Loading...
PC 07-13-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINU'I'ES OF T~E REGULAR MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 13, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Doyle, Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner II; Rhys Rowland, Planning Intern; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Raymond Cheong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the June 22, 1998 regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve the June 22, 1998 minutes as presented Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted a letter from Dennis and Elizabeth Whitaker relative to Item 8; a letter from the Lion and the Lamb Bookstore relative to the Chevron liquor license; and letters from Helen Tare and Jeanne Thomas on the application to add a second story to the dental complex. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL- FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Ai>~licant: Location: 14-U-97 Ji-Mei Chen 10580 John Way Report to Council: Use Permit to construct a second story addition to an existing residence. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 15, 1998 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 10, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 14-U-97 to the August 10, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 13, 1998 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 7-EXC-98 (21-EA-98) Thomas Hutton 22820 San Juan Road Hillside exception to locate a 2,500 sq. fi. addition to a residence on a prominent ridgeline in accordance with Chapter 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO JULY 27, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 7-EXC-98 (21-EA-98) to the July 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: Ms. Laima Baltusis, 19872 Merritt Drive, expressed concern about the construction of a two story home behind her property. She also distributed a copy of a letter she wrote to the City Council regarding her concern. She referred to two overhead pictures of the two story home, which illustrated loss of privacy to her property because of the many windows from the two story home and the loss of trees which had previously been on the property. She pointed out that if she had received notice about the construction of the home earlier, she would have been able to have a landscaper work on her property. Ms. Baltusis also expressed concern about the construction work and noise and unreasonable hours of construction. She said that she would not be able to be present at the hearing in August and wished to express her concerns to the Planning Commission beforehand. CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 2-U-72(M) Northpoint 10880 Northpoint Way Director's referral of a minor modification to remove four pine trees in an existing residential developm[ht in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-TM-96(M) Aster 2 1361 & 1371 Aster Lane Director's referral of a minor modification to an approved plan for tree removal in accordance with Chapter 17.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 13, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Consent Calendar Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 PUBLIC HEARl~G Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 7-U-98 Tony Wong 10067 Bianchi Way Use Permit to construct two single family homes in a Planned Development zoning district, including an exception to the Heart of the City Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMIvlISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish a single family home and construct two single family homes, including an exception to the Heart of the City specific plan. Plans were reviewed at the June 8 Planning Commission meeting and the architect was asked to revise the plans by eliminating the carport for unit No. 2 and meeting the single family residential setback requirements provided the changes would not negatively impact the design. Unit No. 2 does not comply with the setback regulations and staff will present options for reducing the building area. Staff recommends approval of the project. A Planning Commission decision with respect to the project will be regarded as a final decision and will not be forwarded to the City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Michele Bjurman, Planner II, referred to Exhibit F, the previous version and original version of the site plan, and explained the modifications implemented by the applicant. She reviewed the building and site designs, and the single family residential setbacks as set forth in the attached staff report. Mr. Tony Wong, applicant, said that in order to meet the setback requirements for the R1 zoning, it was impossible to achieve every setback to meet all the requirements, therefore their priority was to in6fease the south side of unit 2 which they believed to have a significant setback entrance to the south side of the residential apartments and to the north side of unit 2, which is 8 feet. He said he was aware that compliance with the residential zoning requirement is 10 feet. He said he felt the north side neighbor which is the triplex is a separate building, and the particular location is mostly a plain wall, therefore they felt 8 feet is probably comfortable. He said that staff's recommendation is to increase 2 feet setback for the second story which would visually redo the straight wall from the first floor to the second floor, but actually the front of the front elevation is a garage. He proposed to keep the 8 feet instead of 10 feet because the visual effect will be decreased by the garage. He noted that the corridor was eliminated, and no carport remains in unit 2. In response to Com. Harris's question, Mr. Wong said that Unit No. 2 was increased to 2280 sq. fL, an addition of 80 square feet. He said that the second story setback for the second unit was not increased. Relative to staWs recommendation, he said he hoped the Planning Commission would consider less than 5 feet as they accept the concept of complying with the rear setback. Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 13, 1998 Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Doyle said that there was high density housing in the area and there would be two single family homes on this property, and as a tradeoffwould be losing a 5 ft. of setback on the back of Unit No. 2. He said it was an odd setback situation between the first unit and the second unit, and potentially there could be a I0 foot setback on the side. He said from his viewpoint, he would not make it necessary to move in the 5 feet, but would try to move that other side to get the 10 foot setback on the adjoining ones and proceed from there. Com. Mahoney said he concurred with staff's recommendation; it is basicfilly two single family homes in the eyes of a duplex and he did not want to sacrifice on the setbacks. Com. Stevens said he visited the area and it was tight all around; and although called a duplex, it was actually two single residential units. He suggested that if the square footage of units 1 and 2 were similar, to flip unit 2 and have it be a flip on a like unit 1 which is the reverse, to maintain all the setbacks. He said he concurred with staffreeommendation. He said he felt the setbacks are required on this particular configuration, but felt the need to mention the possibility of another configuration. Com. Harris said she concurred with Com. Doyle; she liked keeping the green space between the two units as there were two houses and should have some separation and some play area. She said she would prefer to have the 8 foot setback go to 10 feet on the second story and not move the 5 feet in. Chair Austin said she concurred with Coms. Harris and Doyle, and pointed out that if they set it back 10 feet and I0 feet in front they wouldn't have to move over that way and they could still have the open space, which she would support. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: '- Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 7-U-98 as proposed by staff; with modification to condition No. 7, eliminating "Unit #2 shall be shifted 5 ft. forward and," and substituting "Unit 2 shall be set back on the north side to be increased by 2 feet on the second story." Com. Harris Coms. Stevens and Mahoney Passed 3-2-0 Application No.(s) Applicant: Location: 9-U-98 (24-EA-98) Ki Bong Na 21749 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit to locate a specialized (karate) school in an existing shopping center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for operation of a martial arts school in the shopping center formerly occupied by an auto parts store. Staffhas determined that the available parking will not present a problem and concludes there may be a three space surplus Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 13, 1998 under worst case conditions if the school is approved. Since the center's ingress and egress is shared by the center and the post office, staff suggests that the median grading directional markings and pedestrian access be modified to clarify the circulation pattern through the center, creating a raised curb over the striped area and extending the center median to the edge of a public right of way will partially mitigate those issues. Staff suggests that a condition for reciprocal access be contingent to this project's approval. They also suggest that the unfinished landscaping planter boxes be completed as a condition of approval. Staff also suggests that the two wall signs from the former auto parts store be replaced before the martial arts school opens for business. Staff recommends approval of the application, and a decision will be final and not forwarded to the City Council unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Rhys Rowland, Planning Intern, referred to Exhibit B, Parking Matrix for Worse Case Scenario, and reviewed the parking impacts and answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Ki Bong Na, applicant, provided a history of his background and a brief explanation of the classes held at the martial arts school. Mr. Yen Chen, 21771 Stevens Creek Blvd., representing Chin-Hsiang Co., Ltd., said they were not opposed to the concept of the martial arts school; however, they were concerned about the parking. He pointed out that it was an older center and the design of the parking lot was not up to the standards of the surrounding modern office buildings. He said that one of the items in the staff report calls for a reciprocal easement, and said if there is no parking situation, there is no need to have access, and that he felt it was not the appropriate time to execute the reciprocal easement. He said it can be done, and the city has a right to execute it at any future time. He noted that they maintained a good relationship with the residential neighborhood to the north. He expressed concern that if there is access through the property, and there is a parking problem, people would be parking in the residential neighborhoods and parking in the office parking lot in the evening. Chair Austin closed the public hearing. Mr. Cowan clarified that the concept of requiring reciprocal access, not parking, among properties along Stevens Creek Boulevard and DeAnza Boulevard was a long-standing policy of the city to provide future opportunities to consolidate curb cuts and to provide alternate ways for people to get out to side streets. He said it was working well for the city, and staff has encouragdd commissions and City Council to require that as part of the General Plan policy. Com. Harris said that she would like to see more business opportunity and the school to be able to have adult classes in the evening. She recommended that the condition be changed to state "no more than 10 adults in any one time until 6 p.m." She said that she supported the proposal. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Appln. 24-EA-98 Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 9-U-98 according to the model resolution Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 13, 1998 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 11-EXC-93 (M) Sol Kutner 11849 Upland Way Hillside modification to decrease driveway slope and modify retaining wall heights on a residential hillside lot. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for modification to the hillside exception to decrease the driveway slope and modify the retaining wall heights on a residential hillside lot. Staff recommends approval of the application; however, recommends that the applicant's landscape plan be reviewed to ensure that there is vegetation to screen the upper wall and vines that will screen the lower wall. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan and reviewed the proposed changes as outlined in the staff report, including the raising of the Upland Way roadway by about 3 feet, so there is not such a steep transition between the roadway and coming into the residents' driveway; the access where the three driveways is being widened for safety; widening the Czisch driveway entrance; and addition of a guardrail and retaining walls. Mr. Sol Kutner, construction manager, said that at the beginning of the project, the four primary elements carefully considered were the safety factors, the aesthetic issues, the environmental, and functional. In response to Com. Doyle's question about the possibility of minimizing the number of proposed retaining walls, Mr. Kutaer said that with fewer walls, the walls would be higher and the ground would have a greater slope to it. He said the main factor for the retaining walls was safety. Mr. Kutner also discussed the proposed landscaping plan. Mr. Billy Lin, geotechnical engineer, said that as a result of recent heavy rains, there were two landslides outside the property line. He referred to the overheads of the driveway grades and discussed the impacts of the E1Nino landslides. He added that with a successful surface drainage provision, the overall slope stability can be maintained. Mr. Frank Lozano, civil engineer, Brian Kangas Foulk, answered questions regarding the storm drain system. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Bob Presley, 11850 Upland Way, said that he appreciated the Planning Commission's concern about retaining walls and drainage. He said that the work being done on the hillside with the wall would be an improvement on the work being done alongside Upland Way. He pointed out that the proposed driveway design was superior to the previous one. He recommended approval of the application. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 13, 1998 Com. Harris said that she supported the staff recommendation to bring the landscaping plan back for approval. Com. Doyle said that he concurred with staff recommendation also. He expressed concern that when approval is granted for projects, items such as the ones discussed should be considered prior to approval of the application. He said he was pleased to see that the water situation had been addressed because it was a big issue as more development is put on the hillsides. Com. Mahoney said that he concurred with the staff recommendation also. Com. Stevens said that he concurred with the staff recommendation; however, he recommended that in addition the inner wall be piered for safety reasons. Chair Austin said that she concurred with the staff recommendation also. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved approval of Application 11-EXE-93 (M) according to the model resolution with the understanding that the intent is to deal with the landscaping in relation to the wall Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 9-EXC-98 (23-EA-98) George Marcinkowski 10211 Byme Avenue Hillside exception to locate a deck on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with 19.28.050 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct a deck on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 19.28.050 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. In November 1996 approval was granted for a 1,500 square foot deck consisting .of two retaining walls and a trellis; however because the cost was prohibitive, the owner is seeking approval of a smaller deck of different design. Staffrecommends approval of the application, with a condition that the applicant provide two trees to be planted by the golf course staff. A decision will be considereff final and not forwarded to City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Cowan referred to an overhead drawing which provided a comparison of the original approval deck design with the present proposed deck design. There was no one from the public who wished to speak. Mr. Ron Hykus, representing the applicant, said that the planting of cypress trees is being proposed because the homeowner's property is inundated with golf balls. He said that the two trees that the golf course would plant would be 20 gallon size. Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 13, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved approval of the Negative Declaration on Application 23-EA-98 Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved approval Application 9-EXC-98 according to the model resolution, including the 6 cypress trees or as designated by staff Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 8-U-98 (22-EA-98) Cupertino Dental Group 10383 Torte Avenue Use permit for a 1890 sq. ft. addition to an existing office building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED .Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for an 1,890 sq. ft. addition to an existing office building within the Cupertino Dental Group complex, as outlined in the staff report. Three previous applications for additions to the complex have been approved but not built. Staff recommends denial of the application as parking is a concern. There are presently parking space deficits on the site and the city has also received objections from adjoining property owners regarding the resulting overflow of parking. Ms. Wordell referred to the site plan and illustrated the location of the proposed second story addition. She also illustrated the location of the trees that were proposed to be removed in exchange for more parking spaces. Staff does not feel the parking spaces for removal of landscaping is a fair trade off. Mr. Michael Achkar, AM Construction, said that the five buildings were owned by one group. He said they were willing to add 23 parking spaces to the existing 92 spaces. He referred to the site plan and discussed the proposed landscaping design and parking redesign. Mr. Achkar said that the dental group had been in the community for 20 years and were an asset to the community, and that tti~ addition would be a benefit and beautification to the community. Dr. K. Frangadakis, a partner in the Cupertino Dental Group and Torre Professional Center, said that the goal was to make the building aesthetic and to improve the parking situation in the center. He said that by relocating the existing trees and narrowing out the corridor in the back and increasing the planting area, it would enhance the project. He said that he has been a practicing dentist in the area for over 20 years, and felt the proposed building addition would be an asset to the community. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Achkar illustrated the proposed changes to the landscaping plan including transplanting the trees to different locations, addition of 23 parking spaces, and reduction of the corridor. Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 13, 1998 Com. Stevens said he recently visited the complex, and expressed concern that the parking lot was full, and vans accounted for 20% to 30% of the parking. He questioned how many spaces were gained by decreasing the size of the spaces. Mr. Achkar said that in accordance with the Cupertino parking code, they could go 100% unisize, which is 8-1/2 feet wide, or 33% which would be the compact or 8 feet wide, and the remainder the standards size of 9 feet wide. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Jeanne Thomas, 20395 Pacifica Dr., #101, said that there was a parking problem already and the expansion of the Torte Avenue building would exacerbate the existing problem, and code enforcement would cause friction. She said she felt the expansion was visually objectionable and was not well integrated, but appeared as an appendage to the building. She said that she objected to the expansion of the building. Dr. Warren Lee, 20395 Pacifica Dr., #109, said that he strongly objected to the proposal for the following reasons: (I) There are insufficient parking spaces already, and the employees and patients of Cupertino Dental Group constantly park in the other parking lot; with an expansion it would only increase the overflow of parking. He said that the group practice has general dentistry as well as orthodontists, seeing a large volume of patients up to 60 per day. After the expansion, the patient and employee numbers will definitely increase and there will be problems with overflow parking on the other lot. (2) As an orthodontist, most of his patients are children and it is safer to park closer to the dentist's office; however, now his patients have to park further away from his office and the situation would worsen if the addition is completed. He expressed concern about the children running in the parking lot and potential accidents. He summarized that the application may create parking space problems as well as patient safety concerns, and urged denial of the application. Dr. Thomas Hsu, 20395 Pacifica Drive, said that he objected to the proposed addition. He said that patients from other offices park in spaces near his office which necessitates his patients parking far from his office. Mr. Ralph Courtnay, 21599 Edward Way, said that he felt there was a parking problem in the complex. He noted that 13 years ago when there was an application for expansion of the Cupertino Dental Center, he wrote a letter objecting to it, and at that time there was a parking problem. He said that he also objected to the aesthetics, stating that he felt it was not a real addition t6-the area. Mr. Courtnay also expressed concern about construction relative to parking and traffic, which would affect the safety of patients and employees. Dr. Darrel Lum, 20395 Pacifica Dr., #102, said that he has 30 years experience in dentistry, with knowledge in dental group practice, solo practice and single dentist practice. He said that the dental group is well respected in Cupertino, but have outgrown its facilities. He said that there was no narrative in the applicant's report and therefore he would perhaps make some assumptions regarding their plans. He said he did not feel they would spend the funds on the expansion without the expectation of a return on their investment, which would mean more patient treatment areas, which in turn would mean more patients and more cars. Dr. Lum expressed concern about the space utilization relative to proposed offices and patient areas and questioned its affect on the need for more parking in an already crowded parking lot. He reiterated that the expansion of the complex would increase the number of patients from the group, and ultimately increase the need for parking spaces. He urged denial of the application for expansion. Dr. Lum offered Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 13, 1998 suggestions for conditions of approval relative to building entrances, if the Planning Commission overrided staffs recommendation for denial. Mr. Richard Abdalah, 10455 Torre Avenue, said that he was speaking on behalf of Dennis Whitaker, owner of an end condominium. He said that there was no narrative in the application, and they would assume the group would go from 3 patient areas to 7 in the new building, which would double their clients. As a result of the reduction of the parking spaces to non-conforming smaller areas, the patients with vans and children would park in other areas where there is more room. Mr. Abdalah read into the record a portion of the letter from Mr. Whitaker, who has had an insurance business in Town Center Lane since 1974. "Parking has always been a problem; however, on the same week that the legal notices were sent announcing the Planning Commission meeting of July 13, parking primarily by the staff of the Cupertino dental offices was no longer an issue. We have encountered crowded conditions for many, many years; and suddenly there was no longer a crowded condition. Clients for the dental building continually park in front of and to the side of our office building. I had posted signs since 1981 to assist in the parking problems, and a neighbor in from of my office recently placed a sign as well (Marchant Travel)." Mr. Abdalah distributed photos illustrating the signs relative to parking. He suggested the option of restriping the lot for a year to ascertain if it would relieve the parking problem. He requested that a landscaping plan be submitted to indicate where the trees would be located. He referred to the elevations of the proposed expansion, and suggested design changes to conform with the existing buildings. Dr. Frangadakis said he felt there was misinformation, that during his practice, he had not seen an orthodontist with 60 children. He said there would be a few more treatment rooms, but would not take up 20 parking spaces. He said the restorative dentistry practice appointments are normally one to three hours is length, and are not impacted like an orthodontist's office would be. He said the elevation was similar to a previously approved elevation. Dr. Frangadakis said that the expansion will include better facilities for office space, storage and lounge area. Mr. Achkar said that his company has specialized in dental offices for a number of years and recently won an award for the best health care facility in the U.S. for the American Society of Interior Designers and also Sunset magazine in February 1998. He questioned the comments made regarding the plans for 4 operatories and the impact on the parking spaces, and pointed out that upstairs space would be office space and not future space for operatory. He said that concerns about the aesthetics of the building could be easily mediated. He concluded that he felt the project was a win-win situation and requested consideration for approval. In response to Com. Harris's question if there was an elevator, Mr. Achkar said that there was no elevator in the building; noting that the two handicapped restrooms were on the first floor and there was office space on the bottom floor. Dr. Frangadakis said that the insurance processor and office manager worked in very small spaces, and at present files were stored on the floor in various areas, because their office spaces were so cramped. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. Chair Austin summarized the issues: architecture and floor plan, parking issue, landscaping, and staffs recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes It July 13, 1998 Com. Mahoney said that the frustrating thing about this is that objectively the parking is going in the right direction; there should be an improvement in parking; there is 10% more square footage going in and there is 20% more parking; so it should be going in the right direction. He said various people brought up a lot of issues going beyond the size issue and he would like to address those. He said he was inclined to continue the application. He said that using unisize parking spaces helps meet the parking requirements, and he was opposed to them, and would prefer to see it planned with a mix of regular and compact spaces. He said that he felt signage should be considered in terms of additional parking. Com. Mahoney said that a landscape plan as well as an arborists report was needed to see if the moving the trees is appropriate. He said that architecture was not discussed at length and will return; focus was on the parking issue and there should be more detail provided. He recommended that Dr. Lure's suggestions be incorporated as appropriate as there were specifics which would deal with traffic flow and parking. He concluded that he would prefer to continue the application. Com. Stevens concurred with Com. Mahoney. Com. Harris said that a significant number of people indicated them was a parking problem; and although there is a parking standard, it is not working, therefore approvals should not be granted for additional space until the parking issue is resolved. She said she felt the unisize spaces were not appropriate because they don't work with minivans. She also indicated that the building should house an elevator as it is a 2 story building. She said she also agreed about the arborist's report. Com. Harris suggested that a parking study be conducted on the property before any approval, to see what the circumstances are on a daily and weekly basis. Com. Doyle suggested that the groups who have a vested interest meet to discuss issues and return with a unified plan, relative to parking, landscaping, and architecture issues. Chair Austin said that she concurred with all the commissioners, and said that she wanted to see the Cupertino businesses flourish and succeed. Dr. Frangadakis said that he was willing to meet with the other groups to discuss the issues. MOTION: SECOND:.~ VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 8-U-98 and 22-EA-98 to the September 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 10. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 25-EA-98 City of Cupertino Citywide Modification to Chapter 17.32 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding temporary signs. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: July 20, 1998 - Staffpresentation: Ms. Wordell provided a brief review of the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 13, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 25-EA-98 and to amend the time period for removal of temporary signs from 5 days to 10 days at'ret the special event Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS 11. Discussion of R-1 ordinance schedule. Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan reported that the purpose of the item was to attempt to expedite the R-1 review. He reviewed the R-1 Ordinance prescriptive requirements which listed the objective standards (applied citywide) and the subjective standards (tailored to neighborhood). A discussion ensued regarding a suitable date for the study session with the Planning Commission and City Council, wherein it was determined that August 5, 4, and 6 were the most suitable dates. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Chair Austin expressed concern about a recent newspaper article by Steve Enders of the Cupertino News wherein he reported that at the recent public hearing relative to the single story zoning applications for Hibiscus Court and Scofield neighborhoods, commissioners had made up their minds before the meeting and requested that the large number of persons present to designate a spokesman. Chair Austin stated that decisions were not made beforehand, and 'prepackaging' was not used by the Planning Commission. She said that she did not request he retract his statement, but felt that he should. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUN[r¥ DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan briefly reviewed the report relative to recent City Council decisions. He also reminded the Planning Commissioners of the annual League of Cities Convention. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m. to the special July 22, 1998 meeting at Blackberry Farm Conference Center, at 6:00 p.m. ~ ~)Respectfully Submitte~~l..~ Recording Secretary Approved as presented: July 27, 1998