Loading...
PC 05-28-02CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 28, 2002 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Corr Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Gary Chao, Assistant Planner; Ralph Quails, Public Works Director; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney. Chair Corr introduced Gilbert Wong, the newly appointed Planning Commissioner and welcomed him to the Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 13, Regular Planning Commission meeting: Chair Corr noted that on Page 2, last paragraph, first line, the word "out" should be inserted after "look" MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to approve the May 13, 2002 Planning Commission minutes as amended Com. Chen Com. Wong Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. Application Nos.: CP-2002-02; EA-2002-03 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Capital Improvement Program, consistency with the General Plan Planning Commission decision final unless appealed ~qtaff ?eaentaticm: Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the purpose of the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the role of the Planning Commission in the CIP review, Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 2g, 200 , as outlined in the staff report. She reviewed the table illustrating the summary of projects in the proposed 5 year CIP, which included parks, trails, library, Civic Center improvements and the sports center building. She also reviewed the General Plan consistency findings as summarized in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the negative declaration and find the proposed 5 year CIP consistent with the General Plan. Staff answered questions relative to proposed projects. Mr. Ralph Quails, Public Works Director, explained the funding of the Mary Avenue overcrossing, noting that it was a Tier 1 bicycle pedestrian project in VTA's list, which has $32 million committed over ten years from Measure A funds. He said he was confident that the city would get 80% of the cost of the project. Currently there is $240,000 budgeted, with another $200,000 to be budgeted, Sunnyvale has been requested to contribute $240,000, and all the monies from outside agencies would come in the year of construction. He said there was also a half million dollar grant from the state, and they have also requested design money of $1 million next year. Mr. Quails then explained funding of other various projects. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, explained the role of the Planning Commission was to ensure that there are not projects in the CIP that are inconsistent with some aspect of the General Plan directly, not so much the proportions of it. If the commissioners, either individually as residents of the community or as Planning Commissioners feel the direction of the Planning Commission is not being fulfilled by the C1P, they have the prerogative to suggest to the City Council to address the issue; as Planning Commissioners in the form of a minute action to the City Council. This would not necessarily suggest that any one of the projects is inconsistent with the plan, but that the reading of the plan and intent of the plan would suggest a different prioritization of some projects, which the City Council would consider as they would any other input to the public hearing process. Mr. Quails answered questions about the traffic control system, and the Monta Vista storm drain system. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Auerbach said it was difficult to review the 5 year plan in such a short period of time, in light of the entire General Plan to ascertain if the elements are consistent with the General Plan. He expressed concern that certain items no longer appeared on the budget, and stressed the importance of the budget in continuing to further the priorities of the General Plan. He suggested that in working to amend the General Plan, they consider another mechanism to address the prioritization of the capital improvements and provide some vectors to the City Council in terms of their feelings on what the priorities are. He cited as an example the acceleration of the concept the downtown village which will require some capital expenditure, and the budget does not provide for it. He said although he felt somewhat uneasy, to the extent that it is a one year rolling element and more attention would be paid to it in the next General Plan, he would approve it. He suggested that it be done differently the next time. Com. Chert said she supported the plan, and that it was a good plan, with additional funds possibly available for other projects as the grant funds were not included in the projection. Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 2g, 2002 Com. Saadati said he supported the plan. He said the CIP is consistent with the General Plan, and he felt budget would maintain the public safety relative to repairing some of the streets and other things. Com. Wong said the CIP plan is consistent with the General Plan. He said he supported the plan, but agreed that the process to explain it could be improved. Chair Corr said that he supported the plan, and commented that he shared the concern about items no longer appearing on the budget. He said all the projects cannot be done at one time, and sometimes decisions have to be made to forego one for another to produce a balanced budget. MOTION: Com. Saadati moved to approve Applications CP-2002-02 and EA-2002-03 Com Chen said it would be helpful to know the changes from the previously proposed 02/03 for comparison purposes; to answer why the focus shifted, reasons for changes, and why something was dropped. She said that it should be included as part of the future capital program improvement review sessions. SECOND: Com. Chen VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 o Application No.: Applicant: Location: M-2002-04 South Valley Properties (Oakmont Square) 19940-19990 Homestead Road Modification to an approved use permit to remodel an existing shopping center, to limit remodeling to Building C. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed ~qtuff nr~a~ntutlnn: The video presentation reviewed the application to modify an approved use permi~ to reduce the scope of a proposed shopping center remodel. In June 2000 the Planning Commission approved a use permit to allow the applicant to add 1,120 square feet to the shopping center and to modify the exterior of the buildings. Due to financial constraints and the lack of structural integrity of the building roofs, the applicant is proposing to delay any original proposed upgrades to the parapet and roof elements on two of the buildings. The applicant will proceed on the upgrade of the former Foster's Freeze building. Staff supports the proposal, although not normally in favor of partial remodels, since the applicant expressed his intentions to subdivide the parcels in the future and proposes residential uses; and residential uses are desirable on the site per the General Plan. Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, reviewed the application and summarized the proposed changes from the previously approved use permit for Buildings A, B and C. He noted that Condition 4 should be deleted from the model resolution as it is not relevant to the application. Staff recommends approval of the partial remodel. Discussion ensued regarding the roofing material. Mr. Chao explained that the original proposal was for plaster finish for the outside of the building which is similar to stucco, and green metal roofing was approved, which would not be compatible with Buildings A and B which have wood shake shingles. Referring to the west elevation of the new building, Mr. Chao said that the proposed elevation in terms of the form of architectural style, compared to the originally approved use perrait, is the same; and in staff's opinion the building goes with the standing metal or wood shingle. Mr. Piasecki explained that a dilemma existed because if the older buildings are kept with the older shake material, there could be 10 or 15 years of one building with metal and others with the older shake; also there is an existing commemial building with the shake or asphalt shingle; therefore, although it may not be the favored material, it works better in the context of the surroundings. Com. Auerbach said he was not concerned about the materials, but his comments related to the contrast between wood shingle against stucco. Mr. Piasecki said it was not an uncommon contrast, and was common in the older shopping centers, and would be appropriate in the applicant's center. In response to Chair Corr's question about the parking impact if in the future a residential development was part of the center, Mr. Chao said that the applicant's plans were tentative and did not include figures of the buildings' square footage and therefore parking was not analyzed. He said if it did become a reality, the applicant would be required to meet the parking requirements at that time. Mr. Wayne Gong, architect and applicant, explained that it would be extremely costly to bring Buildings A and B up to current code, and said he questioned what he could do to recover the costs with retail only, since some of the buildings were already empty. He said he considered the possibility of subdividing the site to fill the housing need and still have retail on the site as a fallback if the retail was not successful even after the improvements were made. He said he did not have immediate plans for subdividing the site and was interested in improving the center. He added that Foster's Freeze did not want to put a lot of money into improvements. He answered previous questions about the roofing material, noting that the roof had to be a class A type roof for a commercial property and said the roofing would meet those requirements. Relative to the compatibility of the stucco with the shake material, he said the other building at the corner of Blaney and Homestead had the wood shake up to the face of the stucco material and the new design for building C; the old Foster's Freeze has the same relationship, where the stucco comes down to the wood shake material, therefore the wood shake material would be more consistent with that center and is a scheme that would work with that corner of the building. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Chen said she would like to see the potential development in the center as it presently lacked activity. She said she supported the proposal and was hopeful that in the future the applicant's proposal for residential/commercial would come to fruition. Com. Saadati concurred, stating that the improvement might have a favorable effect and hopefully the economy would turn around and there would be more development with possibility of residential. He said he supported the project. Com. Wong said he liked the suggested improvements and was hopeful that good retail could be secured as Homestead Road had sufficient traffic. He commented on the loss of businesses such as Foster's Freeze and Dairy Belle in the area and said he hoped they would return to Cupertino. He noted that the development in the back area was a good concept and he supported the project. Com. Auerbach agreed that the improvements on their own merits were worthwhile; but felt they should discount the possibility that the site would be redeveloped in the manner presented, and should not be relevant in the decision reached since no definite timetable was given. Relative to the possibility of future residential development in the center, he said although he supported housing, he would not want to lose the small comer shops leaving only housing; and cautioned against that happening. He concurred with Com. Wong's comment about the need for Dairy Belle and Foster's Freeze to return to the area. Chair Corr said he felt doing something to the former Foster's Freeze would help the situation, but they should discount future possibilities since they were not part of the application. Mr. Piasecki explained that the proposal for mixed use went against the normal grain, but reflected an upcoming trend that would be seen in Cupertino and other cities where the older 50s and 60s shopping centers were now struggling and losing tenants. He said Mr. Gong's plan was creative, and maintained commercial uses and complimented a variety of the city's goals, and staff was encouraged that he was willing to do the site improvements and upgrade the front building. He said that staff did not want it to appear that they were encouraging partial improvements as a carte blanche rule citywide, but in this case it made some sense considering the potential long term plan, albeit not that it could be relied upon. He noted that on the merits of just the partial remodel, staff felt it was a good project. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application M-2002-04 with deletion of Condition 4 Com. Saadati Passed 5 -0-0 Chair Corr noted the decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS Consideration of setting a public hearing for a General Plan amendment to locate a church in an existing office building at 10051 Pasadena Avenue. Staff' presentation! The video presentation reviewed the request for a public hearing for a General Plan amendment to locate a church in an existing office building as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Piasecki explained that the process for the General Plan amendments is an applicant must come forward either to the Planning Commission and a recommendation to the City Council or go directly to the City Council and ask for authorization to proceed with that amendment. The concept is that the Council in many cases may have no intention of pursuing a particular General Plan amendment for a particular piece of property, which gives them the ability to veto or authorize the project to proceed. He reviewed the background of the application and the findings for the General Plan amendment as outlined in the staff report. He reported that staff felt the conversion of the existing office space to commercial supports the intended function of the Monta Vista area, while allowing quasi-public use in a portion of the building, and suggests that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council they move forward and authorize the General Plan amendment. He said that the parking issues and the compatibility of the use under Plann;ng Commission Minute § the use permit would then be addressed, and the applicant would have the option of applying for the Oeneral Plan amendment, the use permit and any zoning changes to accommodate it. Mr. Piasecki said that it may be appropriate to expand the policy statement for the General Plan to cover the entire Monta Vista commercial and residential area which was illustrated on the first exhibit on the board because it may make sense as a rule to allow it in the rear buildings or in the upstairs of buildings to have small format, quasi public activities. Mr. David Chui, Trustee of the Church in Los Altos, said that traffic would not be significant as the church use would be on a small format. He said that they were aware of the staff desire for Pasadena Avenue to be pedestrian friendly, and they planned to have a Christian bookstore and were willing to dedicate and commit to having future tenants restricted to retail space. He said if the proposal is approved, it is their intention to create more activity along Pasadena Avenue using the area as an assembly on Sundays, but also during the week sponsor a student club with regular traffic of 10 to 20 well behaved students. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Saadati said he supported the project. Com. Wong concurred and said that having a church would bring diversity onto Pasadena Avenue, and provide walkability for the neighborhood by' providing retail use. Com. Auerbach said he felt the project had merit on many fronts, and as churches were part of community, it should be included. He said he felt there were too many zoning designations and would like to see them collapsed into fewer designations. He said the issue is whether to have individual designations for different types of areas, or have a mixed used designation including churches, medical facilities and all the things that would possibly go into a small town, particularly Monta Vista. Com. Auerbach said he felt the Monta Vista area specific plan should be updated to reflect some of those elements, and he expressed concern with the way the streets are being developed there which is contrary to the current street design thinking. He said in eliminating Policy 2-80 applicants come before the Planning Commission and ask for a General Plan amendmem, and if the Planning Commission deems it desirable, it is granted. Com. Chen concurred with Com. Auerbach and said she supported the project. She said it was a good use of the building with full utilization of the space and she supported the student club use. Chair Corr said that he was originally concerned about putting churches in commercial and industrial areas, but since the mixed used concept was vital to developing a downtown area, it was the type of thing that should be considered and would not be a detriment to that neighborhood, but would increase commercial traffic there. Chair Corr said he also supported the project. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application GPA-2002-01 Com. Wong Passed 5 -0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr reported that no meeting had been held since consideration of the 5 year Capital Improvement Program. Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 28, 2002 Housing Committee: Com. Chen said that no meetings have been held recently. Mr. Piasecki discussed the schedule of meetings to be held relative to the below market housing program. Mayor's Breakfast: Chair Corr reported that the May meeting included discussions about the library relocation while building the new facilities and also traffic signal issues. He said that the Teen Commission reported on the recent job fair, and noted that while the student turnout was good, the business participation was Iow. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki had no oral report. There was consensus that the format of the written report was appropriate. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on June 9, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: July 8, 2002