Loading...
PC 06-09-03CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 9, 2003 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Con', Miller, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Chen Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Peter Gilli, Senior Planner; Gary Chao, Assistant Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 27, 2003 regular Planning Commission meeting Com. Wong requested that his questions to staff relative to the staff presentation in Item 5 be included; including how was it consistent with the General Plan, which Mr. Piasecki responded to. Also, Mr. Qualls answered questions why there were no line item numbers. Page 8, third paragraph: Add "relocation plan letter" Page 13, second paragraph, first line, relative to offsite parking ... Change "Collins" to "the property next door" Sixth paragraph, add: "Ms. Wordell reaffirmed" MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Con' moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 2003 Planning Commission meeting as amended Com. Wong Com. Saadati Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Piasecki noted receipt of three e-mails and a letter regarding Item 3. Chair Chen noted receipt of e-mails from Preston Oka and Sally Carpenter concerning Item 3. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2003-05 Luke Bollinger 10275 No. DeAnza Blvd. Planning Commission Minutes 2 June Tree removal and re-landscaping of an existing office building (Intero Real Estate Services) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 2003. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: M-2003-01, EA-2003-07 Susan Chen (Keiki Place) 10931 Maxine Avenue Modification to use permit (U-2003-04) to provide child care to a maximum of 150 children, to add approximately 400 square feet and to modify the parking and landscaping, including the removal of three trees. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 2003. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Wong moved to postpone Applications TR-2003-05, M-2003-01, and EA-2003-07 to the June 23, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2003-04 Bill Jauch (Park Villas HOA) Park Villa Circle - common area in front of clubhouse Director's minor modification to remove two pine trees in a planned residential development. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of the Consent Calendar Application TR-2003-04 Com. Wong Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: U-2003-03, EA-2003-06 Tom Sloan (Wolf Camera) 1357 So. DeAnza Boulevard Use permit to construct six residential units and add 2,025 square feet to an existing retail building Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, reviewed the background of the application for use permit to construct six residential units and add an 1,825 square foot second story to an existing retail building, as outlined in the attached staff report. He reviewed the site plan and said that staff and the city's architectural consultant supported the project. However, staff is including a condition requiring that the applicant make several architectural enhancements to the project, which are listed in the staff report. As part of the project, the applicant will also be required to Planning Commiggion Minutes 3 June remove the monolithic sidewalk along the So. Saratoga/ Sunnyvale frontage and construct a new detached sidewalk, wrapping around the project site and meandering around existing street trees. The Public Works Department found that there would be no significant traffic impaetsbased on the additional six peak trips generated by the project. Mr. Chao reviewed the concerns of residents from the neighborhood meeting held in April, and the responses to the concerns, listed in the staff report. He also reviewed the concerns expressed by adjacent commercial property owners and business owners and the responses, as outlined in the staffreport. Relative to concerns about parking impacts, Mr. Chao explained that the parking analysis had been prepared by Fehr & Peers indicating that the proposed 34 onsite parking stalls were adequate to support the project. However, some new information has come to staWs attention regarding shared parking arrangements recorded on the project's property's deed with the adjacent Yamagami's Nursery that may affect the overall outcome of the project. Aside from having an existing egress/ingress easement for access, there is also a floating easement for the purpose of parking between the two properties. On one hand overlapping the parking between adjoining commercial properties is very common and should not affect the permitting process of developments; furthermore both properties should be self sufficient in terms of parking on its own. The parking report prepared by Fehr & Peers had confirmed that the proposed project will be self sufficient in terms of parking; however, according to the adjacent commercial property owners, the proposed project may have some parking impacts on the adjacent nursery and commercial uses based on the reported parking easement on the deed. Contrary to staff's recommendation in the staff report, staff is now recommending that the Planning Commission continue the project for a month to give the applicant sufficient time to sit down with adjoining property owners to resolve and clarify the overlapping parking issue. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the application to the July 14, 2003 Planning Commission meeting and direct the applicant to work with the adjacent property owners to resolve the parking issues and also amend the parking analysis to evaluate the historic impact of overflow parking from adjacent uses. Com. Corr stated that there was a reciprocal parking agreement, and mention made about Yamagami's and the Wolf property, noting that there are four other businesses sharing the parking. Mr. Chao concurred, stating that the four commercial uses are on one lot, and the project parcel on the other lot. The parking easement recorded on the project property gives some parking rights to the adjacent property owner. Com. Saadati referred to the vicinity map, and asked what the height of the adjacent homes were; if the existing wall would remain since the purpose of the wall was to separate the parking from residential; and he questioned that since they were putting in some housing, wouldn't they want to open up the community and have people interact? Mr. Chao said that the height of the two story family homes would not exceed 28 feet, and said that the wall would remain along those trees. He said that the applicant is not proposing to touch any of the surrounding perimeter walls. The Planning Commission may question the applicant about his intent relative to the wall. Mr. Piasecki said that the units adjacent to the wall will be siding up to it, andit would not be anything different than any residential developer next to another residential development where they want to retain the wall. There is also a driveway serving the residences so there may be some benefit in keeping the wall. He said that the applicant or the property owners if they are present could be asked what their preference is. There is no longer a requirement that they have the wall. Com. Saadati said that apparently they were lowering the height of the building closer to the residential; and he illustrated that one option would be to put the entrance from that side to open it up. Mr. Piasecki concurred and said that opening it up would make the landscaping more visible and it Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 9, 200~ would look more like one continuous project. Com. Saadati questioned the parking situation across from the site, asking if there was any parking overflow going back and forth. Mr. Chao said there were no parking easements between the two properties; there is a Jack In The Box across Wildflower Way and also another nursery across the street, but there is no relation in terms of parking for those two properties. Mr. Piasecki said that Mr. Chao was correct in stating that there were no easements that staff was aware of; however, it did not mean there may not be some involuntary overflow. He said it was common to find cars parked on Wildflower Way which were from businesses as well as homes. Mn-. Chao said that there were no studies done on current parking conditions and the number of cars parked, and noted that on visits to the site, he found the project site fairly vacant on different occasions. He said the applicant could address the issue. Com. Saadati asked if there was any information that indicates underground parking usually is not utilized by people who use the facilities or businesses. Mr. Piasecki said he was not aware of any, and said the under-building parking area will be available and it will be open; and because it is not fully recessed it is going to be more visible than a completely undergroundparking garage. He said they could also require that the applicant provide some signage to make it clear that there is parking available in that garage structure. For the applicant's customers, it would be necessary that they park in the garage. In response to Com. Miller's questions, Mr. Chao said that the height of the tallest structures at Soran Gardens was just under 36 feet. Mr. Chao said that the 11 stalls Com. Saadati referred to were shared parking stalls between the two properties. He said the proposed project is self sufficient on its own site without counting those 11 stalls. Com. Miller said he wanted to better understand the easement situation; and questioned if there was an easement for Yamagami's to share the parking. Mr. Chao said to his knowledge, there is an ingress/egress easement between the two properties through the driveway, and the deed mentions an easement for the purpose of parking, but it is vague. Com. Miller then questioned the fenced off area, whether some of it may have been used for parking in the past. Mr. Chao said that it used to be striped parking stalls and was then converted to storage, but could potentially be converted back to parking. Mr. Piasecki said it was a suitable question to ask the property owner if he was present, as it was some time ago. Com. Miller asked that if looking at the parking available for the three businesses he illustrated, without including the parking he pointed to, did it fall within what they would consider adequate from a code standpoint? Mr. Chao said that he did not have the information, but that the commercial site should be self sufficient, and since no parking analysis was conducted on it, they could not say whether it actually conformed in terms of parking. Mr. Piasecki pointed out that they knew that it did not work well during some periods especially Saturday mornings, when sales are being conducted. He said the parking is somewhat awkward and no analysis has been done. Com. Wong continued the comments from Com. Miller about the parking next door, and asked if the parking was adequate within the ordinance. Mr. Chao responded affirmatively. Mr. Piasecki added that it had not been analyzed; but they were aware of a problem of it being isolated and said there may be a way to correct it on that site. He said they have not looked at that site any more than they have looked at other properties around the site. Mr. Piasecki said that the city most likely did not have records on the property behind the fence as the area was originally in the city of San Jose and was part of the larger annexation in the mid 80s. He added that the property owner may be able to shed some light on the history. Com. Wong referred to the mixed use parking on the staff report in 3-1, where it states "all together there will be 12 stalls for the condos and 25 for the retail." He said they did a mixed use sharing parking analysis and proposed the 34 covered stalls assuming 8 spaces would be shared, 6 of them would be assigned; also they suggest in the Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 9, 9003 parking analysis not to have 12 assigned parking spaces for that reason. He asked for more information about the shared parking scheme. Mr. Chao said that the ordinance did not have a specific category for proposed use, which is why the applicant has been asked to provide a parking analysis or parking report from a consultant, and if applying the code, the total required parking stalls are 37, and total proposed parking stalls for the proposed mixed use project is 34. According to the parking analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers, they surveyed other jurisdictions and the proposed project is on par, if not providing a little more than what some of the other cities are requiring or allowing in terms of reduction. Com. Wong asked if it was feasible to have some private garages vs. shared garages. Mr. Chao said that it had not been discussed or evaluated because the spaces are limited. He said he did not know where a garage would be proposed on the site. He said the notion of designating 6 residential stalls for purpose of the residential owners are made by the consultant; and said that during the neighborhood meeting, some neighbors shared concerns that they feel that it is better to have some stalls designated for the residential owners only. Com. Corr questioned if the interim parking plan for during construction would be part of the permit or application process. Mr. Chao said that prior to issuance of the building permit the applicant would have to submit a construction management plan which would be part ofthe plan to evaluate offsite interim patron parking while the project site is under construction for the Wolf Camera customers, or alternatively if they cannot provide parking stalls outside, they would have to shut down Wolf Camera during construction. Com. Corr said that given the size of the project, they would not be required to have any BMR units, but there would be a contribution to the BMR funds required. He questioned if it should be included as a condition, or was it somewhere else in the codes. Mr. Chao concurred with Com. Corr, and said it should be mentioned as a condition. Mr. Piasecki noted that it was also carried in the codes, but that it was appropriate to be included as a condition. Com. Wong said he was hopeful that if continued for one month, it would allow sufficient time for the applicant to be prepared to submit a parking plan to the Planning Commission. Mr. Chao said that the Planning Commission could drive the applicant to submit that piece of information before the next meeting. Mr. Piasecki said that it may be a question of timing, the applicant may come back and say his intent is to find an offsite location nearby as he has not been able to work the arrangement with one of his adjacent property owners yet. He said he thought the applicant intended to keep the business open which requires the need for some kind of parking. Com. Wong commented that he felt the applicant would be a good neighbor also. Com. Miller said that relative to parking, the units were large and it was reasonable to assume they will be occupied by families, people with children. Since it was within a good school district, the question is, the parking analysis was done and did it take into account the fact that there is likely to be two or more cars per family. Mr. Chao said it was brought up by staff with the applicant, and the applicant is willing to have some restriction in the CC&Rs to limit the number of cars per residence. Com. Miller questioned how to enforce that. Chair Chen referred to line 3 of the third paragraph on Page 3-4 of the staff report regarding parking; "However, two local jurisdictions have established ... parking space." She asked if the reduction standard was set up based on shared parking space, was there a way to enforce analysis that covers the parking analysis for all the commercial properties that are designated for shared parking space; tmless legally speaking the burden would be put on the property being developed now. She said she did not feel it was fair, if other adjacent commercial properties do not provide Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 9, 9003 sufficient parking for themselves. She asked that it be addressed from a legal standpoint and also from a shared parking analysis point. Mr. Piasecki said it was not clear what the shared parking arrangement means between the two property owners; whether it means or implies they have to function as if they were one shopping center and everything has to balance between the two sites, or whether it was a courtesy that if one's customer parks on the other's lot, there would be an arrangement that the other owner would not have the customer's car towed. He said it was hopeful that the month continuance would give time for the two property owners to discuss their individual and common interests and come back with a report. It is a private agreement between two property owners. He said it affects the public in the sense that if them is inadequate parking, the parking spills over to the streets and into neighborhoods, and staff does not want that to occur. Mr. Piasecki reiterated that the month continuance will provide time for them to meet and hopefully reach a consensus; however, it was difficult for staff to provide an answer before the property owners make a decision. Chair Chen said her understanding from a legal standpoint, does the city have the right to address all the parking issues on this particular development based on the private agreement between the two properties? Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said that they did not have sufficient information about the issue; and when looking at the easements, when the property was divided, the Yamagami property owner reserved the fight to park on the other parcel that Wolf Camera had; therefore he had a reservation of rights; a non-specific easement, not specifying how many spaces. At the time they would not have known how many spaces because Wolf Camera was not built yet. She said she talked to two of the several attorneys involved, and there is no documentation that anyone has come forward with, other than the non-specific easement which is basically a one line egress/ingress and parking easement; but it is a property fight, and is a legal issue. She said they hoped that the two property owners could resolve the issue amongst themselves. Mr. Piasecki said that from the applicant's standpoint, they have 34 spaces, they will continue to have 34 spaces and they will presumably continue to honor the easement because they have no choice; that allows the Yamagami customers and/or employees to park there. At the same time, staff does not know if that means that they should have a reduction in their allocation because of that requirement, and again from their standpoint, staff is providing the same number of spaces. He said the site is being intensified with six more condo units and some additional commercial, creating a greater demand. The parking study indicates that the available parking can accommodate the additional demand, but that may be exacerbating a condition already at the edge in terms of available parking for the various uses. It comes down to whether the property owners work it out, and there is the question of the other 11 spaces that apparently Wolf Camera has rights to or right to access, yet the language is not anywhere. He said a month might be enough time to provide more clarity and the Planning Commission would be in a better position to make a decision on what the public impacts are of the parking issue. Mr. Tom Sloan, project architect, said relative to the issue of the overall height of the building and the residential building at the rear, they were building within the ordinance and worked hard to step the building down gradually towards the lower residential development to the rear of the properly. The third floor level is a loft, with 490 square feet. He said there is a project on Stevens Creek and Blaney nearing completion that equals it in height and was greater in height overall. He said he felt he could speak on behalf of the owner in stating that he was not in favor of dedicating parking especially for the residents. He said Mr. Bunker could address the interim Planning Commlss~on Minutes 7 June O, 9003 parking arrangement he has made across the street in order to keep Wolf Camera open during construction. Com. Saadati asked since there is underground parking and there are residential units above, how is the security addressed, especially at night. Mr. Sloan said they considered the idea 0f putting in an automatic gate that would roll up and down for the residents. In response to Chair Chen's question, Mr. Sloan said construction would take an estimated nine months to a year to complete. Com. Saadati asked, if during construction, the parking area will be constructed first to open up the parking. Mr. Sloan said that the plan was to build the parking lot so that the crew as well as other patrons would be able to park there. He said they were building a concrete podium over the top and the refinements need to be worked out. He added that the parking garage was not completely depressed, but gradually ramps down so that people who do park in the parking garage could make a visual connection back to where the Wolf Camera site is. He said they felt that being able to park and see where you are going is a real plus for the retailers. Mr. Gregg Bunker, property owner, said he owned the property or operated a business on the site for approximately 30 years; which originated the photo driveup chain in the valley and around the state. He said he had 60 locations and sold the retail to Wolf Camera in 1995 and was now interested in land development. He said the site would be an attractive addition to the community, and they had worked with staff for 15 months, working through four or five different design changes to adjust it to what staff wanted and specifically to create the stoops in the front, to provide attractive rear yard patios. As staff requested, everything steps back so that the residential has no shading that would take place. He pointed out that there were not only two rows of trees, but the wall, and approximately a 20 foot driveway before reaching any neighboring residents. He said it was a design goal to accommodate the residents, and it would be more attractive for the residents than seeing a parking lot. It would also be quieter without the dumpsters. He said Ms. Murray, the City Attorney, described the easements or the wording associated with it. The goal that the city Planning Department originated years ago with the easement agreement was to try to encourage contiguous commercial owners to have driveway cuts rather than make them go back onto DeAnza Boulevard and come back in. He said that when he developed the property after acquiring it, the city asked that he keep the driveway just like that, which is what he did then and is doing now, so that commercial users can traverse. Relative to covered parking, the structure itself enters at normal grade from walking and has a slight 4-1/2% grade down; created at the request of staff so that the residential units could be lower in the rear. He said the residents would have covered parking and Wolf Camera would have covered parking. He said he was not opposed to overflow parking coming from Yamagami's or Bobbi's. He said they proposed to the trust or owners of Yamagami's to assist them in opening up the paved area that could accommodate parking if they need it; it is paved and he feels it used to be utilized by parking. Mr. Bunker said that they had proposed to assist in striping and resealing and do whatever was needed to reopen the lot, should they feel it is critical to their business. Additionally they met with a paving contractor and Mr. Oka to address drainage opportunities they had and what it would take to do. They made the proposals although they did not feel required to do so. When the property was purchased from the estate 18 years ago, the parking lot did not exist. He said he went through the land development process back then without input or contact from the trust and his intention when he bought the was to be a good neighbor, and that as Mr. Piasecki pointed out, would not interfere or try to dissuade someone should they park there. He said it existed often throughout communities, such as Westgate West where there would be several property owners across a designated area and the parking lots merge. He said he felt then that cities would look to them for Planning Commlgglon Minuteg 8 June 0, 9~06~ them to meet the parking requirements based on their own square footage of their land area and their buildings, which is what they intend to work out with the Yamagami group. Mr. Piasecki asked Mr. Bunker to answer the question about interim parking. Mr. Bunker said that when he purchased the property, the city requested him to do all the street improvements, and he bore the expenses of the entire road and street improvements all the way back of Yamagami's, which was $30,000 to $40,000 at the time. He said he understood when he acquired the property that he would get use of the 11 spaces because of the door location, and it was not his understanding that they had any parking rights there. Additionally, commuters have a tendency to park on Wildflower Way, and he commented that street parking is legal and he did not have a problem with it. Mr. Bunker said that he felt the commuter parking needed to be worked on and suggested signage from Yamagami's and asking that the commuters park elsewhere to free up parking. He suggested that Yamagami's work with the site they have to solve their problems and possibly redesign the site for more parking spaces. Relative to his discussions with the property owner directly across the crosswalk, he said the Borelli office building on the weekend has 50 empty spaces, and he proposed that the Yamagami employees jointly have an agreement to park there and free the site of an additional 15 or 20 spaces. He commented that as a retailer throughout the state of California, people like to frequent shopping centers where it is busy, they feel they are in the right place at the right time; the tenants or retailers are providing value to their services. He said whenever he looks for a place to locate his businesses, he prefers to go where shopping center parking lots were full. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Preston Chiappa, 10329 Brittany Court, said that he and his family have patronized the stores in the lot by Yamagami's. He said he was familiar with the parking area on the weekends and said that any day is extremely crowded, at some times having to park on the road. To reduce the parking available there is something which would threaten the vitality of not just Wolf Camera but other businesses also. He said many of the vehicles parking at Yamagami's are trucks and SUVs, and one of the suggestions may be to narrow the parking spaces which would make it difficult to get in and out of one's vehicle. The parking underneath the buildings for most people may appear to be parking reserved for the townhouses. He said he felt it would therefore lose the impact of those parking spaces; people tend not to go into that parking especially if there is a gate there. Employees working late at the store may come out to find their cars trapped in the parking space because of the gate. It is meant to be public parking, but a gate makes it private parking. He said there was a comment that the neighbors would rather see the buildings there vs. the parking lot and dumpsters; however, there is a wall there so the neighbors will not see it. He also said that one of the problems is with all the work, there is still a need for dumpsters, and there is no provision for that, and if Wolf Camera is extended to make it taller, there will likely be the need for more parking and more room for dumpsters. He concluded by stating that he did not feel the Planning Commission needs to jeopardize the vitality of all those businesses there for what looks like a very small incremental improvement in the area, which is the addition of the 6 residential areas and the second floor. Ms. Sally Carpenter, owner and operator of Bobbi's Coffee Shop; said it had been in existence for 32 years, and was dwarfed by Yamagami's who has been there in excess of 50 years. She illustrated various photos of the parking lot usage taken on different dates in April and May. She also showed Wildwood Way and noted that many spaces on Wildwood are taken up by employees and customers from the overflow; there are no available spaces at all. She said that Bobbi's has Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 9, 2003 generated income for the city of Cupertino for 32 years and noted that the restaurant across the street is in the city of San Jose. She asked that the Planning Commission take into consideration the impact to the employees and the business, of nine months to a year of construction without any place to park. She said they would be out of business and the employees would be out of their jobs. In response to Com. Wong's question, Ms. Carpenter said that the green sticker said "Support Yamagami's Garden Center - more parking is needed, not less." Ms. Mary Miljarak, Redwood Gulch Road, said she was pleased that there was so much concern being expressed about the parking since it was a big issue. She said many times customers had said they were unable to find parking spaces and went somewhere else. She said if the project is allowed to impact their parking, it will impact her finances on an immediate basis and on a daily basis it will hurt if people cannot find parking and can't eat or shop in the shops. She said she was also concerned about the underground parking, whether it takes into account clearances for pickup trucks which frequent the nursery. Mr. Ruben Garcia, employee of Bobbi's Coffee Shop, said he has worked there for l 1 years; and was a Cupertino resident living in an apartment complex in the area. He said he was worded about the impact of the new business, and if it slowed down the business at Bobbi's, he and fellow employees may have their hours of employment reduced or lose their jobs. Mr. Robert McLoskey, 21530 Rainbow Drive, said that he lived in Cupertino since 1963, and noted there are very few places left in Cupertino that provide the service and have been in business in the same area as tong as this shopping center and they do provide a good service. He expressed frustration about the parking, and noted that when a group he belongs to meets weekly at Bobbi's for breakfast, they have to park in many areas, some in the lot, some illegally and some on Wildflower Way because there is no where else to park. He said the flow of parking at Yamagami's and Bobbi's is also a problem, and presents a problem with people trying to enter off DeAnza Boulevard and people backed up on the street trying to get into the lot. He urged the Planning Commission not to eliminate parking. Mr. Preston Oka, 1341 Aster Lane, also owner and operator of Yamagami's Nursery; family business; said that he could not support the project in its present form, since he felt there was not enough information available that he was comfortable with. He said he felt his business was threatened. He said he supported staff's recommendation; however, he felt that another much larger issue related to a comprehensive construction plan that deals with where the materials are going to be staged, where the tracks will be parked; and for how long. He said he would not like to see the trucks, equipment and people taking up valuable Yamagami's Garden Center parking. Mr. Oka clarified that the area referred to as being paved at one time or striped for parking, was never used for parking and has always been the receiving area, albeit an unsightly area with trucks, forklifts and heavy equipment passing through the area. He said in its present form, he sympathized with residents who purchase the units as they would be peering down into an unsightly area. He said in his dealings with both Prometheus who is developing Saron Gardens and the Wolf Camera project, he preferred Prometheus' approach because he felt they had ample opportunity for people to give input and he fully supports their project in its present form. Com. Wong said he understood Mr. Oka had been trying to talk with the applicant and not yet come to an agreement. He asked if he was willing to compromise that it was his receiving area and to his knowledge it was never a parking space before. He asked if there was any way to reconfigure it for another receiving area and allow adding more parking space because of the Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 0, 2003 current parking problem. Mr. Oka said he felt it could be reconfigured; however, he felt that not enough details have come forward; and noted that only today he received a letter stating that Mr. Bunker would be willing to provide some money for this development, but still there are no details, and without details he said it was difficult for him to support a project that could possibly and will harm his business from the standpoint of construction and also the nebulous idea of parking. Mr. Larry Russell, Trust Officer, Borel Bank and Trust Company, 160 Boves Road, San Mateo (currently acting trustee of the Yamagami Trust), said he represented the bank as trustee as well as the beneficiaries of that trust and also American Leisure Company who could not be present, and is one of the tenants at that property. He said originally he was going to ask the Planning Commission for denial of this project but with the later word that staff is recommending a continuance, he said he supported the recommendation for continuance. He said he had met with Mr. Bunker and his representatives more than two months ago at the property, and only last Wednesday received a written proposal that they would mitigate the parking issue. He said he felt they were valid proposals, but deserved much more process, as he could not make those decisions alone and needed more time for such an important decision. Mr. Russell said that he has been involved with the Yamagami Trust for almost 15 years and the parking area behind Wolf Camera has been a parking right they have jealously guarded during his time as the trust officer; not only for the benefit for their current tenants, but for the value of parking to any future development on that property. He emphasized that it was a valuable piece of property, and that he has turned away developers on a monthly basis who want to put a market, office building or residential unit, on that property. He said he was concerned with hearing it being referred to as the Wolf Camera parking lot; and reiterated that since the agreement was reached in 1985 between the attorney for the trust and Mr. Bunker, it has been considered to be parking that is fully accessible to their clients, tenants and employees, although they don't use it as well. He said when he read the first parking study done, he was stunned that it made no mention of their access and rights to that lot. He said the person he talked with in San Jose who conducted that study said he was not aware of the easement agreement, and had he known, his conclusions would have been different. Mr. Russell said he felt the parking studies should be redone to reflect the potential impact of parking from the garden center in that area as welt. He reported that Mr. Bunker's attorney informed him that Mr. Russell's client did not have any rights to the 11 spaces. He echoed the comments about the desire to have a more concrete construction management plan in place, even if the garage is built first, since none of the customers could park in that area safely with the dirt and the work going on. A more viable alternative is necessary. Mr. Bunker said that in addressing the parking issue during construction, he would make a commitment to complete the parking garage in as timely a fashion as possible that would return all the parking back to the site; it would be a concrete podium that after the parking structure is re- opened, the structure would be built from the Wildflower side, leaving the driveway and the parking intact, which is common. He referred to the Pinn Brothers project which completed the parking structure in its entirety and had full use of it while they built the improvements. Mr. Bunker said that Mr. Russell established the dates when the property was acquired in 1985, and development processed in 1988, with no contact or input from the trust. Mr. Bunker reiterated that they had no input, nor did they have any discussions or concerns when the property was redeveloped in 1988. He emphasized that the intention in 1985 was not to give any binding rights to each other, other than try to preserve each other's value in each other's properties by sharing driveways and not disturbing what would be something that takes place. He said each of the two parcels should stand on their own parking requirements, needs their own parking requirements in Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 9, 9003 their development plans. Mr. Bunker commented on an earlier comment by a Planning Commissioner, that his parking lot was not full. He emphasized that it was empty 95% of the time. He said he lives nearby, works it and has operated the business there and contended that every Saturday he has come to Bobbi's for breakfast or shopped at Yamagami's even at the peak hours of 12 noon to 2 p.m. He said that he has never has a problem finding a parking space; and said that he did not think it would change. He said that he suggested to the property owners, the trust and the additional business operators that it would be bringing a quality development to the site and that all of the businesses on other than a peak time (for just a short time from 12 noon to 2 p.m. on a Saturday or Sunday) when there may be an exhaustion of parking; they would all enjoy more business. He noted that the City of Campbell has done an excellent job of creating mixed use developments, with residences contiguous to restaurants all enjoying the same parking. He cited downtown Saratoga near the Plumed Horse and Santana Row in San Jose where the concept is living close to where they shop and work. He said he felt the proposed site would work and function well, and he looked forward to negotiating with the trust successfully and assisting them in upgrading their parcel to accommodating the overflow parking. He concluded by stating that the project would not change the success of Bobbi's and Yamagami's; it would enhance their success. Chair Chen asked for input from the Planning Commission about postponing decision making for a month. She said there would be plenty of opportunity to work with the neighbors on the parking issues. Ms. Murray asked Mr. Piasecki if the project was under the Streamlining Act, and how would the 30-day delay affect that. Mr. Piasecki said the applicant would be asked to concur with the continuance in accordance with the Streamlining Act, otherwise the Planning Commission would potentially be in a position of having to make a decision tonight for or against. He asked for the applicant's response relative to the suggestion for a continuance of 30 days. Mr. Bunker said that he would welcome the opportunity of postponing the application for a month. In response to Com. Wong's question about the process, Mr. Chao said that the application before the Planning Commission is for use permit approvable by Planning Commission; it does not involve any zone changes and also the number of condo units provided does not trigger Council approval; hence the Planning Commission is the final approval and deciding body on the application. Com. Wong questioned the city attorney relative to both parties coming to terms based on their documents. Ms. Murray said it was hopeful that the parties would reach an agreement that would benefit both properties; but she felt that the easement wording was so vague that there were different interpretations, and despite what the easement says, whatever agreement they come to, they can agree to redraft the easement, take out reciprocal parking, whatever they chose to do. She reiterated that it was up to the two neighbors to work it out. Mr. Piasecki said they were hopeful that the existing problem could be resolved at the same time the others were resolving their understanding of what the easement allows each of them to do; resulting in a win-win situation for everyone. Com. Wong said he felt the design was a good design; the applicant began with a parking garage at grade level and was creative to go down further and still allow the ingress and egress of the garden center. He said he liked that it brought vitality; but being an advocate regarding parking, he had concerns about the parking. He said the applicant and the trust need to work together to resolve the parking issue. He said he would ask that staff do a circulation plan for next door, because it appears there are parking problems next door. Com. Wong said he felt the owner has Planning Commission Minufes 12 June O, 2003 the right to develop, and is trying to be a good neighbor and work with everyone. He said he was a strong believer in the three businesses in Cupertino, the city needs the sales tax, and the applicant is trying his best to work with the three tenants. He said he was optimistic that in 30 days an agreement could be reached, especially legal issues, and also staff can work on the parking issues as well as the circulation plan for next door. He said he was willing to continue the item. Mr. Piasecki said he was unclear what was meant by doing a circulation plan next door, as they do not do plans for adjacent properties. He said the circulation points are all fixed relative to the interface between the two properties, and not a lot of imagination. He agreed that some enhancement of what is going on the Yamagami Nursery site could help the entire situation; and said they would encourage them to come up with a better circulation plan. He said staff could review something that they may want to bring forward, but cannot force them or impose a plan that staff feels might work better; but they can encourage them to bring forth a better circulation plan. Com. Corr concurred with Com. Wong that it was a well designed project; and said if taking the project by itself on the site, it would work. He said however, that there was the other piece; both sides agree that there is a reciprocal parking arrangement as nebulous as it may be, it is there and has to be looked at together. He said if relying on the parking to make it work, the parking should be kept there; there are four successful businesses there and theoretically it should work, but sometimes it doesn't work. Com. Corr said he was concerned about interim parking and where it could be found; and looked forward to learning the answer since he did not see interim parking, with keeping the podium and the garage open, and with the staging area for the project all happening at once. He said something would have to give, because the material has to go some place during the construction. He said the comment was made that it was built from Wildflower Way back, and asked if that meant they would be staging on Wildflower, and where would it all happen? He said that he liked the plan, but it had to be looked at in terms of the whole piece and how all the parking and traffic will work. He agreed that the Wolf lot was empty much of the time, except on a Saturday morning when it is full; Wildflower is full and so are the others. He said he concurred that they should have a chance to work it out, and see if they can come up with a new reciprocal parking agreement that is written in such a way everybody understands; however, it is not quite ready to go forward yet. Com. Saadati said he agreed with the other commissioners that building massing overall was pleasing, and said his preference was to possibly remove the wall at the end and landscape it so it would be more friendly toward the neighbors across from the street; and said he felt it would improve the comer. He said he felt parking was an issue and he felt that everyone should work together to find a way to address the parking, basically to be a good neighbor. He said he was aware that because of the way the parking is constructed, the building is stepped, which is costlier than having a continuous flat slab on top of the parking. He said the applicant is trying to accommodate as much as possible, but there was still room to look at the options. He said it was suggested that the employees could park across the street, which would help; but during construction there will be many employees parking in the area, and the need for a staging area needs to be addressed. Even though contractors are told not to park there, it is not easy toprevent, and would take more effort to make sure they do not take any space. He said he supported continuing the application with the hope that everyone would be satisfied with the parking solution. Planning Commission Minutes 13 June (}, 900~ Com. Miller said that he concurred with many of the comments made by fellow commissioners; that the design of the residential units was good, and they reiterated that the issues were parking both during the construction period and subsequent to that. However, he said he had many questions about the parking and hopefully some could be resolved. He said it would be beneficial if the applicant and neighbors chose to do so, to ascertain who was responsible for the majority of the spaces being taken up. He said that Mr. Bunker suggested that it is much of the commuter traffic and Com. Miller said that he understood that it might occur on a weekday, but was not certain it would hold true on a weekend, which is when the lot is full and overflowing. He said Mr. Oka suggested that he might be amenable to expanding some of his property into a parking lot, and if it tums out that most of the patrons going there are ones that frequent Yamagami's that might be a reasonable solution. In the last analysis it is an issue of property rights vs. not having one business thrive at the expense of the others. It is reasonable to expect the people who are doing the business to carry their share of the burdens of the expense or the impacts that the site might have. He said it has been concluded that more information is needed anda continuation is appropriate to have the applicants continue to talk until the issues are ironed out. He said he supported the continuance. Chair Chen said that she also supported the commissioners' comments and said she was pleased to see the business successful, and said that in order to continue the success, all neighbors should work together to solve the parking issue. She said that while she agreed that the construction plans should be better thought out, she hoped it was a temporary inconvenience that would lead to a successful and bright future for all the businesses in the area. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to continue Application U-2003-03, and EA-2003-06 to the July 14, 2003 Planning Commission meeting Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: GPA-2003-01, EA-2004-05 City of Cupertino 23500 Cristo Rey Drive General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for the Forum at Rancho San Antonio from Residential Very Low 5-20 acre slope density to Residential Very Low 5-20 acre slope density/Quasi-Public Institutional Tentative City Council date: July 7, 2003 Staff presentation: Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the application for General Plan amendment to change the land use designation on the Forum site as outlined in the staff report. Staff supports the General Plan amendment since it will bring the Forum site in conformance with the zoning and the General Plan. She said the usepermit did not have any significant impacts and since this particular project is only changing the land use designation, staff does not feel it will have any additional environmental impacts. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the negative declaration as well as the General Plan amendment. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Planning Commission Minutes 14 June §, ~OOg Com. Corr said the step was expected as a direct result of the change in policy 2-80, and when the change was made and the policy deleted, it was known that certain projects would need to come forward for a General Plan amendment. He said when it was designed and built, 2-80 was in place and it was assumed that this was a part of it. He said he supported the application, and to move forward and complete it. There were no other comments from any Planning Commissioners. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of Application GPA-2003-01 and EA-2003-05 Com. Wong Passed 5 -0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 6. Discussion of R-1 Ordinance Review Process. Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, reported that discussion of the R1 Ordinance was requested by Com. Miller. Staff met with Com. Miller and as a result the focus of the agenda item would be on a particular regulation in the code that limits the amount a second story can be compared to the size of the first story. He said that he communicated with Com. Miller about the Planning Commission approval in early February 2003 that did have some allowances, an easier process to ask for a variation in cases of superior design or if the neighborhood clearly has a lot of larger two stories. Relative to the recommendation of approving a minute order to the City Council requesting a change to the regulation, staff recommendation is not to do this due to impacts on staff resources and destruction of the work program in the budget. However, because the current proposal at City Council may include some of Com. Miller's ideas, it may still allow his idea to move forward. Com. Miller said he initiated the action because the City Council requested that staff look at some of the issues relative to the R-1 Ordinance back in March, and although some meetings were held, some residents felt that things were not occurring as quickly as some had hoped. The suggestion was made recognizing that staff has a full agenda and perhaps some Planning Commissioners forming a task force would help facilitate things. In speaking with staff, they discussed the items that were part of what the Council had asked for further clarification on, and the only issue was the second story FAR specifically, which is why the suggestion of the Minute Order was made; which staff currently feels they would rather not do. Com. Miller said he was not inclined to press the issue at :his time, but would like to facilitate the process City Council is looking for and propose that a subcommittee be formed, to continue the actions that the City Council had asked for, and then at some point in time bring them back to the Planning Commission for review. Chair Chen questioned Com. Miller about his expectations of the process. Com. Miller said he proposed that a task force and two of the commissioners would meet with staff on a regular basis and iron out issues resulting in a proposal that could be presented to the Planning Commission. Commissioners would work with staff to come up with recommendations for the Planning Commission. Mr. Piasecki said that the City Council has directed staff to collect additional input on this particular issue. He said he suggested to Com. Miller that a study session be held to focus Planning Commission Minutes 15 June O, on the ordinance changes in a more comprehensive sense. He said his concern was that it had already been to the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission made a recommendation and it should be weighed upon whether to change it. He said the Planning Commissioners may or may not want to go in a different direction based on the recommendation of two commissioners, and he felt it was more productive to sit down and address the issues of concern; should the Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council that is different from what was already recommended. He said it may take two study sessions. Mr. Piasecki said that he knew Com. Miller was concerned that it would take a lot of time, but he said he would prefer to do it in a public forum with the entire Planning Commission rather than with just two commissioners, focusing on specific issues that the rest of the Commission has already weighed in on. He said that it can be accomplished as suggested by Com. Miller, but he felt it should be done as a full commission, not just a committee. Com. Corr said it was discussed briefly at the last meeting and the understanding was to discuss it tonight. He said he felt the idea of a study session was appropriate, and supported scheduling one. Com. Saadati concurred that the study session would be a better way of addressing the issue to discuss all thoughts and have a meaningful discussion and see what the results would be. He said that there was potential for change with input from everyone. Com. Wong said he still had questions before providing his comments. He said he understood where Com. Miller was coming from, and was concerned that with an ad hoc committee the recommendations would still be brought back to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission as a whole would make the final decision. He said if the Commissioners have time to do it, it should be done. He said that with his real estate background, he could try to work with Mr. Gilli and staff. He said he was not opposed to moving forward but would reserve his comments until after the public comment. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Donald Burnett, 729 Stendhal Lane, said that having served on the City Council that developed the current R-1 Ordinance, he was concemed whenever he saw changes because it was such an extensive process that involved the entire community, and was not worked at piecemeal. He said there will be many concerned people if the protection that small houses have now from large houses is weakened. That was the issue that generated the new R-1 Ordinance; and he commented that one does not have to wander far to see examples of it. He said he felt from the point of view of the overall community, the R-1 Ordinance is working well. Rancho Rinconada is a good test case because it was most heavily impacted originally because there were some huge houses and Rancho's houses are the smallest and lowest lying in the entire community. At the time the R- 1 review began, Rancho looked odd, with a distortion of scale, both very large houses and very small houses; since that time the R-1 has been in force long enough for some new homes to be built, and in Rancho particularly, he said from his point of view, the appearance of Rancho has been improved because the new homes are providing an interim type of size of residence in between the very large homes that were built earlier and the smaller ones now. Mr. Burnett said that whatever is done, it should be a comprehensive review of the whole policy, nothing is cast in concrete, but there are a lot of people sleeping better tonight because they feel that there are the current limits on how large a house is going to be built next door. The 35% or 600 square feet second story part of it is a key part of the ordinance, 600 square feet is fairly large. He said he hoped that the result would be comprehensive, and to make sure that for any changes of the kind Planning Commiggion Minuteg 16 June 9, 2003 of significance of changing the second story allotment would be that there is extensive public outreach for the people who feel comfortable now and can continue to respond to any changes. Chair Chen closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Piasecki suggested that the Planning Commission schedule at least one study session to review the issues, and then decide whether it would be beneficial to have a committee of the commissioners focus on it, as there are three or four remaining fundamental issues worthy of discussion. He said he was reluctant to form a separate committee as some of the commissioners were weighed into it. Responding to Mr. Burnett's comments, Com. Miller said he did not feel that they were suggesting going back to monster houses, and he felt that the intent of the ordinance is on target. He said they have had a number of years to see the impacts of the ordinance, some good and some potentially not good, and it is the appropriate time to go back and address the ones that are not good. City Council looked at it and said they were not sure we think we want you to go back and do a little more work on it before you can come up and give us a final proposal; and so really where we are now is following City Council direction and looking at this a little closer and then bringing it back to City Council so that some of the issues are present with the current ordinance are resolved in the best way possible to move forward. Com. Wong said he concurred with Com. Miller about the 1999 ordinance, and he understood the concems of the citizens of Cupertino were they did not want mass and bulk, and he agreed completely. However, there are some technical issues that need to be addressed that were not addressed clearly in the first round. He said what he and Com. Miller would like to see if they can sit down with staff and get some of the technical issues resolved. Community members have approached him expressing lbastration with the process; when it was first passed there wasn't as many complaints because many of them were in the pipeline already, and now that there are more applicants, some of the R-1 ordinance is working, and some may need more refinement. He said he has reservations about the current one, and felt that an ad hoc committee could resolve some of the issues. He said they would follow the essence of the 1999 ordinance and take the concerns of the community into consideration. Com. Corr commented that it began with the notion that there were some concerns and there were some particular applications that came through triggering questions. He said he felt they should sit down and discuss if changes should be made and what those may be. He said he was not certain he was on the same page in terms of Com. Wong's comments about more specifics and he felt they needed to have that discussion. Com. Corr said he supported having a study session, and if the result is that more work needs to be done, have some commissioners do that work. He said it needs to be understood as a group what it is that the Planning Commission is asking them to do. Chair Chen said it was a good point and she felt that they all agreed that the R1 is an important document that deserves a lot of attention, with areas that could be revised to serve the community better. She said she felt it was worth spending the time to review the entire document as a commission and supported having a study session. Mr. Piasecki suggested that it be conducted the first meeting in July. MOTION: Com. Saadati moved to schedule a study session relative to the R1 ordinance Planning Commission Minutes 17 June 9, 2003 SECOND: VOTE: on July 14, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. Com. Corr Passed 5 -0-0 Relative to Com. Wong's question about why the process took so long, Mr. Gilli said that meetings were held with the mayor and he requested additional information and a delay on the public outreach. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Com. Corr reported that no meeting of the ERC has been held since the May 27th Planning Commission meeting, and reported one is scheduled for June 11. He said he will not be able to attend the June 1 lth meeting; Com. Wong volunteered to attend in his place. Housing Commission: Com. Miller reported that no meeting was held since his report at the May 27th Planning Commission meeting. Mayor's Monthly Breakfast: Chair Chen reported that no May meeting was held. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported that City Council reconsidered and approved the use permit on Extended Stay America with Option A, redesign with details having to come back to the Planning Commission and City Council. He reported that the Oaks Shopping Center was moving forward with their revisions based on the study session with the Planning Commission and City Council. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Mr. Piasecki discussed the newspaper article on America's obesity and how it relates to smart growth and the concept of walkability vs. driving everywhere. He said the concept of smart growth is permeating much discussion about planning and is the direction that they would like to see Cupertino take in terms of walkability and integrating land uses. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to the next Planning Commission meeting on June 23, 2003 at 6:45 p.m. Approved as amended dune 23, 2003 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary