Loading...
PC 10-22-01CITY OF CUPERTINO 103OO Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 22, 2001 SALUTETOTHEFLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Corr, Patnoe, Chairperson Kwok, Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the October 8, 2001 regular Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr noted that on Page 5, Paragraph 5, "PW Market" should be deleted, and "lhe Department of Public Works" inserted. Com. Patnoe noted that on Page 4, second last paragraph, line 2: "DeAnza Creek" should read "DeAnza Boulevard." MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of the October 8, 2001 Planning Co~nmission minutes as amended Com. Patnoe Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Kwok noted a letter received from Gary Schmidt dated October 19, 2001 regarding Application 09-U-01 (Item 5). ORAL COMMUNICATION: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 07-U-01 Tom Swarner (PEN Co. for MetroPCS) 10602 No. Portal Avenue Use permit to construct three flat panel antennas on a monopole and four outdoor equipment cabinets. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2001 Request postponement to November 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Planning Commission Minutes > October 22, 2001 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 09-U-O1 Gary Schmidt 19961 So. Blaney Avenue Use permit for continued use of a shopping center parking lot for c, ar storage Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request postponement to October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Chair Kwok indicated that a request for postponement had been received from Mr. Schmidt, aud the applicant was requesting that a site visit be conducted with staff. Staff presentation: Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, said that staff did not feel a continuance of the application was warranted, and that he felt it would be highly unusual to continue a project of this scale for the purpose of a site visit. He said both staff and the applicant could adequately explain the progress of the project without the need for a site visit. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report. She noted that the intent of the various use permits over the last two-aud-a- hail'years were for interim use, not only for the dealer that wanted to store the cars, but also because thc applicant was pursuing other uses for the property. She noted that staff cited a General Plau policy addressing the Stevens Creek area and the Heart of the City Specific Plan area as beiuga unique pedestrian oriented area; and it was considered through these various procedures as au interim use. Staff feels there are problems with compatibility with the area, as there are residential uses nearby and also the long-term use for something more appropriate for Heart of the City. She said that it has not caused problems in terms of the area, and no complaiuts about tile use had been received. She pointed out that there are numerous properties throughout the city, particularly in the Heart of the City where other people have been discouraged from applying for storage o1' automobiles or any kinds of storage activities because of the more desired use for the area. Ms. Wordell said that staff feels it is a public policy issue at stake for a more desirable use I'or the property. Staff recommends denial of the extension of the use permit for the property. Mr. Gary Schmidt, 10071 So. Blaney Avenue, distributed photos of tile property and adjaceut areas. He illustrated the area of the existing use permit for a 28,000 square foot building issued in 1988, which runs with the land, noting that it was a two phase use permit; the first phase 1bt a major remodel on the building exterior, in addition to putting in all the Stevens Creek landscape according to the Stevens Creek landscape plan, taking out the entire parking lot, regradiug it, putting in storm drains, and undergrounding all the mechanical/electrical. He said hundreds ol~ thousands of dollars were spent to upgrade the Stevens Creek area, and it is one ot' the few parcels on Stevens Creek that fully complies with the Steveus Creek landscape corridor plan aud has beeu in compliance for 12 years. In return, the city granted an unlimited time period to build a building in the rear and partially due to the fact that they were long-term leases on the Blaney Center running up to 10 years, which made it difficult to do it more timely. Mr. Schmidt pointed out what he said he felt were numerous errors or nomenclatures in the staff report; such as the use o1' parking not being compatible with adjacent residential and commercial uses. He illustrated the property where he had full ownership and the areas where he had only partial ownership in the past. Plauning Commission Minutes q October 22, 2001 Mr. Schmidt reported that since the last one-year extension, he has submitted tbur potential plans for approval. He expressed his willingness to put in temporary vegetation, which would sol'ten thc area in the rear parking lot of Hamasushi. Relative to the reference in the staff report to Stevens Creek being a unique pedestrian experience, and it not being an appropriate use on Stevens Creek, he pointed out that it fronts on Blaney Avenue, not Stevens Creek. He said he felt he, along with other partners, contributed as much or more than any other parcel along Stevens Creek to the unique pedestrian experience. He referred to the hnperial Avenue parcel and said that it was not comparable to the application property, as it was a non-improved dirt lot, on the street, with no landscaping; and again stressed that a visit to the sites would be illustrative of that. lie said that there have been no complaints; and it was within the discretionary power of the Planning Commission to grant the use permit, and the claim by the city that to grant the use permit would somehow delay ultimate development of the property was no offer of proof; and as con. jectnrc he said to deny the moderate economic return on this parcel would be what would delay development of the property, since he was using all the money to submit plans and deal with sial'l: He requested that the application for an extension to the use permit be approved and a walking tour of the site be taken to discuss the corner. He said he felt it was important not to develop it fast, but to develop it right. Mr. Del Osland, attorney, representing Gary Schmidt, said that he felt the point made by the Planning Department that denial of the permit would enhance or speed up the development o1' iht property into some sort of planned development or redevelopment was not correct. I le said that the present agreement with the Honda dealership is on a month-to-month basis, and could bc cancelled at any time, and they would be looking to see the highest and best use for thc property not just to generate the smallest amount of income; but the money would help in developing the property rather than leaving it completely vacant. He pointed out that prior to the cars being stored there, it was vacant for many years. He requested that the letter he wrote prior to last year's meeting be made a part of the records, as it was not presently on file. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Corr said that he was not concerned with the particular use being obtrusive or bothering anybody, as it was well hidden. He expressed concern that the use was counter to the uses in thc Stevens Creek Plan, and noted that it was not just that it was on Stevens Creek, but it was in thc Stevens Creek Plan area. He recalled that it was the third time in two years that thc applicnnt was asking for an extension; and what started out as a request for temporary help has tnmcd into an expectation from the applicant to continue granting extensions of the use permit. Com. Corr said that he was apprehensive about supporting the extension of the use penn it. Ms. Wordell provided a history of the use permit, noting that the Hamasushi development was approved as a phased project; Hamasushi was phase I and an office building was phase 2, with no time limit on when it could be built. Phase 2 has not been built, and is still vested since it was part of the original use permit. She noted that if the applicant provided a valid building plan, thc Planning Commission would have to accept it. Ms. Wordell also pointed ont that the applicant is proposing a change in plans, and has been working with staff on a different set of plans. Mr. Piasecki said that the city receives no sales taxes from the storage of the autos on the property, and it was presumed the applicant was referring to the economic benefit to himsell' and also indirectly allowing him then to pursue plans for development of the property, which tdtimately could result in an economic benefit to the city. He suggested that concern not be tbcused on ?lanning Commission Minutes October 22.21)01 whether or not it enhances development, but rather is it an appropriate use, and is it equitable to other property owners since other applicants are discouraged from doing the same thing. Chair Kwok said that the issue was where to draw the line, as there were two policy decisions; one relative to equity and the other compatibility. He said he concurred with Com. Corr that a period of two-and-a-half years for extensions of the use permit was ample time to secure the perm it, and another extension with no assurance that it would be the last request, was not in the best interest ol' the city. Chair Kwok said he felt staff provided an excellent detailed presentation about tile site, and he did not feel a site visit was necessary; and would not support continuation o1' the application for the purposes of a site visit. Com. Auerbach said he learned about the use of the site as a result of tile application, and noted that since it is so well hidden, there have not been consumer complaints about the use. He said initially he felt that the project did not fit in with the Heart of the City plans, as outlined in the current General Plan and most likely not the future General Plan amendment. He said he felt it was an inert thing, and could be canceled at any time. He said he was more concerned with what was more appropriate for the site if they did not want the car storage there. He pointed out that it was a suburban style development, each building an island with ingress and egress of the street, and not pedestrian friendly. Com. Auerbach said that the Pinn Brothers development across tile street was more in character to their liking; but the question of parking would always be an issue. Com. Auerbach said that in layouts such as Mountain View, Palo Alto and others, cars are parked in lots back behind the buildings. He said it was ironic that a future use conld be a parking Iot, which makes it difficult to argue new cars/used cars as there may eventually be cars back there. He said it was conjecture on his part as to where the General Plan goes; hence he was conllictcd over a relatively innocuous use of the site. He said he felt there would not be any development in a year; but was conflicted as he felt it did not meet the General Plan requirements, but he did no! see it doing any damage at this point. Mr. Piasecki clarified that if the extension was denied, the applicant could appeal the decision to the City Council, and if the City Council upheld the decision, the applicant would not be allowed to store cars on the property. He reiterated that the applicant was asking for a one year extension of the use permit. Chair Kwok summarized the pros and cons of an extension, stating that an extension would provide more time; since the site is a suburban setting, more time is needed to look at the site to review and come to a conclusion what the best land use is for that particular site. In light ol~ thc development across the street, he said it should be as compatible as possible in a sense that the applicant does not rush into a plan that would later have to be changed. As to where to draw the line on extensions, he said it might give a three-month extension to work with staff and come up with a better plan, but it would be the final extension. Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant has provided drawings and has been talking with stall; but said three months would not provide enough time to come up with an agreeable plan. Ite said il' an extension was granted, the period of time in question should be one year; either grant the extension or deny the extension. Com. Auerbach said that the drawings shown did not depict what he felt belonged on the property. He added that he was not pleased with the approved current use, and he felt things had changed over time. Plannin Commission Minutes o October 2001 Mr. Piasecki said that the approved plan could proceed as is; however, if the applicant intended to change the plans, they would have to be presented to the Planning Commission. He said that Ihe applicant was considering both options, to build the approved plan, or build some other plau, bu! evaluating what is a good use for the property. Chair Kwok reviewed the options: support staff recommendation to deny tile permit extension (applicant could appeal to City Council); grant an extension for one year so that the applicant could come up with a better plan; or grant an extension of 3 to 6 months so that they could continue to work on an approved plan aud give them more time to come tip with a plan consistent with the neighborhood. Com. Corr said that another alternative may be to approve the extension for the one year period, but stipulate that it is the last one. Com. Patnoe said that the applicant had suggested as part of the approval that he would be willing to add greenery on a portion of the fence tbat is exposed, located directly behind the restaurant; which might be considered il' the application is extended. Mr. Piasecki suggested that the Planning Commission ask the applicant that if given one more year, would he agree not to pursue further continuation at the end of the year extension; which is a right he retains; but if he states that it is his intention not to pursue tile extension further, it would be a matter of record in the event the issue came back in another year. Mr. Piasecki said that stalT was concerned with setting a precedent, and emphasized that all people have to be treated Ihirly and equitably; and cautioned about making the distinction of what is visible and not visible and allowing storage of cars, in the event another applicant wanted to store boats. MOTION: SECOND: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application 09-U-01 for a one year extension of the existing use permit as shopping center parking lot for car storage Com. Corr Com. Corr asked the applicant if he would be willing to state this would be the last extension requested. Mr. Schmidt said that he would make every effort to move forward with the parcel. He questioned if the Planning Commissioners were willing to meet at the property the next day to discuss thc matter in detail. He reiterated what he felt were his constraints on developing the property as he did not own all the parcels. He said there were other considerations involved relative to the possibility of changing office to residential on the second floor of one of the buildings and perhaps adding a third floor of residential. Com. Auerbach said that the corner speaks for itself, and he felt there would be no benefit Ii'om taking a tour of the site. He said it was unlikely that the same group of commissioners a year from now would grant a further extension to the use permit; but tbe present Planning Commission was seeking feedback on whether the applicant would be amenable to the idea aud would work to find an alternate use for the property. Mr. Schmidt said that he would continue to work diligently with the hope that the city, including the Planning Commission and City Council would continue to do so. Plannin Commission Minutes 7 ©ctober 2L 2001 Chair Kwok said that it was important to note in the use permit that they recognize all the roadblocks, concerns and constraints in the project; and that the applicant is aware that it would be the final extension. Com. Corr said that the use was not related to the development of the property, and he said he felt if the extension was not approved, the property would still be developed itl the same timeline bad it been approved. He said it was a question of whether they should allow tile storage of cars Ibr another year. Com. Patnoe said that Com. Auerbach could choose to amend the motion to include tile portion with regard to some greenery on it, but he would not support the application. He said he did not like the use of parking, whether for 10 or 40 cars on the empty lot; and he felt the city has thc opportunity to take a stance and not allow the continuance on and on. He said he would rather leave the area vacant and possibly work to encourage some other use for the property, lie reiterated that he would vote to deny the application, as be felt the applicant has had plenty of opportunity. Com. Chen said she concurred with Com. Patnoe; and she did not feel the extension of the use permit would help the project to move on, and it would set a precedent for fntnre applicants, putting the city in the difficult position to say no to future applicants for a different nse of the lot. She said she would not support the motion to grant a one-year extension. Chair Kwok said that he would not support the project as indicated earlier; and stated that two- and-a-half years was ample time, and by denying the request, it might move the applicant to expedite the project faster. Com. Auerbach withdrew his motion; Com. Corr concurred. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Patnoe moved to deny Application 09-U-01 Com. Chen Passed 5-0-0 Chair Kwok noted that the applicant had 14 days to appeal the decision to City Couucil. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Kwok noted that the last tneetiug as well as the meeting scheduled for this week were canceled. Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported that he had no formal report; but noted that the committee would be busy in the next months relative to the City Council approval of thc housing element, particularly the BMR program. Mayor's Breakfast:. Com. Auerbach reported on tile use of the public library, noting that the Cupertino library ranked third or fourth in circulation in the state, behind Los Angeles and San Planning Commiggion Minuteg § October 22, 2001 Francisco; which justifies the need even more to build a new library to facilitate the tremendons volume that the current library is experiencing. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Pias¢cki distributed copies of the Development Activity Report; reported that the housing element was approved by City Council last week, and reported that the city received approval oF the dral't housing element from the State Housing Department of Housing Community Development. I lc pointed out that a first round approval from the State is a rare occurrence, and he thanked thc Planning Commissioners for their input and effort. He reported that a library meeting would be held October 24th to discuss the library design concepts with the consultants; CCS groundbreaking is scheduled for Thursday, October 25; the Railvolution couference has been rescheduled for November 29 to December 2. Chair Kwok reported ou the recent Commtmity Concourse and the Sports Center Workshop. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. to the regular Pla,ming Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on Tuesday, November 13, 2001. Approved as presented: November 13, 2001 Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary