front of residential lots. He stated he did obtain information from RV clubs and associations. Regarding removal of existing vehicles which will not meet the new ordinance, Planner Robillard stated the City Attorney advised, that since this is a zoning ordinance revision, all previous permitted uses are allowed to remain as legal non-conforming uses. Planner Robillard stated staff recommends approval of Alt A. which reads as follows: I. All vehicles within the front yard setback area must be parked perpendicular to the front property line, unless an alternative is approved by the City in conjunction with a development plan. 2. In all residential zones, vehicles in excess of thirty feet in length shall not park within the front setback area. In response to Com. Harris' question, Planner Robillard stated all vehicles must be parked on an impervious surface, and this is included in Alt. A. He reviewed the front yard setback required and noted a vehicle cannot overhand the public right-of-way. In response to Com. Austin's question, Planner Robillard stated if a non-conforming use ceases for six months it cannot be restarted. Com. Roberts stated they are dealing with something mobile and asked what documentation would be necessary to demonstrate a particular use is a prior use. Mr. Cowan stated it is hard to substantiate how long vehicles have been parked in an area. He noted it will be enforced by neighborhood complaints. Planner Robillard reviewed the 50% impervious coverage required. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Michael Troiano, San Lucia, stated he has an area at his home to park his vehicle, but believes the ordinance is making it hard for people buying motor homes. He noted the motor home on St. Andrews is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 3 screened and does not look bad. Ms. JoAnn 0100, 879 Brent Dr., asked if this ordinance goes into affect and she later wants to upgrade to a larger motor home and has the room, will this ordinance prohibit her from doing this. She asked if people are not allowed to park vehicles on their property is the City willing to pay for storage? Planner Robillard stated this ordinance does not restrict people from parking vehicles on their lot, if the vehicle is larger than 20 ft. they can park the vehicle along the side of the house, if they have the space. He stated the ordinance will restrict vehicles within the first 20 ft. of the front yard area. He noted a permit is not needed to put in a larger pad to accommodate a large motorhome. He added all residents in Cupertino are restricted to cover no more than 50% of their front yard area with an impervious surface. Mr. Ron LaMar, 7787 Robindell Way, noted he lives on a comer lot and asked how the street front is determined? Planner Robillard stated the definition of the front yard on a comer lot is the shortest side. Mr. LaMar stated he has lived in Cupertino for 24 years and enjoys living in the City. He noted people like recreation and use recreation vehicles. He urged the commission to think, in terms of what people do in this community, and not to restrict the use. Mr. David Carr, 7560 Peach Blossom Dr., stated he owns a 20 ft. motorhome which he parks on the street in front of his home. He stated it is used as his second vehicle. He stated it is his understanding that the revised ordinance would restrict him from using his motorhome as his second vehicle. He stated he has received no complaints from neighbors. Planner Robillard stated that vehicles parking on the street are covered under another ordinance. He stated there would be no restrictions from parking on the street under this ordinance. Mr. George McCoid, 7544 Peach Blossom Dr, stated he owns a 30 ft. motorhome, and stated when he bought it, it was his understanding that he could park it on the lawn. He stated at least this was his understanding when he was part of San Jose. Mr. Greg Beall, 22437 St. Andrews Ave., stated earlier this year a property owner on St Andrews upgraded his motorhome and it was parked on the street for several months. He stated he contacted the City and dealt with Code Enforcement. He stated the owner of the vehicle then laid concrete. At first the City said this was not allowed, but then changed its mind. Mr. Beall expressed concern about the detrimental affect on his property value. He stated the intent of bringing this issue forward was not to cause hardship on motorhome owners. Mr. Beall stated the property owner in question, his pad exceeds 50% allowable coverage by 70 sq. ft. and would like to know if the current owner will have a legal non-conforming use if this ordinance passes. Mr. Robillard stated the property owner has to cut back to the 50% allowable coverage. He also noted that the impervious coverage will have to cover the entire vehicle. Planning Director Cowan stated it is inappropriate to talk about a particular zoning action. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Beall stated he would like some assurance that the City will enforce the codes. He stated the Ordinance does not address the vehicle ownership. He addressed the amortizing issue and believes there will be the same problems with enforcement. Mrs. Beall stated that several neighbors signed the petition when this matter was first brought to the Commission. Ms. Ann Anger, President, Monta Vista Improvements Association, stated the issue is enforcement and noted the City should enforce the law. The public hearing was closed. Com. Harris believes there is a need to maintain the residential character of the neighborhoods - no 50% coverage with concrete; no mobile homes parked on the front lawn area. She stated she does not discourage people from owning motorhomes, but they must be parked in a way that is considerate to the neighbors. She spoke in favor of30% impervious coverage. She stated she would not be opposed to a 30 ft. driveway width. Com. Roberts believes the City needs to regulate on-site parking in a manner consistent with the purpose of the ordinance. He stated parking a vehicle this size is like having an addition in the setback area. He spoke in support of Alt. A., as recommended by staff. In response to Com. Austin's question, Planner Robillard stated the municipal code states that all vehicles must be registered. Regarding the amortizing, Planner Robillard stated staff would do a survey of the City finding all the non- conforming situations, document them, and then notify owners that within a 5 or 10 year period the non- conforming uses will have to cease. Com. Austin spoke in support of Alt. A. Planner Robillard stated if the Planning Commission wish to consider the amortization he would recommend a continuance so he could discuss this issue with the City Attorney. Com. Doyle stated staff came up with Alt A through some input from people from the RV world and it seems to be a workable solution and would support this alterative. Regarding the issue of ownership, Planner Robillard stated if a person was collecting rent for a RV parked on their lot, this would be a home occupation, which would not be allowed. In response to Com. Doyle's question regarding amortiztion, Mr. Cowan stated, over time this problem will take care of itself, he stated he is unsure about how practical it is to get involved in amortization. He stated staff will come back with a report. Com. Harris stated she would like to see the tenure of the individual situations where there is a motorhome. She stated she would be in favor of amortization for a long period of time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 5 Com. Roberts stated if staff explores the element of ownership, he would suggest that the owner of the vehicle be a resident of the property as opposed to a property owner. There was a consensus to continue this application to research the amortization and the ownership issues to March 28,1994. 2. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 2-GPA-94, 2-U-94, I-TM-94 and 5-EA-94 SummerHill Homes Comerica Bank 21875-21881 Stevens Creek Blvd., North side of Stevens Creek Blvd., approximately 140 feet west of Mann Drive. GENERAL PLAN request for a General Plan Amendment to remove the commercial land use designation for Parcel 326-19-117. USE PERMIT for a planned detached single-family development consisting of 24 homes. TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a single parcel into 24 lots and one lot held in common. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting this is a planned unit development which consists of 24 single family detached homes. He stated staff worked with both the developer and the neighbors to come up with a solution agreeable to all. He stated the Planning Commission must take action on the following four items and in this order: I. Environmental Determination; 2. General Plan Amendment 3. Use Permit 4. Tentative Map. He stated staff is recommending approval on all four actions. He noted the only major issue with the use permit is the location of unit 24. Staffhas concerns that this two story unit would exaggerate the prominence and has written a condition that it be moved within IS ft. of the north side property line. With regards to the Tentative Map, the City Traffic Engineer had concerns on the location of the driveway onto Stevens Creek Blvd. He stated if a left turn in and out is required it would need to be studied further. Planner Robillard stated a condition has been added that the fmallocation of the driveway on Stevens Creek Blvd. shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Kathy Noe Anderson, SummerHill Homes, thanked the Planning Staff and the neighbors for their cooperation. She gave a brief presentation on the background of SummerHill Homes. Ms. Anderson stated they are asking the Planning Commission to remove the commercial overlay on the property as past history of the property demonstrates that the economics the demographics of this site does not support commercial. Ms. Anderson presented slides showing a view of the site and the surrounding areas. She reviewed the original plans proposed to the neighbors who raised several issues and the plan was revised. She stated as PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 6 a result of comments from neighbors and staff they reduced the number of lots and addressed the privacy issues as well as the additional driveway onto Stevens Creek Blvd. She noted they also addressed the Stevens Creek Streetscape and noted the units are now fronting on Stevens Creek with a buffer. Ms. Elaine Voulgarez, SummerHill Homes, reviewed the current site plan and stated improvements were made to the site plan as a result of neighbors and staff,s comments. She addressed the landscape plan, and reviewed the improvements. Ms. Voulgarez noted the plan has been revised to meet the Monta Vista Guidelines and she addressed the elevation of homes proposed. She noted six different color schemes are proposed and the colors are not tied to anyone elevation. She added they have read and accept all the condition of approval, but would like to contest the latest acreage fee adopted by the City Council. She noted in Section III conditions, 2 through 4, lot 25 is a common area and will be owned by the homeowners association. Regarding lot 24, as addressed by staff, Ms. V oulgarez stated they would like the 15 ft. to start from the edge of the parking bay and are willing to work with staff on this. In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Voulgarez stated they would like to start grading of the site in August, and the present tenants will be vacating. The price range of the homes will be in the mid $300's and BMR's will be regulated by the City. The larger floor areas do include the garages. The homeowners dues will be approximately $50-$55/month. She stated the way the budget will be prepared they would have adequate reserves for deferred maintenance. She stated homeowners dues cover street maintenance, power for street lighting and maintenance of parking bays etc. In response to Com Harris' question Ms. Noe Anderson stated, through past history the project has shown that this site is under utilized as commercial and not economically feasible. In response to Com. Harris's question, Planner Robillard stated there will be a deed restriction on the property that will restrict the BMR units to a certain price and this restriction will stay with the property for approximately 30 years. He noted people making moderate and median incomes will qualifY for these units, and this will be contracted out through an agency. Planner Robillard pointed out that if a fire truck cannot get within 150 ft. of a home, Central Fire regulates that these units be equipped with fire sprinklers. Ms. Voulgarez stated she received a fax from Central Fire District removing this comment from his report. Planner Robillard stated this will carry over to the conditions. Ms. V oulgarez stated the location ofthe wall will be adjacent to lots 1 and 2. She reviewed the height and color of the wall proposed as shown on the plans. She stated stamped concrete bricks will be placed at the entrances. Ms. V oulgarez stated the guard rail was put in because of the steep slope. Com. Roberts asked if it would be feasible to have a line of trees along the western border. Ms. V oulgarez stated the slope is very steep and the trees would be below the hillside. Com. Roberts stated he would like to see a line of trees and believes these would blend in with the neighboring development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 7 In response to Com. Austin's questions regarding the park dedication fee, Mr. Cowan stated the appeal would go to the City Council. In response to Com. Doyle's questions regarding the driveway on Stevens Creek Blvd., Planner Robillard stated, if there is a left turn in and out of this location the City Traffic Engineer would have to study the site distance in relation to the hillsides. He stated if it was moved to the east there would be no problems. Ms. V oulgarez stated the driveway was moved because of the site's engineering purposes. Com. Doyle asked are there any of the proposed lots that do not meet current setback codes? Planner Robillard stated the zero lot line lots would be non-confonning. He noted in comparison to the RI ordinance all the lots would have problems. Mr. Cowan stated this is a Planned Unit Development and RI standards should not be used to evaluate this project. Regarding private streets, vs. dedicated streets, Planner Robillard stated on a PUD there is not a concern with the City for maintenance because there will be an established Homeowners Association to take care of the maintenance. He stated a road maintenance agreement will be recorded with the City. Regarding the 7 ft. wall, Planner Robillard stated this is appropriate. He also stated staffs concern regarding lot 24 was to move the unit as far north as possible and still be marketable for the developer. Planner Robillard reviewed the General Plan requirement for the below market rate units. Mr. Edwin Brown, 21852 Oak View Ln., stated he purchased his home eight years ago and has been involved in the proposal for this site. He noted all the applicants prior to SummerHill did not consult with the neighbors and SummerHill did. He stated they listened to the neighbors concerns and modified the plans accordingly. He added the current proposal is the best plan he has seen for this site and believes it is a fair compromise. He spoke in support of the plans proposed and urged the Planning Commission to approve this. Mr. Patrick Milligan, 10018 Oak Leaf Place, stated he applauds the efforts of SummerHill to involve the neighbors. He expressed concern about the west side of this plan and the setback of the homes. He noted on earlier versions of plans the homes were setback further. He stated he has a privacy issue with respect to lots 22 and 23 and hopes that mitigating factors can be included. Mr. Milligan stated he does have a fence on his property, but it serves no purpose for privacy. He suggested a fence be included to provide privacy. He stated the design of the homes is good and although density is higher than he would hope for, it is significantly lower than what was previously proposed. Mr. Milligan addressed the density ofthe site and the neighborhood designations. He noted neighborhood Al is 3 units per acre and on the south side of Stevens Creek there are various lot sizes. He noted this particular site was zoned commercial and included light industrial. He stated, while the Commission is making a General Plan amendment for the site, a cap should be put on the density, something less that 12 units per acre. He spoke in favor of 4 to 8 units per acre, and noted he is in favor of this project going forward, but would not be in support of further development. Com. Roberts asked if Mr. Milligan's concern about privacy would be eliminated by planting oak trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Milligan stated this would not be privacy year round. He spoke in support of foliage or fencing at the top of the slope. Mr. Dave McLeroy, 10295 Bern Ave., expressed concern about the general plan amendment proposed. He believes that this site will support local retail and would object to any housing on this site. He stated the site should be commercial. Planning Director Cowan stated the City worked with the neighbors in Monta Vista to create a viable retail center on this site. He stated they have worked hard to attract retail and it has not worked and pointed out that the existing big businesses on site went out of business. Mr. McLeroy stated it his understanding that businesses did not want to leave, but in fact, their lease was not extended. He believes this is a profitable place to do business. Ms. Ann Anger stated the Monta Vista Homeowners Association worked hard in the 1970's and concentrated in old Monta Vista and tried to get a neighborhood shopping center. She noted she has lived in Cupertino since 1945 and there was a thriving shopping center at one time, but everything closed. She stated they tried again in the Citizen Goals Committee meetings to get retail on this site, but it did not work. She noted if there is no market for retail then they must move forward. Ms. Anger stated if there are problems with privacy then this should be worked out with the neighbors and developer. She spoke in support of the design features and noted the developer is willing to listen to the neighbors concerns. Mr. Roy Hampton, 21821 Oak View Ln., spoke in support of the development and believes it is an improvement on the property. He stated they would like to see commercial but believes the reality is, it will not be feasible for this site. He stated the Commission should not relax the commercial throughout the rest of Monta Vista. He noted the developer worked with the neighbors and noted he would also like a limit on the residential allowed and spoke in support of Mr. Milligan's request. He stated he would not like to have a left turn onto the site off Mann Drive. He would also like to see a continuation of the Bus Stop access from Mann Drive. Mr. Hampton asked if the streets will be controlled to allow no parking so fire trucks can access the streets if necessary. He noted he does support the project. In response to Mr. Hampton's concerns, Planner Robillard stated the driveway on Mann Drive would only be used by a limited number of residents. He stated there are no plans to change the bus stop location and people using this would have to walk around the existing office building. He noted there will be no gates restricting access through the property, but it will be private property. Regarding fire trucks, Mr. Robillard stated the large fire trucks will not use the small roads. Mr. Jan Kucera, resident, stated he has been involved with the meetings with SummerHill and supports the development. He stated SummerHill did address the privacy issues. He noted his neighbor has a pool and expressed concern about privacy, he requested that the lot towards his home be graded. The public hearing was closed. Com. Harris stated this is a good development and is happy the developer contacted the neighbors. She expressed concern about fire resistance finishes on the homes and the Commission needs to be clear on what they want. She also expressed concern about street maintenance, and noted a street maintenance agreement PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 9 which is enforceable, is needed. She stated in the future, she would like more infonnation on the guard rail. She agreed with staff regarding the removal of the house on lot 24. In response to Com. Harris' question, Planner Robillard showed the Monta Vista Specific Plan and outlined the commercial zoning in the area. Com. Harris expressed concern about finding #2 in 2-GP A-94 and believes this project can be approved without this finding. She stated she is not comfortable saying commercial is not a viable use. She also noted that the word "use" should be added to finding #1 on 2-U-94. Com. Roberts stated he shares the concern of the neighbor who miss the commercial, but it does seem like the City and previous developers tried to make commercial work. He stated the residential proposed is very helpful in supporting the existing goals and policies of the General Plan, with respect to the housing element, and suggested expanding on finding #1 on 2-GPA-94 to read "...and in particular the housing element." He believes this project will be a benefit to the community and neighborhood. He suggested a condition to plant a row of oak trees along the western border to address privacy issues. He also spoke in support of deleting #2 as suggested by Com. Harris. Com. Austin stated she has mixed feelings, but does not believe that commercial will work on this site. She expressed concern about privacy issues on the north and west sides and asked ifthe windows on the back could be frosted or situated differently. She stated there should be fencing on the west side to address privacy or shrubbery, which would not hurt the oak trees. She spoke in support of a common walkway from Mann Drive to Stevens Creek. The Commissioners discussed the common walkway and Com. Harris expressed concern about having a secluded walkway. Planner Robillard stated if there is a dedicated area for public access then the City is asking the developer to incur the liability for people using this as a public space, when it is actually private property. Com. Austin spoke in support of the project. Com. Doyle questioned the location of the house on lot 24. Planner Robillard reviewed staft's and the applicant's request. Com. Doyle spoke in support of trees or a fence to address the privacy issues on the western end. Mr. Cowan stated staff will work with the developer and the neighbors to address the privacy issue. He stated if they can't reach an agreement staff will bring it back to the Planning Commission. In response to Com. Doyle's questions, Planner Robillard stated the traffic impact will be minimal. He noted the General Plan amendment will only apply to this specific parcel. Regarding the zoning, Planner Robillard stated the current zoning designates 4- 12 units per acres and in order to change the density range they would have to change the zoning. Planning Director Cowan stated this General Plan Amendment will go to the State and the City should not send a reduction in density as they are trying to receive a certified housing element. He recommends that the present density range be maintained. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 10 Com. Harris stated she concurs with Mr. Cowan and noted there will be many issues that will come before the Planning Commission to complete the housing plan and some will go at the lower end of the density and others will go to the higher end. She stated this flexibility is needed. Mr. Cowan added that any changes in the number of units will come before the Planning Commission. Com. Doyle stated he is not in support of the Mann Drive Barrier. Planner Robillard asked for clarification on the setback for unit 24. It was a consensus on the Commission that the setback be 15 ft. from the parking bay. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney Com. Harris moved to recommend approval of 2-GPA-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Section I Findings, #2 deleted and the following words added to #1 "...and in particular the housing element. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts moved to recommend approval of 2-U-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Section I Finding, the word "use" added to a) after the word "residential"; Section III, Conditions, Cond 2, unit 24 will be located 15 ft. trom the parking bay; additional condo 7 to read "Staff will work with the developer and the adjoining property owners on Oakdell Ct., to develop a tree screening plan, using oaks or other native trees, to help alleviate privacy concerns." Com. Austin Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney Com. Austin moved to approve 1- TM-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Condo 21 shall read "Final location of the driveway on Stevens Creek Blvd., shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page II 3. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: l-U-94 and 4-EA-94 Nehemiah Architects, Inc. West Valley Presbyterian Church 6191 Bollinger Road USE PERMIT for a 3,800 sq. ft. addition to an existing church. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report and noted the proposal is to add a 3,000 sq. ft. addition. Ms. Bjurman referred to the floor plan and outlined the addition. She noted in 1983 the Planning Commission granted the church a use permit for essentially the same type of addition, but for a larger building. Planner Bjurman stated the items to be discussed are tree removal, landscaping improvements and parking. Tree removal: Planner Bjurman stated several trees will be affected by the addition, including 324" Bottle Brush trees and 4 Cypress trees. She stated the applicant is exceeding the environmental review requirement of one to one replacement by one tree. Landscaping: Staff has made a recommendation that there be a replanting plan for the parking lot along Miller Ave. to screen the parking lot and bus parking from residential properties. Ms. Bjurman stated a condition has been added to address this. Parking: There is a parking deficiency of 30 spaces during Sunday peak times. Ms. Bjurman noted the Church holds a long term parking agreement with the Cupertino Union School District for an additional 58 spaces at Hyde Junior High. \ Planner Bjurman stated staff is recommending approval of the project. She reviewed the architecture proposed and noted staff supports the proposed. She noted the exterior finish and color will be the same as existing. In response to Com. Harris' question, Planner Bjurman stated the four new cypress tress have not been located on the plan and staff recommends that they be folded into either the new design or the finished landscape plan. Planner Bjurman stated the applicant has flexibility as to the type of trees they replant. Com. Harris stated she would prefer not to have palm trees. Com. Austin expressed concern about losing parking spaces as a result of adding trees. The Commission discussed the trees to be removed and the tress to be replanted. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Jack Ross, Architect, spoke in support of the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report. Mr. Ross outlined the location of the existing Cypress trees and the Bottle Brush trees and also the location for replacement trees. He stated there are oleander bushes along the front and the trees PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 12 will be planted in between these. Planner Bjunnan pointed out the flat portion of the roof. Mr. Ross stated the roof pitch for the addition will match the existing parish hall. He noted the existing administration and classrooms are a very low pitch. He stated the roof material for the addition will match in texture and color of the existing sanctuary. The public hearing was closed. Com. Harris spoke in favor of the proposal, and believes the church has gone to a lot of trouble to maintain the unity of the project and still meet their space needs. She spoke in favor of the trees proposed and the roof material. Com. Roberts concurred, as did Com. Austin. SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Roberts moved to approve I-U-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing, with the addition that no palm trees be allowed. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney MOTION: 4. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: II-U-93 and 10-EA-93 Fit & Healthy Spa Pacific Acquisition Corp. 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd. (The Oaks) USE PERMIT for a 7,200 sq. ft. health club in an existing shopping center. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report and noted the proposal is to occupy 4800 sq. ft. and the issue to discuss is the parking deficiency. She stated the center has been operating with a parking space deficit since at least 1973 and the parking deficit has been allowed subject to a shared parking study. Planner Bjurman stated the parking study was conducted and there will not be a parking problem. She stated a condition has been created that if a parking problem exists it will be brought back to the Planning Commission. She stated staff recommends approval. In response to Com. Austin's question, Planner Bjurman stated the Use Permit runs with the land and Fit and Healthy Spa are proposing to close prior to peak hours, but the next user may extend the hours. Com. Austin stated the previous tenant was opened later hours. She believes the hours of operation are too restrictive. Com. Harris agreed with Com. Austin that the hours are too restrictive. She stated the applicant should not have to come back to the Planning Commission to request extended hours. She noted she would be willing to go to 9 p.m. every evening. /..r....., Com. Roberts stated the Oaks Shopping Center has not been fully occupied and asked if fully occupied would a parking problem exist? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 13 Planner Bjurrnan stated the parking study assumed full occupancy. Com. Roberts also spoke in favor of extended hours of operation. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Presentation: Mr. John Matthens, stated he is in support of the conditions in the staff report. He stated the 9 p.m. hour would be acceptable to Fit and Healthy Spa. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding safety for children, Mr. Matthens reviewed the layout of the plan and stated the safety issue no longer exists as the plan has been changed. The public hearing was closed. In response to Com. Doyle's question regarding neighborhood complaints about parking, Planner Bjurrnan stated there are no complaints that she is aware of. She noted child care is regulated by the state. Com. Harris clarified that if a problem of overflow parking exists at this center the burden would be on The Oaks management. Com. Roberts stated in the letter ITom the applicant they estimate that the number of clients visiting the club to be 9 per hour during peak times. He noted this is a low number. Planner Bjurrnan stated the parking study concluded there would 40 cars per hour. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved to approve II-V-93 subject to the findings and subconclusions ofthe hearing with the following modification: Condo 2, hours should be from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney Com. Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration Com. Roberts Passed Com. Mahoney 4-0-1 The Commissioners realized they did not do a negative declaration for the previous hearing. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration for application I-V-94 Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 14 NEW BUSINESS 5. Consideration of possible amendments to Section 19.80.030, B.3.b. and c related to Site Development Regulations for recreational buildings. Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report and noted the purpose of this action is to request from the Planning Commission permission to schedule a public hearing to consider a possible amendment to the zoning code to change the regulations as they may apply to recreational structures. He noted in his opinion the ordinance over regulates this particular aspect and should be reviewed. The meeting was opened for public comments. Mr. David Leitzell, 7485 Kingsbury PI., stated the City should be supportive of residents providing a safe place for their children to play. He stated he has a petition signed by approximately 90 property owners who are in support ofthe play equipment. Com. Roberts asked if the tree house is permanent? Mr. Leitzell stated it is permanent, but it is a wood structure and could be taken down. Com. Austin stated she did visit the play structure and supports Mountain View's position to have no regulations. She believes these should be considered on a case by case basis and spoke in favor of a public hearing. Com. Roberts spoke in favor of revisiting this section of the code and would support holding a public hearing. He stated when the public hearing is held they should focus on the temporary structures and make it clear why this is not an exception. He stated they may also consider, if the property is transferred the tree house would have to be removed. Com. Harris believes the present code is too restrictive and would like a code that allows for exceptions. She spoke in favor of an ordinance in which these could be looked at on a case by case basis. She noted height matters and privacy becomes an issue. She spoke in favor of the public hearing. Planning Director Cowan stated he will come back with prescriptive rules. Com. Doyle spoke in favor of a public hearing and believes permits should not be necessary for all play structures. He requested guidelines that deal with height and privacy issues. There was a consensus of the Commission to hold a public hearing. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Harris expressed concern about the time frame in which she receives her packet. She stated she would like to receive it a day or two earlier. ;I' Mr. Cowan stated they would like to keep the time frame as currently exists. He noted on major cases the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994 Page 15 Commissioners will receive their information earlier. Com. Roberts stated if packets were sent out earlier, he would be concerned about receiving additional information at the meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Cowan stated Com. Austin will be asked to attend the affordable housing committee meetings if a key issue is raised. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS Com. Roberts commented on the article in the San Jose Mercury News regarding the berm at the Forum. ADJOURNMENT Having concluded business the Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. to the next regular meeting of March 28,1994 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ÒJ,Ç-.kriN> ,,,,L ~J....lin¡J Catherine M. Robillard Minutes Clerk Approved y the Planning Commission at the Regular e,~t~1~Ch 28, 1994 Attest: ~,~-rl Kim Smith, City Clerk