Loading...
PC 02-14-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 14, 1994 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney Vice Chr. Doyle Com. Austin Com. Roberts Com. Harris Staff Present: Bob Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Colin Jung, Associate Planner Thomas Robillard, Planner II Michele Bjurman, Planner II APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of January 24, 1994, as presented Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Com. Harris WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No Discussion POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None CONSENT CALENDAR - None ~, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 2 ARcmTECTURAL REVIEW 1. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: I-ASA-94 Design Mark/Jeffrey Baleix Fidelity Federal Bank 10001& 10101 N. DeAnza Blvd. Sign Exception for tenant name height as required by Section 17.24.130. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report dated February 4, 1994, noting the proposal is for a monument sign. He noted the number, shape, size, colors and materials of the sign meet the criteria of the sign ordinance with the exception to the tenant name height. Planner Robillard read the section of the ordinance pertaining to sign size and reviewed the findings to be made in order to grant an exception. He stated that staff believes the standards of the ordinance should be maintained and would not recommend granting the exception at this time. He noted the intent of the criteria in the ordinance is for visibility. Com. Harris stated she would be in favor ofthe exception because the sign is smaller and the numbers are visible. ( Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Jeffrey Baleix, Architect, stated they are trying to achieve basic principals in creating the sign. He noted they looked at several signs in town most of which have four to five inch tenant names. He stated the proposed sign is low profile and not obstructing visibility. He stated this is an office complex as opposed to retail so it does not need the same exposure. Mr. Baleix stated he did review the proposal with the Planning Department and believed it was acceptable. He noted they incorporated materials used on the building into the proposed sign and believes the lettering proposed is large enough. Mr. Baleix pointed out that if the sign was any taller it would interfere with the tree canopy and for aesthetic reasons the sign proposed is the best. He urged the Commission to grant approval. The public hearing was closed. Com. Austin spoke in favor of the sign proposed by the applicant noting the tree canopy would cover the sign if it was any higher. Com. Doyle also expressed concern about the tree canopy, but would like the sign to be seen by people driving by. He noted he would approve the sign as proposed by the applicant. Com. Harris spoke in support of the low profile sign and noted the street numbers are large enough for people to read the address. ( Com. Roberts stated the smaller sign is aesthetically pleasing. He expressed concern about the contrast of the letters and numbers with the materials proposed. Mr. Baleix stated they do have the ability to add to the contrast and wil1look into this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 3 Com. Roberts stated if the letters are to be smaller special interest should be given to the contrast. Chr. Mahoney concurred with Com. Roberts regarding contrast, but stated he would support the smaller sign. The Commissioners briefly discussed the findings and Planner Robillard stated the Commission need to find that the reduced letters are consistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve application I-ASA-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following finding "The applicant propose a combination of colors that would result in adequate contrast to ensure readability of the sign." Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE Mr. Cowan stated he needs the Planning Commission's direction to take this matter back for advisement and prepare an ordinance change. The Commission so directed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 32-U-85 (Modification) & 12-EA-93 Rancho San Antonio Ret. Housing Same Property line at 1-280 USE PERMIT Modification to construct sound mitigation walls or benns adjacent to Interstate 280. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report dated February 14,1994, noting the proposal is to build a noise and sight barrier across a large swale adjacent to 1-280 and a sound wall adjacent to unit 9. He noted the sound wall will not be very visible ftom the fteeway. Regarding the benn, Planner Robillard stated the Planning Commission asked the applicant to return with a photo montage of the proposal, which was presented to the Commission. He noted the landscaping will be natural grasses, shrubs and a selections of trees. He added the new plan is for an earth benn across the swale which staff recommends approval. In response to Commissioners questions, Planner Robillard stated the landscaping will be native vegetation and also the sound wall will not affect drainage. He also stated the environmental evaluation issues were addressed. Mr. Robillard stated the benn will reduce noise by about 7 to 10 decibels. He noted the length of the sound wall is approximately between 30 to 40 feet, the benn is 280 ft. long, and the grade is 2: 1. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Gary Kutz, Director, Support Services, Forum, stated they did meet with Cal- Trans and got verbal approval to encroach onto the fteeway right-of-way. He noted the 6 ft. wall, as originally proposed on top of the benn has been eliminated. He stated Cal- Trans recommends an earth benn as it reduces the decibel level more than a masonry wall. Mr. Kutz stated the benn is high on the east side to help sound control and make a more pleasing view. Mr. Kutz gave a slide presentation of the site showing before and after slides of the benn. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 4 Com. Roberts asked the applicant if the main affect ofthe berm would be to obscure views ofthe Forum, without any substantial views of the backdrop of the hills. Mr. Kutz stated the main goal is to obstruct the views of the villas and the health center and the hillsides in the background will be seen over the berm. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding mud slides, Mr. Kutz stated the purpose of planting vegetation is to prevent mud slides, he also noted the dirt will be compacted. He stated there is a planting plan for the wall, but it is not shown on the plans. In response to Com. Doyle's question regarding visibility of the wall from 1-280, Mr. Kutz stated it will not be very visible as there are large trees which will obstruct the view. He stated the wall will be higher than the freeway. The public hearing was closed. Com. Harris spoke in favor of the berm as proposed as she believes the City has a responsibility to its residents at the Forum. She expressed concern about the sound wall and would like more information before approving it. Com. Roberts stated the berm proposed is an improvement to the previous plan and would support it. He also expressed concern about the sound wall and believes there is no broad benefit from the wall. He noted he would support the berm, but not the wall until more information is provided. Com. Doyle stated he would support the berm, but expressed concern about the aesthetics of the sound wall. Com. Austin spoke in support ofthe berm, but would like more specifics on the proposed wall. She stated she would like to separate the two issues. Com. Mahoney spoke in support of the berm and stated he is not concerned about the sound wall as it is no higher than the existing villas, but it should be reviewed by staff. Planner Robillard stated staff did not pay special attention to the appearance of the wall, because it is not very visible from the freeway. He noted the highest point ofthe wall would be 8 ft. Mr. Cowan stated if the Commission is concerned about the aesthetics of the wall the application can be approved and the materials proposed can be reviewed on the consent calendar. Mr. Kutz stated there are currently redwood lattice screens around the villas and the wall will be the same height and in the same location. He noted materials can be discussed with staff. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration. Com. Harris Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 5 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve 32-U-85 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following condition that the materials used for the sound wall come back before the Planning Commission on the Consent Calendar. Com. Harris Passed 5-0 MOTION: 3. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 2-GPA-93, 3-Z-93 and 14-EA-93 I) Cecil Mahon; 2) City of Cupertino Various I) Regnart Canyon; 2) Cupertino Foothills GENERAL PLAN I) Change from very low density residential, 5-20 acre slope density formula to very low density residential semi-rural 5 acre slope density formula approximately 185 net acres known as Regnart Canyon; 2) Delete General Plan Policy No. 2-38: Hillside Parcel Consolidation. REZONING I) From AI-43 to RHS or such other zoning classification deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, approximately 14 acres located at 22045 Regnart Road and designated by APN 366-46-004. Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Jung presented the staff report noting on January 18, 1994, the City Council approved a General Plan hearing, Mr. Jung reviewed the action items under file no(s) 2-GPA-93 and 3-Z-93 as follows: la) Consider recommending a change in the land use designation for Regnart Canyon from "Very Low Density Residential: Foothill 5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula" to "Very Low Density Residential: Semi Rural 5-Acre Slope Density Formula" b) Consider recommending the adoption of a general plan text amendment that states that Regnart Canyon property previously subdivided under the Semi-Rural formula has no further subdivision potential. 2. Consider recommending the deletion of General Plan policy #2-38: Hillside Parcel Consolidation. 3. Consider recommending the rezoning of a 13.8 ac. parcel at 22045 Regnart Canyon from AI-43 to RHS. Mr. Jung presented a map outlining the location of the property and noted that there are approximately 49 existing dwellings plus 4 or 5 vacant lots some of which are considered unbuildable, because of the effects of General Plan Policy 2-38. He stated that Regnart Canyon has historically and geographically been treated as a distinct area with a distinct development pattern that will largely be completed with the development of the applicant's property. Mr. Jung stated the impact of deleting Policy 2-38 is at most six buildable lots, three in Regnart Canyon, one in Lindy Canyon and one in upper Inspiration Heights. He noted most of the lots are scattered within residential areas. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission consider deleting Policy 2-38. He noted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 6 that staff also requests the Commission to consider approving action 3 and recommends approval of a negative declaration. In response to Commissioners questions, Mr. Jung stated that action la is a safety feature. Com. Roberts expressed concern about precedence setting if the applicant's request is approved. Mr. Cowan stated that the Council recommended on a 3-2 vote that the Planning Commission hold a hearing and it was his understanding that the Council believed that Policy 2-38 should be deleted as there are few properties involved. He noted policy 2-38 is very specific and only applies to approximately five lots. Regarding Com. Roberts' concern about setting a precedence, Mr. Cowan stated that Regnart Canyon is unique and the Planning Commission must be satisfied with this because it is a single development shed with it's own water system and one road up to it. He noted it is the only area in town which has been approved for septic tanks. He added 90% of the canyon is developed and the only property not developed is Mr. Mahon's property. He noted this matter was discussed with the City Attorney and he told the Council any action on the Mahon property may prompt property owners to file for a similar request. He believes the City can defend an action to have a separate set of standards for this area. Com. Roberts addressed Inspiration Heights and potential buildable lots. Mr. Cowan stated there is a dividing line in Inspiration Heights, north of San Juan Road is more intensely developed versus south of San Juan Road. He stated they met with neighbors from north of San Juan Road and developed a new requirement for the 1/2 acre modified formula and changed it from Rl-l 0 to RHS. Com. Austin questioned the purpose of Policy 2-38. Mr. Cowan stated Policy 2-38 deals with recognizing or not recognizing lots of record. Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Cecil Mahon, 22045 Regnart Road, stated he did apply for the amendment to the General Plan and noted he has lived on the property for 50 years. He noted he would like to add one more home to the area and believes it would not create a negative impact on traffic or density. He noted he submitted copies of a petition to the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to Chr. Mahoney's question regarding existing homes on Mr. Mahon's property, Mr. Jung stated there are three houses existing on the property and if subdivided into four lots one additional house would be added to the property. In response to Com. Roberts' question, Mr. Jung stated Mr. Mahon has chosen not to go forward with the Tentative Map on this project because of costs to address environmental concerns. He stated the actual number of lots will be dictated at the Tentative Map stage. Mr. Cowan stated the RHS zone will be applied throughout the hillsides. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 7 Mr. Dick Randall, 22348 Regnart Road, stated he bought his property, not aware that he should sell it before changes to the zoning were made. Mr. Randall reviewed the location of the lots he owns and reviewed the stable built on one of his lots. He noted his property does comply with the RHS policies. He noted he did purchase his lots for investment purposes and felt comfortable sitting on an approved subdivided lot, he did not think the City would come in and take away a right that he had purchased when he bought a lot with all improvements to it. He believes this is a taking of property. He stated he purchased four lots in the City of Cupertino, they were rezoned to RHS to utilize the lots and the removal of Policy 2-38 is fair. He stated he believes the residential hillside zoning should be put back on the property and property owners should be given back the right to have four lots. Ms. Kendal Blau, representing OAKS, stated the City should delete Policy 2-38 and believes that local government should not over step its bounds. She expressed concern about removing Regnart Canyon from the Hillside Protection Policy, and stated with a consistent policy there will be fairness and equity for all property owners. She noted removing Regnart Canyon is inconsistent and believes there will be a precedence setting affect. She added the Hillside Protection Policy should remain with Regnart Canyon included in it. Mr. Jon Garliegg, Regnart Canyon, stated if he had bought the property as Mr. Mahon did he would like to be able to subdivide it and get value out of the property. He stated as the canyon has developed, Mr. Mahon should be allowed to develop in the same direction. He added Policy 2-38 should be eliminated. He stated if 5-20 acre designation remains he will have a non-comforting lot of three acres. He noted he supports Mr. Mahon's request and the deletion of Policy 2-38. Mr. Tom Cave stated that deleting Policy 2-38 only impacts property owners who own two contiguous lots and very few lots are affected by this. He believes when Policy 2-38 was adopted the Council or the Commission were not aware that this only affected five lots. Mr. Phil Zeitman, CURB, stated that Regnart Canyon is one issue and Mr. Mahon's property is another issue. Regarding Regnart Canyon, removing Policy 2-38 would be acceptable, but leave the Canyon in the Hillside Protection Policy. He expressed concern about setting a precedence and spot zoning and believes this defeats the purpose ofthe hillside policy. Chr. Mahoney closed the public hearing. In response to Com. Harris' questions, Mr. Jung stated when people refer to the Hillside Protection Policies it can be split into two categories: 1) slope density formula; and 2) development policies. He noted action items la and b refer to the density aspect as it applies to the Regnart Canyon area and Mr. Mahon's property, action item 3 refers to the development policies. He stated if zoning is left as is, Mr. Mahon could not subdivide his lot further. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding rebuilding existing homes on Mr. Mahon's property, Mr. Cowan stated Mr. Mahon has a legal non-conforming use so the houses could be rebuilt at the present size. Com. Roberts suggested adopting action item 2 and apply 1 b as an extra protection. Mr. Jung stated action item 2 refers to existing lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 8 The Commissioners briefly discussed the action items. Com. Roberts would like to consider, as an alternative, action item 2 together with I (b) with the wording modified, so it is not so specific to Regnart Canyon. Com. Harris believes this is a legislative clean up in the interest of fairness and spoke in favor of action items I (a)(b),2 and 3. Com. Doyle stated that Mr. Mahon makes a convincing case for a change to the Regnart Canyon Land Designation, but his fundamental concern is, is this a spot change to the General Plan? He noted he would be opposed to action I (a) at this time. Com. Austin spoke in support of deleting Policy 2-38, but with the suggestion made by Com. Roberts. She expressed concern about recommending I (a). Com. Mahoney stated he would vote in favor of I(a). MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: Com. Austin moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration Com. Doyle Passed 4-1 Com. Roberts Com. Doyle stated the reason he is opposed to lea) is because of timing and ifthe Commission is assured that they are not doing spot zoning then he would have no objection to the General Plan amendment. Mr. Cowan stated the question is, can the Commission say no to the next property owner with the same request? In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. lung stated Regnart Canyon was developed under the Semi-Rural 5-acre Slope Density Formula. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com. Austin moved to recommend the deletion of General Plan Policy 2-38 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 Com. Austin moved to recommend the rezoning of a 13.8 ac. parcel at 22045 Regnart Canyon from AI-43 to RHS subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 Com. Harris moved to recommend a change in the land use designation for Regnart Canyon tTom "Very Low Density Residential; Foothil15-20 Acre Slope Density Formula" to "Very Low Density Residential: Semi Rural 5-Acre Slope Density Formula" and recommends the adoption of a general plan text amendment that states that Regnart Canyon property PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 9 SECOND: VOTE: NOES: previously subdivided under the Semi-Rural formula has no further subdivision potential. Chr. Mahoney Failed 2-3 Corns. Austin, Roberts, Doyle. 4. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: II-EXC-93, 3- TM-92 (Modified) and 130EA-92 Mark Sandoval, Arch. Joseph and Xena Czisch 11845 Upland Way EXCEPTION to construct a new residence on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Section 19.40.050 of the Municipal Code. Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Jung presented the staff report dated February 14, 1994, noting on January 10, 1994 the Planning Commission continued the exception application in order to allow the applicant time to submit an amendment to the approved tentative map which reflects the development proposal. He noted issues of concern to the Planning Commission were the extensive use of the retaining walls and the use of fire retardant landscaping. Mr. Jung noted the landscaping is needed to prevent erosion as well as for screening. He stated he did discuss the fire hazard landscaping with Central Fire who have adopted regulations to minimize fire danger, which will be incorporated into the applicant's plan. He stated staff recommends that the pine trees be replaced with more fire resistant vegetation. Regarding the Oak tree, Mr. Jung stated development will not disturb this tree and there is a condition in the tentative map to address this. In addition staff recommends that the landscaping and irrigation be removed from the dripline of the Oak Tree which is intolerant of excessive watering. He added a condition has been added to the Model Resolution to reflect these recommendations. He stated staff recommends approval. In response to Com. Roberts' question Mr. Jung stated the proposed retaining walls have not be modified from the last plan. Mr. Jung also reviewed the flat yard area noting this includes the walkways, pool and terrace. Com. Harris addressed the plan which was originally proposed. Mr. Cowan reviewed the "window period", noting if an application was submitted before November IS, 1993, it could be consider under the less restrictive General Plan policies. In response to Com. Harris' concerns regarding the original proposal, Mr. Jung stated the first proposal was a hypothetical house, and not something the applicant intended to build. He noted the property is in the process of changing hands and the current proposal is the new property owner's request. Regarding visibility, Mr. lung stated this house is below a prominent ridgeline, but will be visible from Bubb Road at Rainbow. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Mark Sandoval, Architect, gave a presentation outlining the hypothetical house and the proposed house. He handed out photos of houses and landscaping in the area and noted they will protect the existing oak tree on the property. He stated with the retaining walls proposed, they have PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 10 minimized the grading. Mr. Sandoval submitted a letter and report amending the landscaping plan originally proposed noting the pines will be replaced with either Douglas Fir or Costal Redwoods. He noted he did talk to the Fire Department and as a result will place a fire hydrant on the property as well as a sprinkler system. He stated he also discussed the landscape for ground cover with Central Fire. In response to Com. Roberts' question regarding drought tolerant plants, Mr. Cowan stated the applicant will have to maintain a water budget. Resident, 11840 Upland Way, expressed concern about the magnitude of the proposed home and noted neighbors share the same concern. She noted it was her understanding that the house would be 5,000 sq. ft. and is concerned about the view if the proposed home is approved. She stated the proposed home should blend in with the natural surroundings and the neighborhood. Resident reiterated her concern about the size of the home and visual impact. She noted typical size homes in the area are 2,000 to 3,000 sq. ft. In response to Chr. Mahoney's question, Mr. lung stated the maximum house size allowed is 6500 sq. ft. and the proposal is 6407 sq. ft. He stated there may be more proposals coming in for Upland Court which will also be large homes. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Cowan stated the pipeline issue relates to whether or not the property will be considered under the general plan polices or the more precise hillside ordinance requirements. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding the ridgeline, Mr. lung addressed the criteria for detennining the ridgeline visibility and noted this is in the RHS zoning ordinance. He also noted there are no second units requested. The public hearing was closed. Com. Austin expressed concern about the massive look of the house and the retaining walls. Com. Roberts concurred and also stated the house will look massive until the vegetation grows. He stated as long as the landscaping is a feasible option, he would support the proposal. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. lung stated the 4900 sq. ft. proposal was a hypotethical house that was approved with the Tentative Map in 1992, but what was submitted in the pipeline is the house proposed. The Commission briefly discussed the landscaping currently on the property, Mr. lung stated there is very little landscaping on the lot. Com. Doyle stated the proposal was in the pipeline and does confonn with the previous requirements, but not with the intent ofthe new hillside ordinance, but would support the proposal as it was in the pipeline. Com. Harris stated she would vote no for the exception. Com. Austin expressed concern about the massive house on a 30% slope and also expressed concern about PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 11 visual impact. Com. Mahoney stated he would vote against the exception as he believes it may be setting a precedence. Mr. Jung stated if the Planning Commission is moving for a denial they must make the findings. Mr. Sandoval stated he was involved with the City Council discussions on the Hillside Ordinance which led to the design of the home. He stated his client has spent time, money and effort on the process and would like more clarification as to what the Planning Commission would approve. Com. Mahoney stated the overall size of home and retaining walls are a concern. Com. Harris stated she objects to the mass of the home and is concerned about the ridge line and view. Com. Roberts stated the proposal would be more acceptable without the swimming pool and this would eliminate an additional level and maybe some retaining walls. Mr. Jung reviewed the surface parking stalls required and noted one could be eliminated but did not believe this would make a difference to the retaining walls. Com. Doyle stated no matter the size of the home, it will have a visual impact. Mr. Jung reiterated again that the proposal in front of the Commission was the proposal in the pipeline. Chr. Mahoney stated he missed this information previously, and would therefore approve the home as it was in the pipeline. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: 5. Com. Roberts moved to approve 3-TM-92 subject to the findings and subconclusions ofthe hearing. Com. Doyle Passed 3-2 Corns. Austin, Harris Com. Doyle moved to approve II-EXC-93 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Roberts Passed 3-2 Corns. Austin, Harris Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 15-U-93 Tecta Associates West Valley Shopping Center 20660 Homestead Road USE PERMIT for late evening activities in accordance with Sec. 19.56.040 of the Municipal Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 12 Staff Presentation: Planner Bjunnan presented the staff report outlining the location of the property on a site plan map. She noted currently the center operates from 7 a.m. to II p.m. and Kinkos, if approved, will be the only tenant operating 24 hours. She stated staff are not concerned about disrupting neighbors and would recommend approval. Mr. Bjurman also addressed the cumulative affect if a 24 hour operation was granted and noted staff can review other requests separately. Com. Harris addressed the parking and the entrance. Ms. Bjunnan reviewed the parking and entrances on the floor plan. She also pointed out the proximity to neighbors. Planner Bjunnan stated the retaining walls are approximately 8 ft. and the applicant is not proposing additional lighting. Com. Doyle stated the retaining wall on Franco Ct. is at least 15 feet. Com. Roberts suggested a condition which would prevent employees from using the back doors between the hours of II p.m. and 7 a.m. Ms. Bjunnan pointed out that the nearest resident is approximately 400 ft. away. Com. Doyle stated the back parking lot is isolated and some activity may be favorable. Applicant Presentation: Representative, Tecta Associates, stated they are required by code to have two means of access. He stated he would be prepared to put a panic bar with an alarm on the back door, and it will be used for emergency. He noted it is Kinko's corporate philosophy to operate 24 hours a day, and added there will be little activity during the night time hours, but employees will be able to finish jobs. He stated because ofthe location of the building he does not believe it will be obtrusive. He added employees can park out front so as not to use the back parking lot. He stated Kinkos are always accessible to the public. Chr. Austin closed the public hearing. Com. Austin spoke in favor ofthe 24 hour operation and believes it is a service to many people. She stated she is not concerned about it being obtrusive. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Ms. Bjunnan stated she was contacted by four residents who expressed no concern. Com. Doyle expressed concern about the center as a whole becoming a 24 hour operation and for this reason would oppose the request. Com. Roberts stated he will support the request for the 24 hour operation. Com. Harris stated she would like to see additional lighting in front of Kinkos and did express concern about setting a precedence. She noted she would like to see additional lighting and expressed concern about safety. Chr. Mahoney stated he would support the request for the 24 hour operation and noted each application will ---- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1994 Page 13 be reviewed separately. Mr. Cowan suggested that the lighting issue, as addressed by Com. Harris, be deferred to the Sheriff's Department. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve application 15-V-93 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Roberts. Paged ~I Com. Doyle SECOND: VOTE: NOES: OLD BUSINESS 6. Application 21-U-89. Clark Rosa: Six-month review of use pennit modification to allow a retail use and extend days of operation to Saturday. Planning Director Cowan stated staff will answer any questions of the Commission. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Ms. Bjunnan stated she did meet with neighbors to make sure all concerns were met and the neighbors were satisfied. She stated there have been no additional off-site parking problems as a result of the retail use. Ms. Bjunnan stated the noise issue is not related to the retail use, but is related to the pennitted light industrial use and will be deferred to the Code Enforcement Department. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve application 2I-V-89 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Harris Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: NEW BUSINESS - None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION -None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at II :05 p.m. to the next Regular Meeting of February 28,1994 at 6:45 p.m.