Loading...
PC 05-08-89 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 8, 1989 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman Adams Vice Chairman Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Larry Harmer, City Planner Travice Whitten, City Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPRO V AL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 24, 1989, as presented. SECOND: Com. Szabo VarE: Passed, Com. Mac!œnzie absent 3-0-1 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM I - Application 3-M-89, Mehdi Naderzad, Applicant requested a Continuance to the Meeting of May 22, 1989. ITEM 2 - Application 6-TM-89 and 4-Z-89, Perry & Jones Development, Continued to the Meeting of May 22, 1989, pending completion of the Environmental Assessment process. ITEM 6 - Request to initiate public hearing to rezone various private recreational properties to the recently adopted FP Zone was removed from the Calendar per Staff request. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to Continue Application 3-M-89 and Application 6-TM- 89 and 4-Z-89 to May 22,1989, and to withdraw from the Calendar Item 6. SECOND: Com. Szabo VarE: Passed 4-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - Letter from Mr. Jan Stoeckenius and Ms. Julia Tien, 22386 Cupertino Rd. Re: Item 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 8, 1989 Page 2 PC - 570 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 3: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 3-Z-89. 7-U-89 and 8-EA-89 Sunnvview Lutheran Home Sunnvview Lutheran Home Nonh side of Cupenino Rd.. 400 ft. west of Hillcreast Rd. .l.m ZONING: (3-Z-89) of 1.02 acres from R-3 (multiple-family residential) to BQ (quasi public building) or such other zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission or City Council. USE PERMIT: (7-U-89) To conven an existing 16 unit apartment complex to a senior citizen congregate residential facility. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 5,1989 (Application 3-Z-89 Only) Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan rcviewed thc Application and presented an aerial map. In response to Chr. Adams' question, he stated that the Applicant had indicated that the build- ing would be upgraded to meet applicable fire safety standards. ADplicant's Presentation: Mr. Ron Zielske, Director, Lutheran Sunnyview Home, reviewed the safety features required by Social Services for residential facilities for the elderly and noted the parking available for both residents and employees. Com. Mackenzie cited the letter received and asked the Applicant to address the concerns. Mr. Zielske responded that employees found it more convenient to park on the street rather in areas designated for employee parking; they would be instructed to use the a1lotted stalls. Mr. Zielske cited the Staff Repon Life Safety Issues and noted that extensive flood control facilities had been insta1led in 1986-87 in both the new building and the remodelled kitchen and areas; in addition, a berm was constructed as a drainage control measure. Mr. Whitten conÎmned that such was the case; however, the Department would like an opportunity to review the situation. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Don Ganbaltz, 10033 Hillcrest, Cupenino, was favorable to the Application and thought Sunnyview Home would provide better maintenance and security on-site than the current apartment complex; better security would also benefit the neighborhood; he asked that trash be properly removed and not thrown on adjacent propenies. His major concern was that in the future, a high rise development could occur on-site; he noted that the original proposal had to be reduced due to a lack of sufficient parking. pLANNING COMMISSloÑMINUTES Regular Meeting of May 8, 1989 Page 3 PC - 570 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Cowan responded to the above comment that the Use Permit Condition 3 Future Develol'ment addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Ganbaltz. Ms. Julia Ju-Wen Tien reviewed her letter of May 2, 1989, cited above; she noted that on- street parking by employees occurred rarely and impacted only a few homes. MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to recommend approval of 3-Z-89 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing, per the Model Resolution. SECOND: Com. Claudy VarE: Passed 4-0 Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Mackenzie Passed Com. Szabo moved to approve 8-EA-89. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 MOTION: SECOND: VarE: MOTION: SECOND: VarE: 4-0 MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to approve 7-U-89 subject to conclusions and subcon- clusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing, per the Model Resolution. SECOND: Com. Claudy VarE: Passed 4-0 ITEM 4: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 8-U-89 and 9-EA-89 Mary F. Kunis ~ ~dde of Peninsula Ave.. nnrther\y of Ste ens Creek Blvd .!ll USE PERMIT: (8-U-89) To establish a financial records storage and tax accounting office use within an existing 3,000 sq. ft. building. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 15, 1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and discussed Staff Report~- in~ Deficit. He reviewed a parking and traffic circulation pattern proposed by the Applicant. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 8, 1989 Page 4 PC - 570 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Cowan stated that a revised Condition 17 was presented for consideration, adding a new third paragraph and amending the following paragraph as follows: "If the parkinv area improvements are orovided within the existinv oublic riVht of wilY. said improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Eng:ineer." "If said parkinv imorove- ments are constructed in coni unction with abandonment of Peninsula Boulevard. said development.... " Aoplicant's Presentation: Mr. Jim Bidegary, Representing the Applicant, confirmed that the Applicant was willing to improve Peninsula Blvd. and that she understood the Condi- tions of Approval. The Revised Condition 17 was explained by Mr. Cowan. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Bob Slater, Part owner of the adjacent office building, commented as follows: Commented that Monta Vista Inn, the bike shop and office building shared parking Stated that the office building was purchased about a year ago, even though they knew that parking was restricted; in turn, they limited occupancy in the office building to tenants with low parking needs or to those willing to park off-site and walk to their unit . - Current arrangement provided parallel parking and two-way access; the Applicant's pro- posallimited PelÙnsula Blvd. to a one way street preventing access to the east - In addition, the Applicant's proposal did not increase the number of stalls while increas- ing the number of spaces required for this area Mr. Joe Brown, Dr. Brown's, concurred with the above and reiterated that the Applicant's proposal would create chaos; he contended that PelÙnsula Blvd. worked fine at present. Ms. Ann Anger, Monta Vista Improvement Association, reviewed the history of this site and felt this building should be condemned by the City; this comer was the gateway to Monta Vista and should have a presentable building on-site. Mr. Jack Wedgewood, Part owner of the adjacent office building, commented as follows: - Temporary approval a1lowed only two individuals; any additional personnel was illegal - Prior to the above use 8-12 individuals parked on PelÙnsula Blvd. - Any additional approval that allowed an expansion of personnel in the subject building would make a bad parking problem. considerably worse - In addition, the bicycle shop had been sold and new tenants were being considered; any intensity of use at this location would further compound the problems on this site - Noted the problems resulting from making Peninsula Ave. a one-way street Noted that adjacent residential streets had restricted parking during daytime hours which further complicated any expansion of uses on Peninsula Ave. - Envisioned that the subject building would work well for dead storage - Contended that the layout indicated that this space was not going to be used as a record storage facility; in addition, the building had now been carpeted - Any approval which intensified the use would be objected at every stage of the process Corn. Mackenzie agreed with the above speaker that an intensification of use on the subject site would compound the exiting problem of parking shortage. PLANNING COMMISSIOtq MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 8, 1989 Pagc 5 PC - 570 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy reviewed the alternatives available to the Commission and concluded that only a low intensity use on-site could be accommodated; he noted that other property own- ers purchased their sites with inadequate parking. However, he did not wish to see this building abandoned; thus, some low density use would have to be allowed. Finally, the Applicant had complied with the Commission's request to present a plan for the parking. Com. Szabo stated that the layout showing several partitioned small spaces suggested that records storage was not the only use; typically a warehouse would not be partitioned. Mr. Bidegary noted that not all parking spaces were being used when he viewed the area earlier in the day; the Applicant would not be using many spaces on Peninsula Blvd. In response to Chr. Adams' question, he stated that from January to April, the office would be busier than the remainder of the year; during tax time, she employed a tax accountant. He guaranteed that a cenain amount of the space was being used for storage. Chr. Adams' questioned whether more than half the spacc was being used for storage; Mr. Bidegary answered no. Chr. Adams cited the layout presented and asked whether it was a fair assumption that mini offices were being provided and could be used for client consultation rooms; Mr. Bidegary responded yes. At present Ms. Kunis had onc receptionist; during tax time there was an additional employee, a tax accountant. Com. Mackenzie questioned the use of these mini offices; Mr. Bidegary responded that some were being used for storage; he confinned that the space had been carpeted and furniture insta1led was previously owned by the Applicant. Com. Szabo reiterated his reservations regarding the use of this space as a storage facility. Mr. Cowan advised that the Commission could Continue this Application for a revised layout, impose additional Conditions addressing their concern or deny the Application; he reviewed the letter of the Applicant which indicated that no more than two employees would work in the office with her; in addition, client appointments would be set up at a rate of one per hour. Ms. Anger cited concerns regarding enforcement of this Use Permit if violations occurred. Mr. Slater reiterated testimony given earlier. MOTION: SECOND: VarE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Szabo Passed 4-0 Com. Mackenzie suggested that Conditions be added to limit the number of employees and clients on-site to clearly indicate the use a1lowed in this building. He noted that parking available on Peninsula Blvd. was to be shared by a1l occupants including the Applicant Com. Claudy questioned whether Building Permits had been issued for construction of interior walls in this structure? Mr. Cowan responded that hc did not know. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 8, 1989 Page 6 PC - 570 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy added that if Building Permits had not been issued, interior walls should not have already been constructed; monitoring the issuance of the required Permits was a way of limiting the use of the site, which had serious constraints in tenns of parking. Com. Szabo noted the difficulty of the situation; the City wished the property improved at a site in which was extremely difficult to find suitable tenants. He continued to have reser- vations regarding the proposed intensity of use and favored a limitation on the number of offices allowed. Com. Mackenzie suggested a revised floor plan be required; Conditions to be amended to require that every Building Permit would be heard by the Planning Commission; in addition, the Conditional Use Permit would prohibit the construction of temporary wa1ls. Com. Claudy wished to see the building occupied and a low intensity use allowed; he reviewed the significant constraints on this site. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to Continue Application 8-U-89 and 9-EA-89 to May 22, 1989. SECOND: Com. Szabo VarE: Passed 4-0 CLOSED SESSION: a) Negotiations for the purchase, sale, exchange or lease of real property (Government Code Section 5456.8 The Commission met in Closed Session from 9:00 to 9:25 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 5 Request to initiate a public hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment to designate the Convention/Conference Center for the proposed Marriott Hotel as a quasi-public facility for the benefit of the community. Said Hotel site is located at northeast corner of Finch A venue and Stevens Creek Blvd. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to send a Minute Order.authorizing Staff to initiate a General Plan amendment hearing to consider designating the convention center with an overlay quasi-public use to recognize the public benefit of a convention facility. Said designation would allow the City to enter into favorable use agreements with the hotel operator. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VarE: Passed 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSIQN MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 8, 1989 Page 7 PC - 570 OLD BUSINESS: - None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: - Com. Szabo urged a Joint Meeting with Parlcs and Recreation Commission be scheduled REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: - Written Repon submitted. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:33 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of May 18, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission At the R lar Meeting of May 22,1989 , Chainnan Attest: ~ . s, City Clerk