Loading...
PC 04-10-89 · . CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 'THE PLANNIr.¡GéÒMMîŠSIö'N HELD ON APRIL 10, 1989 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chainnan Adams Vice Chairman Claudy " Commissioner Sorensen Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Mark Caughey, Associate Planner Travice Whitten, City Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPRO V AL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Sorensen moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 27, 1989, as presented. SECOND: Com. Claudy VarE: Passed, Chr. Adams abstaining 3-0-1 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 1: Application 3-M-89 - Applicant requested a two week continuance to the next regular meeting of April 24, 1989. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to Continue 3-M-89 to April 24, 1989. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VarE: Passed i+O ,. '. ;, .., WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: _ Letter from Mr. Tim Verschuyl, dated April 10, 1989, regarding Item 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 2: Application No(s) Applicant: Location: 5-TM-89 Marvin Kirkeby Grant Gustavson PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 10, 1989 Page 2 PC - 568 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide one parcel into two (2) lots measuring 6,470 sq. ft. and 6,640 sq. ft. respectively. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt Staffs Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and presented the Tentative Map. ADDlicant's Presentation: Mr. Marvin Kirkeby, Developer, asked that Condition 14, Fences. be modified to require non-conforming fences to be removed prior to issuance of building permits rather than prior to recording the [mal tract map. MOTION: SECOND: VarE: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 In response to Com. Claudy's question, Mr. Cowan stated that they wished to ensure that non-conforming situations were abated; however, the Application could be conditioned to require that any such fences be removed prior to the issuance of the building permit. Consensus reached by the Commission to modify Condition 14 as stated in the Motion. Com. Sorensen asked that the Tree Protection requirements be carefully enforced. MOTION: SECOND: VarE: ITEM 3: Com. Claudy moved approval of 5-TM-89 subject to conclusions and sub- conclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing, per the Model Resolution; Conditions 1-13; Condition 14 amended to read, "All non-conforming fences shall be removed upon issuance of a demolition permit for the existing structure or upon the sale of either of the lots, whichever occurred first". Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 3-U-89.3-EA-89 Imwalle Ste¡¡ner R. Mooney Southeast corner of Blaney Ave. and Homestead Rd. 20.100 sq. ft.. .46 acres USE PERMIT: (3-U-89) To construct and operate a 5,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail building. CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 13, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 17, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 10, 1989 Page 3 PC - 568 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented the Application and a Site Map, Preliminary Land- scape Plan and Elevation Drawings; he reviewed the Staff Report Discussion, Apolicant's Presentation: Mr. Chuck Stegner, Representing the Applicant, stated that they had worked with the adjacent property owners to reach a suitable compromise. Mr. Richard Fish, Architect, responded to Chr. Adams' question, that the Code required a 30 ft. height for an elevation adjacent to the property line; they had tried to integrate such with the mansard roof and the use of a parapet. . , Chr. Adams stated he had some reservations regarding the location of the trash enclosures. Commissioners Claudy and Sorensen felt that the proposed location was the most practical. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VarE: Com. Claudy suggested that some architectural treatment be added to the rear elevation. The Commissioner favored the Application with the above modification. Mr. Caughey reviewed the recommendations of the Architectural and Site Committee on this Item, which had met at the same time as the Planning Commission's hearing; they concurred that some architectural treatment was required on the rear elevation. Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Szabo Passed 4-0 MOTION: SECOND: VarE: MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to recommend approval of 3-U-89 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. SECOND: Corn. Claudy Mr. Cowan suggested that a Condition 20 be added as stated in the following Motion. MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to amend the Motion to recommend approval of 3-U-89 adding.a Condition 20 to read, "The project shall be returned to the Architec- tural and Site Committee for a final review of the architectural detail on the rear elevation. SECOND: Com. Claudy VarE: Passed 4-0 Com. Szabo moved to approve 3-EA-89. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 10, 1989 Page 4 PC - 568 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 4: Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Acres: 2-Z-89. 4-U-89 and 5-EA-89 Peninsula Bible Church Peninsula Bible Church West side of Blanev Ave.. north of Cedar Ln. u.3. REZONING of a 2.3 acre parcel from City (A~ 1) (Agricultural/Residential) to City BZ (Quasi-Public Building), or such other zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission or City Council. USE PERMIT for a 4,700 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing church classroom building. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENT AL DETERMINATION: Not complete TENTATIVE COUNCIL HEARING DATE: Not Specific Staffs Presentation: Mr. Caughey noted the petition and correspondence received from neighbors and the letter from Mr. Tim Verschuyl, Architect, Representing Peninsula Bible Church, dated April 10, 1989, which addressed the issues, and including a list of scheduled activities and the attendant parking requirements. He reviewed the history of this Application and compared the previous request with the one under consideration. ApDlicant's Presentation: Mr. Tim Verschuyl, Architect, reviewed his letter cited in Written Communications and presented the following Exhibits Existinl!: Street Parkin!', Site Cross Section and a List of Scheduled Activities. In addition, the Site Plan was considered. He reviewed their request that a prohibition of parking on one side of Lucille and on Blaney Ave. be lifted to accommodate their parking needs on Sunday mornings; such would provide in excess of 50 parking spaces. He noted one change to the Site Plan Exhibit; walkways had been eliminated and stairs added per the direction of the Central Fire District. Mr. Mike Tracy, Facilities Manager for Peninsula Bible Church, reviewed the current use of the classroom building The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Jim Murphy, 20045 Cedar Tree Ln., Cupertino, requested information on the Exhibits presented by the Applicant and disputed figures presented on the Site Cross Section. Mr. Prasad Vepa, 10575 Orange Tree Ln., Cupertino, stated that while he supported Church activities, the issue was the scale of this operation; he felt that such exceeded the capacity of the facilities and resulted in a severe parking over spill, impact to the residential character of the neighborhood and noise and congestion levels which were intolerable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 10, 1989 Page 5 PC - 568 PUBLIC HEARINGS Conûnued Ms. Marilyn Spiller, 10572 Cedar Tree Ct., Cupertino, concurred that the parking overspill was excessive. Mr. Kathie Wade, 20085 Cedar Tree Ln., Cupertino, commented that Church activities were not confined to Sunday mornings; summer weekday activities sometimes started be- tween 6:00 to 7:00 A.M. and occasionally ended as late as 12 Midnight. In response to Com. Sorensen's question, she conftrrned that she had called the police on occasion. Mr. Kim Kelly, 20135 Cedar Tree Ln., Cupertinò, concurred that activities were on-going throughout the week. ' Ms. Kathy Motve, 10524 Orange Tree Ln., Cupertino, presented photographs of the park- ing over spill; problems had not occurred prior to Peninsula Bible Church's use of the site. In response to Com. Sorensen's question, she confirmed that she had spoken to the Church regarding the situaûon. Ms. Mary Kay Sherman, 10595 Orange Tree Ln., Cupertino, reaffIrmed that the situation was deterioraûng; the congregaûon was too large for the facility. She added that while activities occurred only during 2% of the week, as the Applicant's Representaûve alleged, if one worked, activities occurred 25-33% of the time they spend at home; residents were being held hostage in their homes due to the parking over spill. There was a discrepancy between direction given by officials and the congregation's compliance with such. Ms. Nancy Burnett, 10542 Cedar Tree Ct., Cupertino, requested information on zoning. Mr. Greg MeriU, 10542 Cedar Tree Ct., Cupertino, stated that some of the mitigations suggested by the Church were unrealistic. He suggested that residential streets be stripped to prevent parking in driveways or other prohibited areas; until the existing problems were solved, he asked that the Church's request for an addition not be granted. Mr. Warren Whaley, Cupertino, stated that he would recommend the film of this hearing be shown in order to convey the severity of the parking problem to the congregation; he suggested consideration of permit parking for residents. Mr. Kelly added that the suggestion of stripping Cedar Tree Ln. was not in keeping with resident's wishes; secondly, he noted the increased traffIc circulation and safety hazards in the neighborhood resulting from Church members trying to fInd parking spaces. Mr. Tim Verschuyl concluded that better communication was required between the Church and the neighborhood; he reviewed his letter and the Exhibits presented. Mr. Tracy made himself available to the residents of the neighborhood for intervention when problems occurred. The Public Hearing remained open. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 10, 1989 Page 6 PC - 568 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Sorensen noted that the Environmental Review Committee would be considering the testimony taken; she agreed that better communications were required, and added that some of the mitigation measures for the parking over spill could be further considered; she was very concerned about the severity of the traffic impacts. Com. Szabo stated that this was the most severe parking problem he had seen while on the Commission; he estimated that a parking deficit of one hundred spaces was occurring and asked that the 1:4 parking ratio be reconsidered. While the addition of classroom space would nqt increase the deficit, it was the Commission's policy to address existing problems whenever an application was presented. Com. Claudy concurred with Com. Szabo's comments; he noted that parking on public streets was available to anyone. Nonetheless, he would not approve the Application with- out resolution of the existing impacts. Chr. Adams concurred with the above comments and stated he would not approve the Application as presented; he estimated that the parking deficit may amount to three to four hundred spaces. He questioned whether the Applicants would accept a Continuance to address the existing problems or wished a decision at the time. Mr. Verschuyl requested a one month Continuance; he was unsure how long it would take to work with the City to reconsider allowing parking in currently prohibited areas. Com. Szabo noted the difference between the right to park on the street and an intensive use of a site; he cited the example of shopping centers where parking was required to be provided to prevent spill over which totally impacted a neighborhood. Residents had a right to expect that they could park within a reasonable vicinity of their home. Com. Claudy noted that a one month Continuance was insufficient to address the situation. Consensus reached to Continue the 2-Z-89 for two weeks to allow the Applicant to proceed with this matter and to Continue 4-U-89 for two months. Mr. Darwin Thorne, Throne 22950 Cricket Hill, Cupertino, felt that any construction on- site would only increase the impacts. MOTION: SECOND: VarE: Com. Szabo moved to Continue 2-Z-89 to April 24, 1989, and to Continue 4-U-89 and 5-EA-89 to June 12, 1989.. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 Break: 10:05 - 10:14 P.M. ITEM 5: Application No(s): Applicant: Location: 80.033 City of Cuoertino City wide PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 10, 1989 Page 7 PC - 568 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Proposed amendment of Home Occupation Ordinance No. 321 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 27, 1989. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May I, 1989 Staffs Presentation: Mr. Caughey presented the Application and reviewed the Staff Report. Members of the Commission were favorable to th,e amended Ordinance presented. Com. Sorensen commented as follows as follows: On Section 6: Standards I) Traffic Characteristics: she questioned a limitation of five business visitors per day. E) Stora¡¡e: she felt the 250 cubic feet was still insufficient. On Section 8: Excluded Occupations: J) Upholstery, B) Beauty parlors and A) Automobile Repair Shops, including paint and body work: she felt a small business in the examples cited would not impact the neighborhood Mr. Caughey responded on Traffic Characteristics that Staff carefully reviewed this item and had noted the difficulty of regulating the time and frequency of delivery personnel. In addition, there was concern about regulating business visitors for one home occupation as opposed to another; Staff concluded that allowing one home occupation, such as a piano teacher, to have ten visitors per day while another occupation, i.e., an attorney, could have none, would be discriminatory. Therefore, Staff recommended that an absolute number of trips per day be allowed, without defining the type of trip. Com. Szabo objected to regulating activities within a home; such would not impact an area. Mr. Caughey responded to comments on Section 8, that the preamble to this Section identifies businesses that demonstrate a tendency to expand rapidly beyond the scope of a home occupation; often a complaint initiates abatement proceedings against these uses. Chr. Adams questioned the use of a garage for use; Mr. Caughey responded that the issue was whether it was more important that the garage be used for parking the resident's car during the business day or at night; such a regulation was an arbitrary question. Com. Szabo added that the duration and intensity of noise would be a consideration in the use of sma1l tools and/or equipment commonly associated with garage areas. Mr. Caughey responded that Staff did not wish to require an applicant to have noise studies done in order to obtain a home occupation permit. Mr. Cowan stated he would obtain information from the Code Enforcement Officers. Mr. Caughey added that the Noise Ordinance was the only reference at this time; if regula- tions exceeded the City Ordinances, special studies might be required. Consensus reached by the Commission to delete Section 6, Stora!!e. The Public Hearing was opened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 10, 1989 Page 8 PC - 568 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Nancy Burnett reviewed her experience in business and stated that she had considered the Ordinance text; the Commission noted that she did not have the revised draft Ms. Ann Anger, Monta Vista area, Cupertino, was favorable to home occupations; how- ever, the City had problems in the code enforcement, especially with respect to auto repair. Mr. Leo Hoger, Cupertino, commented as follows: - Noted his background as a teacher of the philosophy of business - Felt discussions on this item lacked a philosophical basis and critical thinking - Cited recent legislation, AB 1725 which called for a reform of critical thinking; he had attempted to apply the philosophy behind the legislation to the issue at hand - The revised Ordinance contained a lack of philosophy, lacked document continuity and gave undue attention to unenforceable measures - On the fIrst point, there was a lack of defInition of "occupation" and "business"; he cited resources for this distinction and asked that such be incorporated into the document - With this distinction made, it could be determined what was controllable and was not - The previous meeting gave the impression that the concern was to increase the tax rev- enue of the City; on the contrary, the purpose was control of the environment - Preservation of the environment was through control of streets, gardens and houses; such did not include the contents of the home - Secondly, document continuity: the preamble and beginning pages were excellent; how- ever, the document still lacked defInition in Standards and General Requirements - Thirdly, Code Enforcement Officers testified to the difficulty of obtaining compliance - Noted that senior citizens of the future would require gainful businesses in order to fInancially survive and maintain their homes Com. Szabo responded that the City did not have the same authority as the Internal Revenue Service. Consensus reached by the Commission that Schedule C of the tax forms was not a workable tool in the determination of a home occupation/business. Ms. Burnett felt that most sma1l businesses did not me a Schedule C. The Public Hearing remained open. MOTION: SECOND: VarE: Com. Claudy moved to Continue Application 80,033 to April 24, 1989. Com.Sorensen Passed 4-0 NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 10, 1989 Page 9 PC - 568 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Sorensen expressed concerns regarding the loss of trees at a site located at the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd. and De Anza Blvd. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted; he reviewed the General Plan ProlITam MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to send a Minute Order to the City Concil, asking the Council to schedule a Public Hearing in June to hear General Plan Pro~am, Stage 1. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VarE: Passed 4-0 DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:14 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of April 24, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. Approved by the Planning Commission At the Regular Meeting of April 24,1989 ~4Y~ Victor A . ,C airman Attest: