Loading...
PC 11-24-09CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO ]CANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. November 24, 2009 THURSDAY CUPERTINO COMI~IL7NITY HALL The special Planning Commission meeting of I~"ovember 24, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Lisa Giefer. SALUTE TO TI3E FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Vice Chairperson: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Marty Miller Commissioners absent: Commissioner: David Kaneda Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Associate Plarmer: Piu Ghosh APPROVAL OF MINUTES- Minutes ojthe October I3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting: Approved as presented Minutes of the October 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting: Approved as presented Minutes of the November S, 2009 Planning Com,n:irsion meeting: • Page 3, Bottom of page, Chair Giefer_ Delete: "our carbon" and insert "carbon footprint" • Page 10, Bottom of page, Chair Giefer: Delete: ", and also if it is amulti-family, it is .04 cents per square foot" Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, seca~nd by Com_ Miller, and carried 4-0-0, Com_ Kaneda absent, to approve the October 13, 2009 and October 27, 2009 Planning Commission minutes as presented; and approve the November 5, 2009 Planning Commission minutes as amended_ WRITTEN COIVIML7NICATIONS: None Cupertino Planning Commission P O STP ONEMENTS/REMO VAI 2_ U-2009-06 Cindy Cheng (Cupertino Investment Partners, LLC) 19875 Stevens Creek Blvd. November 24, 2009 . FROM CALENDAR- Use Permit to allow an 8,400 square foot daycare facility to operate at an existing commercial building The appliication also includes a new outdoor play area in the existing rear parking lot. The apply%cant has withdrawn the application. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com_ Lee, and carried 40-0, Com. Kaneda absent, to withdraw Application U-2009-06 at the request of applicant. 4. GPA-2008-O1 (EA-2009-OS) General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing City of Cupertino Element update. Postponed with no new hearing date. Citywide Location Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com_ Lee, and carried 40-0 Com. Kaneda absent, to postpone Application GPA-2008-01 (EA-2009-0~ (No new hearing date specified) ORAL COMML7NICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation on the Green Building ~~rdinance Scope and Process_ Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by (~om. Lee, and carried 4-0-0, Com. Kaneda absent, to approve the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARING 3. TM-2009-04 Terry Brown (Marci Properties) 10056 8c 10058 Orange Avenue Tentative Map to subdivide one parcel into three* commercial condominium units, one residential condominium unit, an one common area lot_ *The application has been revised to subdivide one parcel into two commercial condominium units instead of three Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staaff report: • Reviewed the application for a Tentative Condominium Map to subdivide one mixed use building into two commercial condominium units and one residential condominium unit, as outlined in the staff report. • Staff supports the application because of the l~~cation of the project and other similar approvals in the neighborhood. • Answered questions about the application. Terry Brown, Applicant: • Said that there were two addresses because tlsere was one set of conm~ercial building permits and one set of.residential building permits for that particular building. Cupertino Planning Commission November 24, 2009 At the time of the original approval in 2007, the development had not been approved, and as done in other projects, they came in later once the building was approved and they saw the size, shape and general configuration of the building they would build. Discussed how the structures would be maintained through the homeowners' association since one was residential and two were commercial_ He said the CCBiRs would address how repairs and maintenance would be handled_ Said the units would likely be sold to users because the concept was to make them affordable sized buildings or units for individuals who want to open small businesses or live on site and have a small business on site. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Brophy: • Said he was concerned with the concept of a three unit condominium, two commercial buildings and one residential building. • He said he had mixed feelings about the project; if there were no similar projects in the neighborhood, he would be opposed to it. H[e was concerned how the three-unit mixed use project would work in terms of how it would be maintained long term, notwithstanding the applicant's comments and reassurance that any future repairs would be taken care of. He said he heard comments from others that it is difficult enough to make that happen in three and four unit residential projects, but in a project with a- single residential tenant on the second floor and two commercial users on the first floor, he wzis skeptical of the long term effect of that kind of legal structure for buildings. Based on that, he said he would be opposed to the project, but given that it has been the pattern for the past, he wanted to hear the opinion of the other Commissioners_ He emphasized his concen~ that the project was only three units with the unusual combination of one residential and two commercial condominiums. • As stated by Chair Giefer, when you see projiects go on for I S to 25 years, the problems that are theoretically solved aren't always the case and he said he felt conflicted about that issue_ Com_ Miller: • Said he did not have a problem with the project, and asked the applicant to clarify if there had been maintenance issues on the other similar t~uildings in the neighborhood. Terry Brown: • Responded that they were fairly new buildings and he was not aware of any maintenance issues. He commented that he worked on the other four projects in the area and was in contact with the neighborhood and had not heard of any problems. The projects all have CCBcRs; a consultant has determined how much each party has to contribute each month in order to keep everything maintained; all of the items are itemized in the budget for the homeowners' association_ Com. Miller: • Said he supported the project; there are examples in town that appear to be working, and a precedent has been set in the neighborhood. Com. Lee: • Said she visited the site and saw other buildings with the same layout, and she felt the concept was favorable for residents. She said she: felt the project would be successful in the neighborhood and she supported it. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 November 24, 2009 Chair Giefer: • Said she shared Vice Chair Brophy's concerns, and stated she has always been concerned about condominium business projects; in particular older projects where there are maintenance issues because of the escalating costs of maintaining older buildings and delivery of those services. The fees collected now don't generally keep up with the cost of delivering the services in the future. She noted that it would. be a significant assessment when the roof needs repairing or when the parking lot needs repaving; and she would like assurance that the project is going to be successful and not be a nuisance in 30 years, similar to the run down, mixed use condominium project in Monta Vista. • She asked staff to explain what could be done to ensure that the project is maintained in the future, because as Vice Chair Brophy pointed out, there is the potential issue of a residential owner and an owner of commercial real estate downstairs who isn't currently leasing, who would not want to invest in a new roof because he cannot occupy the property. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that relative to the CCBaRs, staff would consult with the City Attorney to ensure that those specific concerns could be handled; mab:ing certain there are enough funds ahead of time to be able to make the payment, assuming a certain number of years are required with money collected for the next time the roof has to be repaired. She said it was possible to prepare those kinds of estimates and update the dues accordingly. Terry Brown: • Said he understood that the homeowners' association is required by law to maintain the reign of contribution on a monthly basis to protect the other owners in the development, and he would ensure that to be the case when the CCBc,Rs are finalized. The amount of the monthly assessments in the CCBaRs has to be updated annually, which is one of the conditions of approval. He also discussed the reserve funds for larger projects which may arise. Chair Giefer: • Summarized that the options were to vote on the project, which may result in a split vote/failure; get more information on how to ensure for the future on the issue of how to future-proof this project; and lastly, to have star' work with the City Attorney to ensure that the CCBcRs correctly address the issue to future-proof the project- Vice Chair Brophy: • Said he would support the project with reluctance if the City Attorney reviewed the CCBcRs to ensure that there were sufficient reserves being established for future long term projects; although it was not a guarantee since there is nothing to prevent the future homeowners' association from changing the reserves. He said that the neighborhood has had similar projects and he would support the project with the understanding that he would be opposed to any future development applications that hinted to be future condominium projects. Com. Miller: • Reiterated his support of the project. Chair Giefer: • Said she concurred with Vice Chair Brophy to add the condition that the City Attorney review the CCBcRs to ensure that they were worded to ensure sufficient reserves were available for future large scale projects. • She said she would support moving forward with the project- Cupertino Planning Commission 5 November 24, 2009 • Condition No. 2, added sentence: "The City Attorney will ensure language in the CCBsRs that provides adequate funding for major future repairs. Any changes to the CCBzRs must be reviewed and approved by the City. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Miller, and carried 4-0-0, Com. Kaneda absent; to approve TM-2009-04 with the model resolution as amended_ OLD BUSINESS- None NEW BUSINESS- None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting. Mavor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting. Economic Development Committees • Com. Miller reported that Cupertino Square hs~.s been sold to new owners_ REPORT OF THE DII2ECTOR OF COMMUl'1ITY DEVELOPMENT: • Discussed the State required Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which all communities will be subject to effective January 1, 201 O_ T'he Department of Water Resources has prepared a model ordinance which is being reviewed by staff to customize for the City of Cupertino. Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January l 2, 201 O, at 6:45 p.m. (The December 22, 2009 was previously cancelled) Respectfully Submitted: - - - ~~ ~qJ Approved as presented: December 8, 2QQ9