Loading...
PC 11-03-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Harris, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle Commissioners absent: Corr Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; CiddY Wordcll, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Michelle B. jurman, Phmncr Il; Vera Gil, Planner Il; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eilcen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: 4-U-97(M) Hnntsman Architectnral Group (Starbucks) I I I 11 Wolfe Road Modification of Use Permit to begin operation ora commercial business at 5:00 a.m. in accordance with Chapter 19.56.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application t'or moclil]cation tit' a usc permit to allow Starbucks to open for business at 5 a.m. A temporary use permit was issued iii August 1999 to permit opening at 5 a.m, and closing hours vary between 8 and 10 p.m. StalThas reviewed the item and supports the continued early morning operating hours. No comphfints have been received since the temporary permit was issned. Staff recommends a condition to limit thc music level from a specific speaker so it cannot be heard beyond the property line. A decision il' reached will be considered final, and not forwarded to City Cotmcil unless an appeal is filcd within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to a vicinity map and illustrated thc location ol' thc Starbucks located on Homestead and Wolfe Roads. She noted that Starbucks was located about Planning Commission Minht~s 2 Novcn~,~r 3, 1999 450 feet from tile closest residence, and that Ilo complaints had been received about tile honrs of operation or noise impacts regarding the business. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Developmefit Director, said that it would not necessarily scl a precedent for operating hours for future uses, and added that conditional asc permits would address individual cases for operating hours. Com. Stevens noted that correspondence was received addressing concerns about litter at thc Starbucks location. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. He read a communication from a conccrucd resident on Scofleld Drive as part of the public input. The writer suggested that conditious be applied to avoid the trash and litter in the area, and pointed out that litter existed in tile area of the McWhorters store and Federal Express store. Ms. M. Mabern, Real Estate Manager for Starbucks, said that tile Homestead and Wolfe store was the most recently opened store. She said that when they applied for the building permit, they wcrc not aware of the ordinance setting the hours of operation; however, it was their intent to bring both stores into conformance. She said that the video presentation stated the closing honrs as 9 p.m., but they were requesting to have the flexibility to remain open to 10 p.m. on Friday aud Saturday nights. Ms. Mahern said that Starbucks' staff did police the parking lot aud pick up trash as parl of their shift work. Tile locations of the trash receptacles were illustrated. Chair Doyle closed tile public input portion of the meeting. Com. Harris said that she was in favor of the application, and said they were t'ulfilling a community need for service in the early inorning hours. Corns. Kwok and Stcvcus said they also supported the application. Chair Doyle said that he also supported the application: however, he suggested the requirement for a trash receptacle at tile end of the seating area. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 4-U-97(M) Com. Harris Com. Corr Passed 4-0-0 Applicatiou No.: Applicant: Location: 13-U-99 Huntsman Architectural Group (Starbucks) 20520 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit to begin operation of a commercial business at 5:00 a.m. in accordance with Chapter 19.56.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Tile video presentation reviewed the application tbr modification o1' a usc permit to allow Starbncks to coutinue opening for business at 5 a.m, at tile Stevens Creek location. Staff has reviewed the item and supports the continued early morning opening time. .";taft' recommends an additional condition noting that tile operating hours apply Io Slarhucks only, should Starbucks be replaced with another business in that location. A decision il' reached will bc Planning Commission Minutes 3 No~,¢mhcr a, 1999 considered final, and not tbrwarded to City Council nnless an appeal is filed within 14 calcudar days. Ms. Wordell referred to the site plan and illui~trated tile location of tile Starbucks, aud noted Ihat the residential area was 315 feet away from tile Starbucks. She noted that comments had bccn received regarding early noise from the location. Ms. Wordell said that it is u Sturbucks policy that employees not be outside before dawn for safety reasons. The applicant reiterated the Starbucks policy that employees notbe outside thc business until lighl of day, and be illustrated where the trash containers were located. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Jim Lepeticb, 20570 Scofield Drive, expressed concern about the increase iu uoise I?om Iht shopping center, from the garbage trucks, delivery trucks and ground sweeping equipment. I lc noted that the ground sweeping equipment operated in some instances at 4 a.m. on .";uudays. I lc said that he was working with code enforcement to resolve tile issue of tile opuratiug hours of Ibc garbage trucks. Mr. Lepetich discussed tile arrival of delivery tracks at 5:10 a.m. at other businesses, and expressed concern about earlier arrival ifStarbucks ,,vas open at 5 a.m. Mrs. Jacqueline Lepetich, 20570 Scofield Drive, also expressed concern about tile noisc fi'om tile delivery and garbage trucks. She said that tile garbage receptacles itl thc shopping center wcrc often overfilled and trash was piled around the receptacles. Chair Doyle closed tile public input portion of the meeting. The applicant said that Starbucks' policy was to go around every I0 minutes externally and internally to empty trash receptacles if needed. He said it was good business practice to lochs on a clean environment. Mr. Cowan noted that tile property owner would be notified of tile concerns relative to thc garbage trucks, delivery trucks and street sweeping equipment. Chair Doyle iudicatcd thai an addilional trash receptacle would be reqnired at tile edge of tile property. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris rnoved to approve Applicatiou 13-U-99 accordiug to tile model resolution, with an additional condition for an additional trush coutaincr at tile southern end of the property. Com. Stevens Com. Corr Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-97 (14-EA-97, 4-Z-97) Hossain Khaziri 22020 Homestead Road (and Maxine) Use Permit to demolish a vacant service station and coustruct 7 single-lhmily residences. To rezone a .96 acre parcel from Planned Development (general commercial) to Phmncd Development (residential) Planning Commission Min'ut~s 4 Novcm'b,Sr 3. 1999 Tentative City Council meeting December 6, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the applicatioa to demolish an abanduued gas station and redevelop with 7 two-story siugle'family homes, and rezoue thc 0.96 acre pm'cci from P(CG) to P(RES). Staff will address issues snch as cleaning np existing hazardous matcrials on the site, removal and retentioa of trees, noise levels, designs as they apply to Cupertino's R-[ nr resideatial single farnily standards, and privacy protection. Staff recommcnds approval of Iht project based on the conditions of approval. A recommeudation will be forwarded to thc December 6 City Council meeting for a final declsiou. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, said that tile application dated back to 1997 because of a number of issues involved. In response to Com. Harris' request for rnore information on tile hazardous materials issue, MI'. Jung said that the site bad leaking underground tanks, and tile cleanup process has takcn a uuulbcr of years, using vapor extraction equipment on the site. He said that they had not yet received a case closure letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD); however tl~c SCVWI) did not generally prohibit redevelopment on the site as long as cleanup could continue while redevelopment was taking place. He cited as aa example the Taco Bell Restauraut where cleunup was continued after the facility was open for business. He said that according to thc applicant, most of the residual contamination was located below Lot 7. Mr. H, Khaziri, applicant, explained that only soil contamination existed below Lot 7, and that thc SCVWD required a sample boriag from the area, and a closure letter was expected from SCVWD following receipt of a report at the cad of the month. He reviewed the cleanup cf fro'ts Ihal look place over the past years. Mr. Jung clarified that Exxon ~vas responsible ['or the cleanup, not Mr. Khaziri, allhough hc was tile property owner. He said approval would be coutingent upon receipt of thc closure [cllcr li'oln SCVWD or a cleanup plan approved by SCVWD be provided. Mr. Jnng provided a co[or board and individual drawings of the elevations. Mr. James Chao, architect, said he felt confideut ti~at the closure letter would be received from SCVWD, and explained that typically couditious are imposed so that thc building permit wonld not be issued until the report is reviewed by staff. He poiated out that the designs of thc homes took into account visual impacts and privacy impacts on the adjacent neighbnrs. I lc saki a great deal of effort went into designing a project that would fulfil the need for affordable honsiug, ycl into the community. He expressed his appreciation to staff for their input in helping reach a fin' superior situation than when it first started. Mr. Chao said that he worked with acouslical engineers to determine what mitigation for possible noise from Highway 85; with au arborist to identify trees, conditions of trees, trees for retention and removal: landscaping will bc druughl resistanC In response to Com; Harris' questions about tile hazardous materials cleanup equipment, Mr. Khaziri explained that gasoline contamiuation still existed, close to street dedication ou l,ot 7 where the leaking tanks existed. He said that the environmental piping was located on Lot 7 ucar the street dedication. He said that the development on the other 6 lots conld continnc while thc cleaaup was continuing on Lot 7. He reiterated that a closure letter was expected November 30 when the report is submitted to the SCVWD. Planning Commission Min'ut~s 5 November .~, 1999 Mr. Juug reported that the changes suggested by Larry Cmmon, city architect. ,,veto illcorl)orztlcd itl the plans submitted. Mr. Chao said that the arborist's recommendations Ibr trcc retention and pruning will be implemented, as noted iii the a'ttached staffreport. Noise mitigation for Lots I and 7 was discussed, as outlined in the stall-' report. Thc modified design of Lot 7 was also discussed. Mr. Chao answered questions about tile housc designs and privacy impacts. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Ed Bloom, 22150 Wallace Drive, Cupertino, compared the preseatation of tile proposal to the sale ora custom automobile to a potential buyer. He said lie felt the prqject was not suited I't)r the particular area. Referring to a map of the area, lie illustrated various projects and exceptions made to particular projects. He voiced bis objection to building a housing project next to I Iomcslcad Road, and pointed out the traffic impacts and noise impacts to the residents. I lc rel'crrcd lo thc proposed site plan and expressed concern about the size of the front and rear yards of thc proposed homes. Mr. Bloom concluded by stating that approval of tbe project would nut help thc community or protect the residents. Chair Doyle closed tile public input portion of tile meeting. Mr. Kbaziri said that he could not at this time approximate tile selling price o1' thc proposed houlcs, but felt it was a more appropriate use for the property than another service station, lie said thc original proposal was for 10 townbouse units, but felt that tbe 7 single flintily homes was more appropriate. Mr. Jung answered qnestions about second story setbacks and floor area ratios of thc proposed project. Cbair Doyle summarized tile key issues: noise level mitigation; setbacks to I lomcstcad Maxine; sbould there be FARs ii1 excess of 35% on lots Ot~ 4,000 to 6,000 sq. ['t. predominantly 9,000+ sq. ft. lots; hazardous materials; zoning change; number o1' lnts; COtlCCpl small lot subdivisions; detail on fencing; aud Lot 7. Com. Harris said that she was in favor of the proposal; setbacks on Homestead and Maxine were appropriate; noise mitigation to be accomplished; said tbat tile problem with the development was that tbe second floors were too big; the houses could be 3 bedroom homes instead o1'4 bedrooms, wbich would allow the second floor to be smaller and closer to tile 65/35 ratio which was developed for R1 and the visual massing. She said tbat tbe lot size was appropriate; however, she was concerned with Lot 7, and did not want building on Lot 7 to proceed until all tb,2toxics were gone. Sbe said that she would also prefer 2 homes to be built on Lot 7, but would address Ihal ill the future. Com. Harris said that she wanted to see the_ November 30th report ali. er Ihu boriugs were done; and said that altbough water coutamination was unlikely because of the200 [~)ol depth, she was concerned about the soil contamination. Sbe reiterated that fiual approval was appropriate until after the report was received. She also stated that she did not like the design o1' Lot 4, whicb she felt was too long because of the lot shape. Planning Commission Mica'utes 6 Nt)vcnfl 6r 3, 1999 Coin. Kwok said that relative to noise mitigation, do wbatever is necessary snch as building a barrier or wall to address the noise mitigation because it is near Homestead aad ch)sc to I lighway 85. He agreed with Com. Harris oil RI ratio second story, bnt aot with tile staff intcrprctatitm that it is ahnost impossible to put a smaller 3 bedi'oom 2 bath on the small lot tip in the second Iloor. He said there was a ueed to address second story setbacks, and that a smaller living area on thc second level would be more appropriate. He expressed concern about tbe hazardous materiuls especially living in a neighborhood where environmental quality is importaut. Com. Kwok said that in ligbt of the existing conditions, tbe commuuity would benefit fi'om thc prt~jcct; howcvcr, lite site has not been cleared by tbe SCVWD and tbe Regional Water Quality Control Board, although pending, and he bad reservations about moving forward witb approval oJ' tile pr~jcct pending approval. He expressed concern about the hazardous materials and also whether or uot I,ol 7 would be built on depending on the successful completion oftbe remediatiou. He said that hc was not comfortable witb moving ahead with the project uutil the site is 100% approved aad :ill contamination removed from the site. Com. Stevens said that be did not feel the project was ready tbr overall approwd at this stage: hc said that a soundwall on Lot I and Lot 7 could mitigate tbe noise; and said tbut hc I'clt that the setbacks were not even; the drawings were confusing; and noted coalmenls l'ronl thc audieucc relative to Homestead Road being a two lane road, ii' there were plans to chunge il ltl a 4 hmo iu this area; he said he felt it should be reviewed for a stoplight or something similar. I Ic said updated drawings were needed, especially for the fencing. Relative to second story FAIL wbcn the lots get smaller, tbe RI ratio oi~35/65 would be harder to implement aud result ia uny kind home size which seems to be what people want. He said the compatibility of the lot size was appropriate, other than the egress and access ut' tbe people behind. Com. Stcvcns said Ihal a closure letter from SCVWD was needed, and commented that because tbey had to work with olhcr agencies also, he was doubtful of a resolution by November 30th; tile zoning change is posilivc because of the need for housing in this particular area, taking into considcratiou Com. Ilarris' comment about Lot 7. He said he concurred with the number ut' lots; bnt said that Ihe way around the back of Lot 7 was not appropriate and would pret'er sometbiug else, snch al lurniug Ibc h{msc around. He said tbe concept of small lot subdivisions matched the number ol' lots. I Ic contmcnlcd that the concept would bare to be considered iu tbe fi~ture because larger lots dcnmndcd a higher price and did not resolve the housing problems. Chair Doyle said that relative to noise mitigation, he did not feel :t 7 ['ootprccast wall should bc added to the site as it was not characteristic o£ what presently existed on thc strccl, l',clativc to Iht setback to tbe homes on Homestead and Maxine, he acknowledged that a problem exists and u [O foot setback is being considered on a road that already had some issues. I Ic said hc l'cll Iht setbacks sbould reflect the same as the properties along that street aad not catlse u problem iu Iht future; drawings need to be updated prior to approval; secoud story does uot mccl Ibc I~,1 requirements or the ratio. He said be l'elt they should try to maintain the ratio with somc work put into that and go i%rward. Relative to lot sizes, he said they should try to maintain wbut is prcscnlly in the area, and try to maintaiu the FAR in the ueighborbood as it is asingle family neighborhood. Chair Doyle said that be felt a closure letter fi'om SCVWD was needed tbr the entire site before building could be approved, so not to cause problems if approval cannot be obtained, lie said the zoning change was appropriate; number of lots should be fe~ver than 7. Relative lo I,ot 7, hc expressed concern about noise mitigation, which could create a tbrtress with a wall. I lc said small lot subdivision concept was suitable; but felt the development was a townhoase development, uot a small RI development and he felt it should be an RI development. Chair Doyle said thai ilo I'cll Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 3, 1999 more detail was needed on the fencing to see how it is applied, to better understand whal would have to come into existence to make this a developable property. Mr. Cbao pointed out that the units were all 3' bedrooms, except tbr Lot 7 aud one more unit. I lc said that based on an analysis, tbere would not be a market for 2 bedroom units. Chair Doyle summarized the discussion of the issues. Zoning: consenstls that it was appropriatc; noise mitigation wall incompatible with surrounding area; street setbacks: 3 fccl I Iomestead should be more of a setback; 2/2 on Maxine; update drawings for more clarity; RI ratio second Iloor: consensus was to have more setback; differed on whether it should be tile RI; Com. Kwok recommended decreasing 4 bedroom units to 3 bedroom units; Com. Harris said she was willing to be flexible with small lot subdivision, but that it needs to be somewhat smaller than it is now; Com. Stevens said he was flexible, in that it is smaller, and he felt the 35/65 should bc reviewed. Com. Doyle said they should try to maintain tile RI if at all possible but that is predisposed on having bigger lots. FAR and lot sizes: Com. Stevens said he felt .45 is a maximum, but would agree to Ri FARs, and expand the upstairs as the overall mass of the buildiug should be the same: lot sizes: if larger, they would reach the maximum size of tile house aud in looking to the future. consider smaller houses. Com. Kwok and Com. Harris said that the lots and FARs were appropriate; Chair Doyle said he was opposed to it because he felt it was not the appropriate place to put small houses, as it was an RI area. There ,~as consensus on the hazardous materials that there should be a cleanup; zoning appropriate; number of lots: Coln. Harris said she would prefer a total of 8 lots because Lot 7 is larger than the others; Com. Kwok said he preferred smaller and more lots; Com. Stevens said not smaller lots; Chair Doyle said not smaller. All were concerned with the appearance and size of Lot 7, and number of tulits on the lot. P, elativc to Ibc concept o[' small lot subdivisions, Com. Stevens said that although be was not enthusiastic about the conccpl, smaller lots were in the future; Com. Kwok and Com. Harris concurred. Chair Doylc said that bc was not opposed to small lot subdivisions, but felt it was necessary to understand what was w~tcd on, as RI was not voted for, but higher density was, and the coucept of aflbrdability is quite skewed on this property. He said that relative to feucing, there was consensus Ibr Ibc uccd lo understand the plan. Com. Harris suggested continuing the item until the report ~vas received, with thc assurance from staff that the privacy issues would be addressed. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Application 5-U-97 (14EA-97, 4-Z-97) lo linc December 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Com. Corr Passed 4-0-0 Chair Doyle declared a recess from 9:05 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-TM-99, 8-Z-99, 13-EA-99 Tom Quaaglia: The Riding Group 7816 Festival Drive Tentative map to subdivide an approximately two-acre parcel into eight lots. - Rezoning from Pre-A to Pre R1-6 Planning Commission Min'utds ,s Novcmq,& 3. 199{* Tenlalive City Council hearh~g date December 6, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to subdivide Iht two :~crc parcel into 8 lots, and rezoning from Pre-Agi'iculturc land use desigaation to Pre-Single Family Residential land use designation with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. StulT rcconmmnds approval with conditions outlined in the model resolution. A recomlner~dation will be ['tn'warded to the City Council for a final decision. Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner Il, answered questions regardiug the proposed prqicct, unncxalion, and tree relocation. Mr. Tom Quaaglia, The Riding Group, I Almaden Blvd., Suite 705, San .It)sc, said that he concurred with the staff report, and thanked staff for their cooperation and assistance with the project. He said that they applied for the annexation process approximately one month caviler and were working with the engineering staff. He said lie was confident that the wdley oak ti'cc 'wt)tlld be relocated successfully. He reported that the well would be capped in accordaace with requirements from SCVWD. Mr. Quaaglia said that there was no Williamson Acl, Ihat it was a public roadway and the lot sizes were being matched. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. William Cohen, resident, said his home abutted tile rear of tile proposed development. I Ic questioned if the applicant owned the property or had an option on the property, lie reported that minimal information had been given to the existing residents surrounding thc property, noting Ihat lie was not aware of the size or type of homes to be built, or what impact they wotdd have on Ihc existing properties. He urged caution in proceeding with the project and saki he hoped inl'ormation and answers would be provided at the meeting. Mr. Quaaglia responded that tlley did have an option to purchase the property and.had released large amounts of money. He said they were working closely with the Perusinu family, and would purchase the property upon successful outcome or' the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Relative to perceived unknowns, lie said that the project was an ?,l subdivision which would be built according to tile stringent RI code. Mr. Cohen questioned the timeline for the applicant's purchase option. Chair Doyle said lie I'clt it was not relevant. Mr. Cohen said it was relevant and his understanding that they wcrc rcqucsling approval in order to exercise the option to purchase and proceed which would make it fail accompli. He said he just spent I-1/2 hours listening to Planning Commission's arduous discussion about quality of houses, number of levelk, setbacks, yards, and lit saki he [i2ll hc was entitled to the same type of information and would be upset it' they rushed approval wilhoul providing the same careful thought to people who would be affected by thc prqjcct. Chair I)oylc said there was a distinction to be made for the existing type of zoning and the situatioa. I lc said the requirements, such as setbacks, height, maximum sizes, were fairly detailed, and thc zoning in the other developments was specialized with exceptions from the standard zoning requirements, st) that there is a document in existence for review and that provided everything is done within thc envelope anywhere in the community, the residence could be built. He explained thc reasons I'or the difference between the earlier discussion and the current one. Planning Commission Min'ut~s ~ Novcnflldr 3, 1999 Responding to Mr. Cohen's concerns about construction impacts, Ms. Carmen I,ynaugh, I~ublic Works, said that there were regulations about construction and inspectors rcguhlrly controlling during construction. Chair Doyle suggested to Mr. Cohen that he meet wilh stall' lo discuss his concerns. Mr. Cohen said that he hoped therd wonld be more opportnnity lo provide inpnt heft>re the project was approved. Mr. Quaaglia said that the application was a tentative map and noted that tile design or Iht homes would proceed through the proper process. Mr. Cowan pointed out that tile only time thc Planning Commission would be involved in discretionary review was if the FAR tbr atwo story house was over 35%. If the homes are two story, and over 35% FAR, there will be a review process and neighbors would be notified, ffthe houses are less than 35% FAR with twostory, it is resolved by staffon a technical basis, with no public inpnt if they meet all tile standards. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved approval of Application 13-EA-99 Com. Stevens Cmn. Corr Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved approval of Application 5-TM-99 and 8-Z-99 according to Iht model resolution Com. Stevens Com. Corr Passed 4-0-0 Com. Harris commented that the Planning Commission had worked for hwl years on thc residential guidelines to improve them, and said she hoped tllat it was evident Ihal they do try It) mitigate the impact on an adjacent property. The recommendation will be forwarded to City Coancil on December 6, 1999. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 12-U-99 Santa Clara Family Dental 10413 Torre Avenue Use Permit to add 1,015 square feet to an existing office building and revise parking phm. Planning Commission decision.final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed tile application J'or a Usc Permit Io convert 1,015 sq. ft. of atrinm space to office space, and revise the parking plan. In order to convcrl thc atrium space to office space, the applicant must demonstrate that a suflScient nLmlbcr o1' parking spaces exist on the site, which staff calculated to be 21 spaces. There are alrendy 21 spaces: however, neighboring tenants state that parking problems exist in tile Town Center area and will only be exacerbated by the addition. Staffsuggests the nse et'signs depicting reserved parking fin' tenants and clients only or towing warnings. Staff recommends approval o1' the applicatknl willl an additional condition for a double entry door on tile west elewition I'or a more dislinctivc entrance. A recommendation will be considered final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Planning Commission Min'ut~s Itl Novc,~*dr 3, 1999 Ms. Vera Gil, Planner 11, referred to the site plan and illustrated tile present and proposed Iloor plans, including the nddition. Mr. Cowan snid that a serious parking problem did exist for lhe center in that tile various areas were linked with common driveways, with reciprocal access agreements, which makes it difficult to control the parking. Dr. Khalil Saghezchi, 10413 Torre Avenue, provided his personal background, stating that he was one of I75 worldwide accredited members of the American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry, of which only 5 are certified in northern California. He said he purchased tile property 7 months ago to bring his specialized cosmetic dentistry to Cupertino. He said that there is a perceived parking problem in tile center, but he met his parking requirement for his building; and not approving his application wofild not make the parking problem go away. He stated that because o1' the nalurc of his practice, his office would only be open a maximum of 2 to 3 days per week, with 2 to 3 patients per day. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Dennis Whittaker, President of Pacifica Suites Condo Assoc., said he had tile same concerns as he had for a previous application for additional square footage for the Cupertino Dental (}roup. He expressed concern about the present and future parking problems. IIc saki thai hc was also apprehensive about the future expansion plans of Dr. Saghezchi, as he initially statcd dmt his Cupertino office would only be open one day per week, and now is stating thai it would hc 2 lo 3 days per week. He said he felt it would not be good business practice to have patients' cars lowed away while they were in the dental offices if they were parked in another area. Mr. Whittaker saki he welcomed the new practice in the community, but hoped that he could utilize thc existiug space. He said he felt a third office would only expand the current major parking problem, which is ona first come, first serve basis. He said that it was understood that the application was going to he postponed from this evening's agenda; otherwise more people would have been present to volcc their opposition. He said that 7 other owners and the attorney representing them would have bccn present if they knew tile item was being heard. Dr. Darrell Lure, dentist, said that he was concerned about tile land use of the building which was originally a multi tenant general office use, changed to dental office usc. which changes Iht parking requirements. If the building is converted to one-third dental office, it will mccl Iht parking requirements; however, if the whole building converts to dental use, it will need 30 spaces. Dr. Lum reviewed the potential expansion capabilities in the building, and questioned if thc kind use is changed to dental office use, did it only apply to this one third of the buildiug or thc cnlirc building. If it applies to the entire building, the applicant can expand rapidly into the other areas without returning to the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the expansion of Iht Cupe~ino Dental Group, including a patient treatment area with 6operatories would increase thc number of patients into their area, which is already saturated with parking. Ms. Gil clarified that the parking requirements for dentists' offices was one per 285 sq. ft. for general office; and dental is one per 175 square feet. Ms. Elizabeth Mulford, law offices occupant, said that she strongly objected to tile suggestion of putting towing notices in the parking lot. She said that a large number of clients arc cklerly people who are forced to park far from tile offices. She said that a study to address the extent of the parking problem would be appropriate. Planning Commission Min-ut~s II Novcm lcr j, 1999 Dr. Saghezchi said that lie was eager to practice in Cupertino and felt he coukl provide a service lo the community, and needed the area to set up the reception area Jbr thc corn Jbrt of his patients. Steven Lipp, tenant at 10413 Torre Avenue, iaid that he was tile other occupaut of thc building, and he welcomed another dentist into the community. He said that although a parking prohlcm currently exists, the applicant meets the parking requirements. He suggested a study lo address Iht parking issue. He said that the applicant purchased tile building and has waited sufl~cieul time aud should be afforded some consideration. Chair Doyle closed tile public input portion of the meeting. Chair Doyle summarized that the applicatioa met tile requirements, although a parking problem exists with the entire complex. He said that a parking solution for the eutire complex was nccdcd. Com. Harris said that when tile previous application for expansion was cousidcrcd, staff was directed to develop a master plan for the entire area, and consideration be givcu to Ihe cutirc center, not just one parcel, because of tile parking problem itl tile entire complex. Sim said IJlal a study would be appropriate for the center and the city's policies. Com. Kwok concurred about tile study, because if we allow this itl here, wc will compound thc traffic problem. He asked legal counsel if the applicant met the requirements, cun we legally deny the project. He said that although the uew dental offices would be a welcome additiou lo Iht community, tile present tenants have to be happy also. I-le said he supported thc rccomnlcndulion for a study and allow the present tenants to provide input. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistaut City Attoraey, said that because a parking problem exists. approval of the application would exacerbate the problem, something would have lo bc wm'kcd out. She said the item could be continued tbr a fin'tiler study to address thc pm'kiag issue. Com. Stevens said that parking was a key issne, aud when he visited tile complex lhcrc was no parking to be found. He said that he did uot feel the applicant should be pcnalizcd for lilt ovcrall problem; however, he said tile issue involved the number of spaces as well as size of Ibc parking stalls, because the vehicles driven now are much larger thau those driven ia Ibc past. I Ic said thai because of the existing parking problem, allowing expansiou would only iucrease thc problcm, aud he was not in favor of approving the application at this time. Chair Doyle said that everyone in the entire co~nplex had a vested interest iu resolving Ibc problem, because there is development potential on every site; but everyone is also impaclcd by the problem. He said he felt a parking study would be an appropriate step, but to come back with solutions or actions to be taken. He said tllere was uot support lbr approval of tile application, but tile item could be continued for a study to address tile overall issue. If tile project is dcuicd, thc decision cotdd be appealed to the City Council in December or January. Dr. Saghezchi said that tile office space had been empty for 8 months aud expressed concern aboul the impact on his business. He said that he cannot lease out the remainiug space in his building until a decision is rendered on his application. He said that he would prefer a continuance to Iht December 13th Plauning Commission meetiug. Planning Commission Minht~s t'. Novcn~bdr 3, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to continue Application 12-U-99 to thc l)cccmbcr 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Kwok Com. Corr Passed 4-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10.30 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission on November 8, I999. Respectfully Submitted, Elizab~fi Elhs Recording Secretary Approved as presented: January 10, 2000