Loading...
PC 02-12-03CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408)777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ItELD ON FEBRUARY 12, 2001 SALUTE TO TI~E FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Corr, Patnoe, Chair Kwok Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Senior Planner; Charles Kilian, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 22, 2001 Regular Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2001, as presented SECOND: Com. Auerbach VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Kwok noted for the record receipt of correspondence from City Attorney Charles Kilian regarding Conflict of Interest Law, and a letter from Assistant City Attorney Eileen Murray relative to Application 06-U-97(M). POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None None CONSENT CALENDAR: PUBLIC HEARING: 2. ApplicationNo.: Application: Location: 09-DIR-00 KhaliISachezehi 10413 Torre Avenue Appeal of Design Review Committee approval of a modification to an approved plan for an addition to an existing medical/office building (change in exterior doors). Planning Commission decision j~nal unless appealed Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 12, 2001 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the appeal of the Design Review Committee's (DRC) approval of a Director's minor modification to make minor exterior changes to an existing building, as outlined in the attached staff report. Ms Vera Gil, Senior Planner, referred to the illustrations of the elevations and reviewed the new location of the hallway and the addition of the doorway. She noted that the DRC approved the modifications which were considered minor. The current tenant, Steven Lipp, appealed the DRC decision based upon some parking studies which were conducted with the original use permit from over a year ago. Staff does not feel parking is an issue for the minor exterior changes to the front elevation. Ms. Gil also explained that staff felt Mr. Lipp misinterpreted City Council's motion at the approval of the original use permit, namely that it would be any change to the building. Staff reviewed the video and audio tapes of the meeting and interpreted the City Council's motion as addressing changes of use or increased use of the building for the dental practice. She noted that the applicant was not increasing amount of dental space in the building, but merely making a minor change to the exterior of the building. Staff recommends that the Plannittg Commission uphold the recommendation of the DRC at this time. In response to Com. Auerbach's question relative to the Planning Commission's denial of the original application, Ms. Gil explained that the Planning Commission debated over the parking; the applicant did and still does meet the parking requirements of the city; however, a parking problem exists in the Town Center area. She said that the parking problem stems from some parcels where some other dental practices are located. At the time staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the applicant not be penalized for other parcels not meeting their parking requirements and that staff make certain all dental practices meet the city's requirements when they come into the city. The Cupertino Dental Center which is located west of the pamel did not meet the parking requireln,ent; they had received a lower parking ratio frotn the Planning Commission when they originally came in to the city; hence the staff's recommendation was that the applicant's request be approved. However, the Planning Commission was concerned about the parking requirements overall and denied fl~e application. It was clarified that' if the applicant wishes to expand the dental practice, a public hearing would have to be held for the application of a building permit. The applicant did not wish to speak. Mr. Steven Lipp, appellant, said that he conflicted with Councilmember James' statement that any change to the internal use of the building must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ite said Dr. Sage had started the construction without receiving approval; and he said he felt the original plan was better, relative to having a hallway to go into the building. He said it was his intention to occupy the building in the near future; and if needed, would be agreeable to the original plans. Mr. Lipp said he agreed parking was a problem, but not just on the applicant's part. He said he also felt that staff misinterpreted the City Council motion. Discussion continued on the parking issue, wherein Mr. Lipp said that he would not be willing to enforce the tow away rules since it would only create more problems with the neighbors, and the applicant had indicated he would not be interested in pursuing the enforcement. Mr. Lipp indicated that he did not occupy the building when the parking study was conducted, and he normally had 8 to 10 people working for him. Mr. Lipp reiterated that he felt a solution would be to revert to the original plan and also have some parking protection. Planning Commission Minutes ~ February 12, 2001 Mr. Piasecki pointed out that the decision should relate to the public interest or public impact; staff does not involve themselves in issues of a private matter between a tenant and landlord. He said that when staff reviewed the application, they saw less office square footage, less parking impact, the addition of one door, and they felt the public interest was not being impacted significantly by the applicant's request. He said that the tenant and landlord had an issue between their agreement and their lease. Ms. Gil noted that the results of the parking study were reported back to City Council in an informational memo, and she reiterated that staff did not find it significantly different than what had been provided in January. Com. Patnoe said he shared the concern about parking but questioned if the changes would impede that building's ability to function as a business. Mr. Lipp said be was concerned that in reoccupying the building, the egress of the building might be impeded in an emergency situation. Mr. Piasecki said the applicant would have to meet building code requirelnents for exit purposes from the building and from staff's standpoint, they did not object to keeping the double doors and adding the new doors, which they felt was relatively insignificant. In response to Com. Chen's question about the parking study, Ms. Gil said the original parking study was done during a holiday period in order to meet the Planning Commission schedule; the subsequent parking study was done in December and January during mid-morning and afternoon hours on weekdays. Mr. Lipp said he did not occupy the building when the parking study was done; and he would take up 10 spaces. He said he felt they did not take into consideration the impact of the building being occupied when the parking study was done. Relative to filture development, Mr, Piasecki said that the Hunter-Storm group were looking at redeveloping a significant portion of the Town Center and would be providing more parking spaces to accommodate that development. Also being evaluated is the feasibility of putting striped angled parking on Torre Avenue to add more public street parking. He said iu conjunction with the plan and the master plan for the surrounding seven acres, staff needs to assess the parking needs and make sure that parking is workable. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Kwok summarized Mr. Lipp's basis for the appeal as outlined in his January 8th letter. His concerns included: (1) That is should be reviewed by the Planning Commission rather than the DRC; (2) Parking study being done during the holiday period; (3) Councilmember James' staff was to do a parking study of the center; and (4) During the DRC meeting of December 27th, a decision was made conflicting with Councilmember James' motion. Chair Kwok noted that all issues were addressed appropriately relative to Mr. Lipp's concerns. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Patnoe moved to approve Application 09-DIR-00 Com. Chen Passed 5-0-0 It was noted that the Planning Commission decision could be appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days. OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 12, 2001 Discussion on setting the agenda for the February 26, 2001 study session with Larry Cannon. Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the dmtt agenda for the study session with Larry Cannon, architectural consultant. The suggested topics include overview of types of projects reviewed by the Planning Commission; checklist of design principles; and case studies. Because of the short time allotted for the study session, staff said Mr. Cannon would cover what the architectural consultant looks at relative to design and architectural issues. Staff will provide supplemental information about existing regulations in effect. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Enviromental Review Committee: No meeting held Housing Committee: No meeting held Mayor's Breakfast: Chair Kwok said that at the February 13th Mayor's breakfast he would report on the Planning Commission goals and objectives worked on and discuss the General Plan review. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported that the City Council approved the noise ordinance as recommended by the Plaaning Commission with the exception that the construction activity start time was moved up from 8 a.m. to 7 a.m. for weekday activity. Also the City Council gave a conditional authorization to Hunter-Storm to proceed with the Town Center project. The Planning staff also met with the City Council and discussed the scope of work for the General Plan, and the City Council wants to do more work on it prior to defining what the public involvement process will be. The Santa Barbara Grill mixed use project was approved to move forward. Mr. Piasecki noted that all Planning Commissioners indicated they would be attending the League of California Cities Planners Institute. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: theater complex in the Vallco redevelopment. Com. Patnoe commented on the proposed OTHER: Chair Kwok announced that tapes were available for viewing on the State of the City address, by contacting city staff. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. to the study session with Larry Cannon at 5:30 p.m. on February 26, 2001, to be followed by the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Recording Secretary Approved as presented: March 12, 2001