Loading...
PC 03-27-89 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4642 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 27, 1989 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman Adams Vice Chairman Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Sorensen Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Mark Caughey, Associate Planner navise Whitten, City Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Sorensen moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 13, 1989, as presented. Com. Claudy Passed, Chr. Adams abstaining 4-0-1 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 1: Application 19-TM-88, Lawrence Luiz, Applicant. Applicant requested a Continuance to the Regular Meeting of April 24, 1989. Mr. Caughey stated that the Commission had directed the Applicant to file for a Variance since the house encroached into the public right-of-way; the earliest hearing date for such an Application would be May 22, 1989. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to Continue Application 10-TM-88, to the Meeting of May 22,1989. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - Letters received on Items 1, 2 and 3 of the agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 27, 1989 Page 2 PC - 567 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM: 2 Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: l-EXC-89 Dean-Ouinn Wanll Henry Hon~ & Marllaret Honll 22459 Palm Ave. EXCEPTION: Exception from Ordinance No. 686, Section 16.28.040 to allow a 6 ft. fence within the front setback area. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application and presented a Site Map; in response to Com. Mackenzie's question, he stated that there were two other fences in the area that extended beyond the 20 ft. setback area. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Dean-Quinn Wang commented as follows: - He was not the property owner; the property owners were out of the country - The fence was needed due to the disturbance created when they moved into the area - They were unable to build the fence within the required area In addition, there were a number of other property owners who built in the same area - Questioned the criteria required to gain a fence exception Asked why the location of the fence created the "hazardous condition for pedestrians and vehicle traffic" referred to in the City's letter Noted a twelve ft. open area on the property which created a hazardous condition Asked that the Fence Exception requested be granted Chr. Adams advised the Applicant that in this case, granting an Exception was remote; the reasons cited in his letter of February 20, 1989, were insufficient. The Findings could not be made. He suggested he work with Staff to properly locate a fence at a permitted height. Com. Claudy suggested use of a hedge; however, such would have to be properly located. Com. Mackenzie responded to the Applicant's comment that there were two ways to avoid the vandalism he was experiencing; namely, everyone could wall themselves in, or the front yard areas could be left open and lighted which also would deter vandalism. Mr. Wang responded that they had left their yard open and vandalism had resulted; now they had no choice but to fence the yard. He noted his discomfort without the fence and felt that the Public Works Department had not explained the criteria necessary. Mr. Caughey disagreed; Staff spent considerable time explaining the rules to the Applicant. Com. Claudy and Mackenzie informed the Applicant that they probably would not grant an Exception for a fence less than the 6 ft. being requested, but greater than the 3 ft. allowed. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regutar Meeting of March 27, 1989 Page 3 PC - 567 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy noted that homes on Palm Ave. were becoming more upper class and ten- sions resulted in the neighborhood; such was unfortunate. It was conceivable that some of the actions were racially motivated; however, the Commission could not grant Exceptions on such a basis. He asked that the Public Safety Commission address these concerns. Chr. Adams noted that the incidents cited by the Applicant could be classified as hazing. MOTION: SECOND: VarE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 3: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy moved to deny l-EXC-89. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: l-U-89 Kathy's School of Dance Seet Ah M Trustee Tenant space within the commercial center located on the north side of Bollin¡¡er Rd.. west of DeAnza Blvd. USE PERMIT: To operate a dance studio of 1,750 sq. ft. within an existing shopping center (Section 6 [K] of Ordinance 1344). CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 27, 1989. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 3, 1989. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and presented a Site Plan; he noted the presence of the University of San Francisco (USF) extended degree office at this center and suggested that a Condition requiring the use under consideration be reviewed upon complaint if problems arose from the parking deficit. Chr. Adams noted that students at the dance school would be dropped off and picked up. Applicant's Presentation: Ms. Kathy Wittmers confirmed that the dance studio was pri- marily for children; she felt the City of Cupertino needed such a facility. While she under- stood the concern about parking, mother's often car pooled when possible due to their busy schedules. The parking allotment was probably in excess of what was actually needed. In discussions with Staff, consideration had been given to prohibiting adult classes during the 3:30 to 6:30 P.M. Peak Hour; she had no objections to such a prohibition. However, there would be two children's classes in session at any given time during the Peak Hour. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 27,1989 Page 4 PC - 567 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie foresaw problems when the University of San Francisco was in opera- tion; however, the Commission was ready to act on the Application before them. Com. Sorensen noted that the letter received on this Application stated that they would not authorize recordation of a reciprocal access agreement. Com. Claudy responded that he would not vote in favor of this Application without such an agreement; it was the policy of the City to obtain such agreements whenever possible. Com. Szabo felt that the parking allotment was high. The school would be more popular with children than with adults, thus, parking would not be a problem. Consensus reached to require an average of fifteen parking spaces for this use. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 4: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve l-U-89 subject to conclusions and sub- conclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. Com. Claudy Passed 5-0 Application 80.033 - City of Cupertino: Review of proposed amendments to the City's Home Occupation Ordinance No. 321. Location: City-wide. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 17, 1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey presented the Staff Report. Chr. Adams commenting on Section 3 Purpose, cited situations that could be classified as home occupations and occurred throughout the City; he questioned the imposition of re- strictions on part-time, hobby type of activities and was especially concerned regarding the requirement for a business licence. Such would result in an illegal utilization created by an Ordinance. It was necessary to separate the above activities with activities that generated significant traffic and/or other impacts in the residential area. Com. Claudy was favorable to Section 3 Purpose; with respect to Section 4, General Requirements, he noted that for some individuals, the requirement of a business license would not even have occurred to them. Com. Sorensen agreed the proposed Ordinance was quite restrictive and sugges~ed that only upon complaint would the guidelines be triggered. Chr. Adams had reserval1~ms on the latter idea; however, he wished to allow some limited use without excessive restnctlOn. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 27, 1989 Page 5 PC - 567 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Szabo suspected the majority of those required to have a business license, probably did not; such was unfair to the minority who had paid the license fee. The issue of business licenses should be referred to the Council for further consideration. The item before the Planning Commission should be the environment created by these home occu- pations and the impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Cowan agreed that the issue of a business license tax should be divorced from the in- tensity of use; if the Commission wished, a Minute Order could be sent to Council regard- ing who should be required to obtain a business license. The issue at hand was under what conditions should these activities occur in a single-family residential setting. Ms. Lopez agreed that they may wish to send a Minute Order to the effect that those who wished to engage in a home occupation may request a waiver of the business license fee. Mr. Caughey added that in a comparison of over two hundred ordinances throughout the country, the City had one of the simplest procedures for starting a home occupation; in terms of producing some evidence of having completed the appropriate reviews, the busi- ness license was identified as one of the least odious, and least time consuming. Ordinance regulations were written succinctly to facilitate a simple check-off procedure for applicants applying for a permit; the application itself was an administrative procedure. Com. Szabo felt with respect to Section 5, Home Occupations Permitted the type of activity did not matter so long as ramifications were not experienced outside the home. Defining activities within the structure did not address the question of impacts to the neighborhood; he wished to have the impact on the neighborhood defined. Mr. Caughey stated that controlling the type of activity and production process, limiting utility services and restricting the business to the main part of the house would address the concerns and keep the home occupation within the scope of a residential setting. The Commission had difficulty restricting a home occupation to the confines of the house; Com. Claudy felt this was unreasonable. Mr. Caughey responded that such had always been restricted to a main dwelling; however, the Commission may wish to reconsider this. Com. Claudy was favorable to Com. Szabo's suggestion that the impacts, not the activity be considered; a list of permitted and excluded activities could be drawn up as an example. Com. Mackenzie noted that there was some discrepancy between Section 5, Home Occu- pations Permitted and Section 9, Inte~pretation by the Community Development Director: he asked that the levels of procedure be clarified. Com. Szabo noted the potential similarity between a home occupation and a hobby. Activ- ities could be illegal or legal depending on whether payment was received; such did not make sense. Furthermore, the question of enforcement remained. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 27,1989 Page 6 PC - 567 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy stated that his concept of the home occupation was an individual who worked out of and/or in their home, but did not have the public in great numbers going to the resi- dence; however, one member of the public at a time was not a problem. Chr. Adams noted that with technical advances, employees may work at home on occasion. With respect to Section 6, Standards: Location: The Commission wished to allow the use of garages, accessory structures or yards if the function of such were not lost; however, driveways were not appropriate locations. Com. Mackenzie noted that if garages and outdoor areas were to be allowed, hours of oper- ation would be important. Lights and noise could impact a neighborhood. 7:00 AM. to 8:00 P.M. hours of operation were suggested for consideration. Maximum Floor Area: Commission favored limiting the amount space devoted to a home occupation; Com. Claudy suggested reconsideration of prohibiting use of attached garages. Buildin~ Entl)'/A,ppearance: No additional comment by the Commission. On-Site Sales/Di&play Restriction: Com. Sorensen noted this Section primarily addressed products or goods for sale; how- ever, 3) discussed customers, clients or pupils. She felt the restriction to three (3) such visits per day was too limited. Mr. Caughey noted that Section 5.1: A), addressed tutoring of students; the expectation was that students would be dropped off and picked up, resulting in six trips per day. Staffs concern was that traffic would exceed normal levels of activity for an R-1 zoning. Com. Sorensen reiterated that this limitation was unrealistic. Com. Szabo added that music teachers could not make a living on three students per day; holding one class would violate the requirements. So long as only one person on the block held class, everything would be all right. In any case, the number three was too limiting. Com. Claudy did not wish to see a professional having clients come his/her home; such was inappropriate. However, tutors and teachers seemed to be in a special category. Com. Mackenzie and Szabo felt that ten students would not be an unreasonable number. Stora¡¡e: The Commission was unfavorable to the limitation of fifty (50) cu. yds. proposed and asked that the cumulative total be increased. Deliveries: Com. Claudy noted that individuals may have no control over delivery schedules. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 27,1989 Page 7 PC - 567 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Caughey added that Ms. Lopez had commented that enforcement of this item would be difficult; she recommended a limitation of one per day without distinguishing deliveries or outshipping. The intent was to prevent intensive shipping/receiving, i.e., a home distribu- tion center. The hope was that those starting a business from their home would become so successful as to out grow the ability to do business from the home and move into a commercial, office or retail use. Production Processes: Com. Mackenzie noted that while one expected to tolerate the interests or hobbies of a neighbor, residents did not expect to be living next to an industrial use. Com. Claudy objected to prohibiting any evidence of the existence of a home occupation; he asked that the section be amended to prohibit any unusual and/or excessive evidence. Utilities: Text considered appropriate. Traffic Characteristics: The Commission questioned whether the number five (5) business trips per day would be sufficient. Business Vehicle: No additional comment. ~ No additional comment. Cumulative Effects: No additional comment. Section 7. Persons Employed: No additional comment. Section 8: Excluded Occupations: Com. Sorensen felt that portrait photo studios should be allowed. Com. Claudy questioned the chemical disposal from photo developing operations. Section 9: Inteq>retation by the CommunÏ\y Development Director: No additional comment. Section 10: Severability Clause: No additional comment. Section 11: Publishin l Clause: No additional comment. Section 12: Effective Date: No additional comment. The Public Hearing was then opened. Ms. Elly Werner, 20076 La Roda Ct., Cupertino, commented as follows: . Due to recent economic trends, many people had been forced into the home office; it was important to maintain them PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 27, 1989 Page 8 PC - 567 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Werner continued her comments as follows: The Ordinance was originally written before the advent on home marketing Commercial delivery/pick-up services had an impact on the neighborhood and should be evaluated in this manner - Concurred with Com. Szabo that the impacts on the neighborhood should be the criteria Individuals who work on automobiles often accumulate such which clutter the street; in addition, the garages were not be used for the property owner's cars - Traffic impacts from home offices also required review Cited the use of friends so as to circumvent the prohibition on employees Asked that enforcement be addressed Felt that her home business did not impact others in the neighborhood In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, she felt the Ordinance provisions should be more strict than the Commission recommended at this hearing; she noted the increase in the number of home occupations. The community should be protected. The Public Hearing remained open. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to Continue Application 80,033 - Review of proposed amendments to the City's Home Occupation Ordinance No. 321. to April 10, 1989. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Mackenzie and Sorensen reported on the recent Mayor's lunch. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None