Loading...
PC 01-14-85 A PC-457 y �. 10 00 `1'OJ C A'�erne, CL -'E.i'tino,' , 9,014 Pare 1 1e1e' hone : (40 ) 252-405 111 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 14, 1985 SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7 : 30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Adams Commissioner Szabo Commissioner Sorensen Chairperson Claudy . Staff Present : Dir. of Planning and Devel . Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Engineer Whitten City Attorney Kilian APPROVAL OF MINUTES POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS MOTION: Com. Adams, to remove Item #5 from the Calendar in accordance with the applicants ' request . SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application 15-U-68 (Revised) of CUPERTINO HILLS SWIM AND RACQUET CLUB: USE PERMIT to construct a 900 sq. ft . activity center with kitchen facilities at the Cupertino Hills Swim and Racquet Club and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located southerly of and adjacent to Rae Lane approximately 370 ft . westerly of the intersection of Rae Lane and Linda Vista Drive in an A1-43 (Agricultural-Residential, 43,000 sq. ft . minimum lot size) zoning district . First Hearing continued. Planning Commission has final approval. Com. Mackenzie announced that he would abstain from the Item, since he was a member of the Club . Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained the Item had been continued from November 13, 1984 Meeting so that problems of the proximity of the proposed building and activities to a residential area could be solved. Though the building was I PC-457 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 14,1985 Page 2 still in the same location, some concerns raised had been mitigated, he said. In addition to changes the applicant had made, he described changes Staff had suggested, including deletion of a walkway, moving of , a staircase and extended hours until 12 : 00 p.m. every day. Cindy Mahoney, 22034 Baxley Court, member of the Board of Directors of the Club, clarifiedlthat the hours they had requested were 7 : 00 a.m. to 10 : 00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 7 : 00 a.m. to 11 : 00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, and were for indoor activities. She was concerned about moving the step Chr. Claudy asked Ms . Mahoney to describe the structure, and established that in summer it would be an outdoor activity. Roy Evulich, 13616 Surrey Lane, Saratoga, had experienced problems when he had lived in the residence adjacent to the Club and was not, in favor of changing the hours, since it was a residential area. He was not completely satisfied that some fencing would be replaced with trees, but realized there was an engineering problem. He would be concerned if the stairs were left in the proposed position, because they would become a congregating area in close prox'limity to the residence. Joseph Evulich, 14300 Murphy Avenue, San Martin, owner of the residence in question, felt the stairs would create problems, and hoped that the trees ,suggested instead of fencing would be maintained, for privacy reasons, as trees in the past had not . The Commission examined a photograph on which Ms . Mahoney indicated where the stairs were to be placed, which was near to an existing play area. They established that the planted area above the steps would be filled with shrubs to discourage access, and discussed potential noise problems, the conditions that addressed them and the extension of the hours. Ms. Mahoney pointed out they did not have large gatherings on site and that the membership could not fit into the proposed building. Questioned by the Commission, she admitted they would not be entirely happy if no music was allowed in the building during the summer, when it would be treated as an outside activity area. i MOTION: Com. Szabo, to close the Public Hearing SECOND Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Mackenzie abstaining) The Commission felt that because trees did not suppress noise, there would be a substantial problem, and were mainly concerned about night-time noise in a residential area. Regarding the stairs, the majority of the Commissioners felt the landscaped area would disileourage access. However, Com. Szabo felt there would be a problem of congregating, and hence noise, and that the steps and the fire door should not be positioned as they were . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 14, 1985 PC-457 Page 3 It was decided to leave the hours of operation as they were originally, for indoor and outdoor use, because of proximity 411 to a residential area. Chr. Claudy was concerned that the inside use of music and such should be restricted further. Changing of the wording pertaining to entertainment in the Conditions was discussed together with a time limit for some types of entertainment . Assistant Planning Director Cowan suggested the Commission should clarify the hours of operation for the clubhouse . MOTION: Com. Adams, to accept the Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review Committee SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Mackenzie abstaining) MOTION: Com. Szabo, to approve Application 15-U-68, subject to the findings of the Staff Report and subcon- clusions of the Hearing, with Conditions 1-15; Condition 16; Condition 17, deleting the last sentence; Condition 19; Condition 20, deleted and replaced with "Evening activities are permitted if they do not create noise obnoxious to surroun- ding residences . The hours of operation for indoor activities are limited to 7: 00 a.m. to 10: 00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and all holidays and ® 7 : 00 .m. to 11 : 00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and any day preceding a holiday. The Planning Commission shall have the ability to review the evening activities of the Club in the event comp- laints are received from adjoining homeowners. Phonographs, radios or live entertainment activities are not permitted after 8 : 00 p.m. ";Condition 21 deleted. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Mackenzie abstaining) 2. Applications 10-Z-84 and 21-U-84 of MICIIAEL WEBER AND FRED MICHAUD: REZONING approximately . 51 gross acres from R1-7. 5 (Residential Single-family, 7, 500 sq . ft . minimum lot size) zone to P (Planned Development with Office, Commercial and Residential intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appro priate by the Planning Commission, USE:•PERMIT to expand an existing single-story office building to a two-story office building with 18, 800 sq. ft . and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Miller Avenue and Richwood Drive. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - February 4, 1985. PC-457 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 14, 1985 Page 4 Director of Planning and Development Sisk explained the Item had been continued from the December 12, 1984 Meeting to 410 give the applicant time to consider disposition of two single family residences on the property. He reviewed the Staff Report as given at that Meeting and advised that the applicants wanted a Condition of Approval that the houses be moved appropriately, since relocation might take several months. William Plimpton, Raymond M. Rooker, Architects, representing the applicants, recapitulated on his description of the project and area problems given at the December 12, 1984 Meeting. He advised that because of adjacent neighbors ' security concerns they had designed a fence-type sound wall with extra landscaping; also, at Staff' s suggestion, they had created a commercial loop on Richwood Drive that would further define 'the commercial and residential areas, he said. Chr. Claudy discussed the location of air conditioning equipment, etc . with Mr. Plimpton, and it was established that some equipment would go behind a 3 ft . parapet and some in a 6 ft . space that occurred between floors. Mr. Plimpton, discussing Condition 22, felt that on the westerly side, mounding would be 'sufficient, and wanted the mandatory masonry wall deleted, since the alternative would be more aesthetically pleasing. Director of Planning and Development Sisk, advising that the intent was a sound barrier, agreed that something other than masonry would be used if it met requirements. Discussing Condition 23, Mr. Plimpton wanted the option to increase the mounding, and discussing Condition 28, he did not want to be locked into the finished floor height requirements, since the site had not yet been surveyed. He also wanted the requirement of bronze glass to be modified so that a similar color could be used if a glass labelled "bronze" was not available. The Commission felt these changes would be satisfactory. Fred Morello, 10199 East Estates Drive, commented that the proposed zoning change seemed unnecessary, since there was plenty of commercial space in the City and a shortgage of housing space. He further felt the residential area was clearly defined and that the office building in question was an anomally and would only become a l!arger anomally if the expansion was approved. He thought the people who lived in the area should judge what should go in the area. Vaughn Marie Rodriguez, 10630 East„ Estates Drive, supported the previous speaker and voiced her preference for rundown rentals over commercial buildings on the site. She believed the applicant could find other office space,and advised that security was not a problem in the area, since law enforcement was taking care of it, whereas she thought the parklike 410 setting described by the architecticould pose security problems . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 14 , 1985 PC-457 Page 5 She believed the traffic loop would result in more traffic 411 on other neighborhood streets, and felt the only benefit of the project was to add a few trees . Tom Weber, 10530 East Estates Drive, said the two houses in question were part of a large tract, and could not see any reason to tear them down, suggesting that the commercial space in question be rezoned to multi-family to match Miller Avenue, rather than rezoning the two houses to match the commercial building. He believed the suggested traffic pattern would make access to Stevens Creek Boulevard from East Estates Drive very difficult . Shirley Hoy, 10143 East Estates Drive, did not want to face a fence, and felt, the proposed rezoning would affect the value of her home unfavorably. Mr. Plimpton said the applicant wanted to spur commercial improvements in the area, and pointed out that some neighbors present at the December 12, 1984 Meeting had approved the approach they wanted to take . He advised that some alterations could be made to the traffic loop to make access to Stevens Creek Boulevard easier, and emphasized that, even if required, a concrete block wall would not be obvious from East Estates Drive, since mounding and plantings would obscure it . Ms . Rodriguez commented that the neighbors were not complaining about the condition of the existing commercial buildings in ® the area. MOTION: Com. Szabo, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Fassed 4-0 (Com. Adams abstaining) Chr. Claudyfelt it was an architectural improvement, but could not agree tofthe _deletion of residential land and the encroach- ment on a residential area. He encouraged the applicant to apply to rezone the office structure residential. Com.. Sorensen liked the traffic and building design, but was more concerned about the residential land issues. Com. Szabo felt the office vacancy rates and housing unavailabi ity were reasons not to support . Corr. Mackenzie reiterated his feelings given at the December 12, 1984 Meeting and felt the application improved the area. MOTION: Com. Szabo, to recommend denial of Applications 10-Z-84 and 21-U-84 on the basis that the applicant had not demonstrated the necessity for rezoning and had not demonstrated a .need for additional office space in Cupertino . SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 3-1 (Com. Mackenzie voting against the motion Com. Adams abstaining) MOTION: Com. Mackenzie to recommend acceptance of the • Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 C-457 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 14 , 1985 age 6 The Commission realized it would; be impossible to hear all items on the Agenda at this time'. MOTION: Com. Adams, to continue , Items 6, 7, 8 and 9 to a Special Adjourned Meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 16, 1985 at 7 : 30 p.m. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 BREAK 9 : 15-9 : 25 p.m. 3 . Application 26-U-84 of FONTAIA ' S, INC. : USE PERMIT to expand an existing 3, 500 sq. ft . 'restaurant by 1, 400 •sq. ft . and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 900 ft . east of Stelling Road in a P (Planned Development with Office land Residential intent and Commercial emphasis) zoning district . First Hearing continued. . Tentative City Council hearing date - January 21, 1985. Assistant Planning Director Cowan, giving the Staff Report, advised that the expansion had been made possible by changing parking configurations, including those on the adjoining lots of Straw Hat Pizza and Montgomery Place, which shared a common landowner with Fontana' s and the Crossroads Center. Staff recommended approval, sinceithe resultant F.A.R. * was . 25 or below, he said. The Commissioners mentioned the parkins overflow problems of the Post Office and the pizza parlor. Murray Horton, the applicant, advised that parking would be more than covering requirements, and the landowner had indicated that he would support the reciprocal easement parking and had also hired a security person to try to discourage parking by Post Office employees and customers in their lot . He advised that thought the Post Office posed problems at noon-time, there were none in the evening, and observed that thePost Office was trying to relocate. Questioned by Com. Sorensen, Mr. Horton had no knowledge of school pizza night parking problems and felt that the Cross- roads Center supplied much evening parking. He indicated that some street spaces and parking in 'the back of Mervyns could be used, which seldom was.. •. Advised by some Commissioners that this was dark, he said he would look into the matter, but was cautioned by Director of Planning and Development Sisk that there had been neighborhood concern about lighting inten- sity in the past . In discussion, it was determined wth Staff that the Post Office was trying to relocate and was waiting for a site to come up. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 14, 1985 FC-457 Page 7 NOTION: Corn. Adams, to recommend acceptance of the Negative Declaration of the Environmental 110 Review Committee . SECOND : Com. Mackenzie VOTE : Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend approval of 26-U-84, subject to the findings of the Staff Report and the subconclusions of the Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15, and Conditions 16-22 . SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 4 . Application 27-U-84 of TORRE PROFESSIONAL CENTER (MILTON PAGONIS) : USE PERMIT to expand an existing 3, 890 sq . ft . single-story office building into a two-story building with 5,780 sq. ft . total and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the west side of Torre Avenue approximately 225 ft . north of Pacifica Drive in a P (Planned Development with Office intent) zoning district . First Hearing continued. Tenta- tive City Council hearing date - January 21, 1985. • Director of Planning and Development Sisk advised that the Item had been continued from the December 12, 1984 Meeting so that the applicant could investigate reducing the parking deficiency. The applicant had found four more spaces,but seventeen additional were needed, and though the applicant had not felt there was a problem,a letter from an adjacent occupant had been received, and Staff was recommending denial, he said. Chr. Claudy established that the existing structure would be short of parking if the new regulations were applied to it . Dr. Kenneth Frangadakis said their practice was based on quality and they needed facilities to be able to consult with one another. He reiterated the concerns of cramped quarters that Dr. Pagonis had described at the Meeting of December 12, 1984 . Questioned by Com. Sorensen, he described the practice as mainly general dentistry with dentists sharing space between two and four days a week each, and with two specialists who worked on.. a day by day basis. Chr. Claudy determined that the practice had been expanded approximately four years ago into the space previously occupied by a dental laboratory in the building. He asked Dr. Frangadakis if the parking would still meet the old regulations, since the original parking was based on the number of practitioners. Dr. Frangadakis advised that some practitioners were not full-time and repeated that they were not asking to add more 111 practitioners. i - 0-457 PLANNING COMMISSION PIINUTES, JANUARY 14, 1985 age 8 The Commission explored the question of alternate parking with Director of Planning and Development Sisk, who advised410 that the building was one of five on three lots with reciprocal parking easements, and though there was reciprocal access to other properties in the area, there were no more reciprocal parking easements . The only potential he saw in the area was the possibility of underground parking within the neighborhood at a later time ., It was noted by the Commission that parking lots in the vicinity always seemed to be full. Discussing restrictions to stop further expansion of the business, the Commission decided 'that restricting the number of operatories was the most satisfactory resolution; restricting hours and the number of dentists was also considered. It was determined that it would be difficult for other types of medical businessesto take over if the building was sold or vacated, since the equipment was so specialized and would be hard to move, so that this aspect did not pose a problem. Mr. Plimpton advised that of the proposed expansion, two- . thirds of the space would not affect the patient . load. The Commission established that four operatories would be added in the proposal,and explored restricting to dentistry. City Attorney Kilian advised that; as a rule, Use Permits went with the land and not the tenants, but thought the restrictions could be legally made if the applicant agreed. He suggested a covenant on the land could be required that the building be used only for dentistry. Realizing that only three of the thirteen owners were present, the Commission felt the remaining ' owners could appeal to City Council if the restrictions were objectionable. It was decided to restrict the building to the proposed floor • plan, therefore providing four additional operatories only, and limited waiting room space . MOTION: Com. Szabo, to recommend acceptance of the Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review Committee SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed • 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recomn'end approval of Appli- cation 27-U-84, subject ti,o the findings of the Staff ,Report and the subc',onclusions of the Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15; Condition 16; Condition 17 with the word "medical" removed; Conditions 18-20; Condition 21, requiring that the applicant record a covenant against the property indicating this building will be used for dental purposes only; 1Condition 22, allowing the implementation of thei proposed floor plan and forbidding changing that floor plan without modification of the Use Permit . �< NIONRUM,ANN �� w� '. '� �-,„ + i_r,- ��� ` •:� a `,,, r �t ��r � t t s. `:ria � Y i �i"7 ,���,,a tE� r�' • t ;+ t� t'+ r t + 3 i lj �: PLANNI2:3 COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 14, 1985 PC-,457 Page 9 SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 ' REPORT OF THE PLANNING C014MISSION Chr. Claudy mentioned the parking situation at the Arcadia Vetirary Clinic, recently built, where it seemed that the Staff were parking on the street. k' Assistant City Engineer Whitten said the City had received. al complaint and the traffic section was investigating. ADJOURNMENT: 10:37 p.m. until Wednesday, January. 16, )85 at 7:30 p.m. r 'ATTEST:' . APPROVED: City, Cl.erk' jyhairgerson } a= N, r a. t }. 1011, .fi„r ` ,,, tsl" :Z§f'v�i{ ? ,..", s 'Ve45+ j�ui,.'`.$l. 6' .r".e ' .5`r 4 1 .♦ 1 ,.;,,�.'.x ,•�# � � ��'�t •,i.:��,� .a'a.. ^.-+��r: �i�`„�'`%�w��*'c7}� �. ��1�..k}""tA�tS��''�'te �'`-� +w�.,t� N� S i � `s v+.'t+� � :-; �„�,• 5. ... "w-& .ter..