Loading...
PC 10-12-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETIlqG OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 12, 1998 SALUTE TOTHEFLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Coms. Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Com. Doyle arrived at 6:50 p.m.) Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Planner II; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the September 28, 1998 regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the September 28 Planning Commission minutes as presented Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted a letter received relative to Item 2 and two letters relative to Item 4. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 11-EXC-98 (sign exception) Taisei Construction 10741 No. Wolfe Road, southwest comer of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Ave.) Sign exception to exceed the allowed wall sign height tn accordance with Chapter 17.24.060 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1998 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 1998 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 11-U-98 Sam & Helen Sung 10420 So. DeAnza Boulevard Blvd., #C-8 (Town Center Professional Center) Use permit to operate a specialized school (educational) in an existing office center. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 12, 1998 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1998 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to postpone Application Nos. 11-EXC-98 and 1 I-U-98 to the October 26, 1998 Planning Commission meeting- Com. Harris Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEAR~G Application No. Applicant: Location: 6-U-98, 8-Z-90(M), 16-EA-98 Judy Chen 7359 Rainbow Drive (easterly most apartment lot on north side of Rainbow Drive - next to freeway) Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish an existing 6 unit apartment building and construct a 7 unit townhouse project on the northwest corner of Rainbow Drive and Highway 85, as well as the rezoning and use permit application. The application was reviewed at the July 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, and the issues concerning architecture and building height still remain. The applicant has resubmitted plans addressing the concerns; however staff still has concerns with respect to the new building design and suggests that the applicant further redesign the proposed building and that the item be continued to another meeting. The outstanding issues relate to architecture and building height; the first concern being the new building's close proximity to the street and the flat two story wallplane creating a feeling of massiveness; and the second is that the new design will threaten the privacy of neighboring residents to the north. With these two concerns in mind, stuff recommends the applicant further redesign the building and that the item be continued to another meeting. Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, explained the redesign of the buildings which shifted the location of the buildings to alleviate the privacy concerns for the landmark buildings located to the west of the site. However, it creates some concern with the properties located behind the development. Ms. Gil pointed out that the Housing Committee was asking the Planning Commission to reconsider its decision on the BMR unit, and suggested that staff present a General Plan amendment in the near future to alleviate the problem. She said that it was a unique problem in that it was an R3 development being torn down and replaced with ownership homes. The Housing Committee would like it addressed in the General Plan so that it does not occur in the future without mitigation. Mr. Mark Hynes, attorney for the applicant, presented a color rendering. He explained that the intent of the redesign was to match the setbacks of the proposed homes with the adjacent project to address staff's concerns about the close proximity to the street and the concerns about massiveness. Mr. Tom Sloan, project architect, reviewed the design changes, noting that the revised proposal was a much more conventional solution that was extracted from the Landmark development next door. He noted the revision to raise the patios around the perimeter to match the Landmark ?~anning Commission ~nutcs October 12, 1997~ properties, and said that the floor levels were within a foot elevation of the adjacent structure. He discussed the modifications including the elimination of the lofts, and said that he felt they had addressed most of the prior concerns raised. Mr. Sloan answered questions relative to the impact of the propsed development on the neighbors. He pointed out that the large tree on the corner would screen the views between the two units. Staff noted that only the Heart of the City had a requirement for a private yard area. Mr. Sloan said that each unit had a covered front pomh, set back from the main driveway, and that each unit also had access to a backyard area. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Chris Crafford, President, Gardenside Homeowners Association, said that although some issues were being addressed, he was still concerned about the privacy issue, especially the 10 foot distance between the new construction and the boundary, which was closer than any of the existing structures. He said they would like to see the details of the drainage plan to see if it is workable because of the possibility of serious flooding if rains such as last year occur again. He said he was glad to hear that the large cedar tree was not being proposed to be moved as previously suggested, and that trees would be planted in the new homes to create more privacy. He expressed concern about the building height because the previous plans indicated a 34 foot height; and also the parking issue as they did not feel there was going to be adequate parking. Mr. Sonny Lundin, 7363 Rainbow Drive, repressenting Rose Court Homeowners, distributed the attached letter from the Rosecourt of Santa Clara Home Owners Association, dated October 12, 1998, and asked that the letter be made part of the record. The letter contained 18 points, 16 of which were questions which required responses from the City of Cupertino. He read portions of the letter into the record. Mr. Dick Shuster, Cupertino Housing Committee, referred to Page 2-19 of the staff report, wherein the environmental evaluation checklist indicated that the project would not reduce the supply of affordable housing in the community or result in a displacement of persons from their present homes. He said that discplacement of 6 families was significant and the Housing Committee recommends appropriate mitigation for moving the 6 families, noting that the afordable housing was obviously reduced by 6 units. Relative to the statement that there would be no impact on the icnrease of cost of housing in the area or substantial change in the variety of housing types in the community, he suggested that the impacts are significant and that mitigation should be required. Mr. Shuster read the contents of the memorandum on Page 2-24 of the staff report, which contained the Housing Committee's recommendation regarding appropriate mitigation for the subject application. He concluded by stating that while affirming the apparent intent of Cupertino's Housing Policies, a majority of the Housing Committee present concured with staff's recommendation that required two units be sold at BMR. They also recommended that the applicant be required to assist the current residents in finding comparable rental housing in the Cupertino area. A discussion ensued regarding affordable housing in Cupertino, wherein Mr. Shuster answered questions. Mr. Kevin Witt, 20618 Gardenside Circle, referred to his letter dated October 5, which was included in the staff report, and expressed concern that the residents of Gardenside Circle did not receive the public notification of the project until September 4, and the present meeting was their first opportunity to voice their concerns. He said he felt that if they had the opportunity to Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 12, 1998 express their concerns at earlier meetings which were continued, some suggestions for changes could have been taken into consideration. Ms. Gil explained that an outside agency notifies the residents and in this particular instance, the agency had the incorrect APNs and when staff discovered the error, the residents were notified, which was some time ago. She noted that the item has been continued several times and this was the first public hearing. Mr. Witt reviewed the concerns outlined in the letter on Pages 2-26 and 2-27 of the staff report. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. Discussion ensued wherein the issues were summarized as building height, setbacks, privacy, affordable housing isue, parking, drainage, and PG&E easement. Chair Austin expressed concern about the lack of affordable housing for Cupertino. Com. Stevens said he concerned in the beginning, and still was concerned with the height issue, noting that the reference point has been the adjacent Landmark buildings. He said if the height is continued to the highway, it would resemble a cliff, and he hoped that at least one of the buildings would be stepped. He said he objected to the fact that there had been no comment other than to state that the height of the Landmark building had been maintained. Com. Stevens said he concurred with the letter from the Housing Committee and that more information was needed. He said he felt 10 foot setbacks were too narrow. Com. Harris said she felt the privacy issue could be handled with reasonable landscaping; and that the architecture was improved. She said she was concerned about the parking issue, drainage, and the PG&E easement, but the setbacks from Rainbow were suitable. She said she also expected to see one of the buildings stepped and it wasn't. Later in the meeting, Com. Harris commented that she felt the issue was not the free. way, but that the view of the hills from DeAnza Boulevard needed to be maintained, and if the view was blocked, the building could be stepped. Relative to the affordable housing issue, she said she saw the need for 'for sale' homes in the Cupertino area and this project filled the need. She said she was in favor 0fthe project, but that it was not complete, and if the application was continued, she would prefer it stepped. Com. Doyle said that the item has been revisited several times and his original positions were some of the issues that kept surfacing. He said that privacy could be mitigated; the design execution has improved, however, the relief on the north face of the back building still presents a very fiat monolithic look. He said that relative to the massing problem, it probably should be stepped on the sides for more setback. He said he was not opposed to the setback on Rainbow, however, he felt they should attempt to maximize the setback from the adjoining properties. Com. Doyle said he supported the concept of affordable housing and the Housing Committee's proposal. He said that he felt the parking issue was resolved. He said he felt confident that the Public Works Department would ensure that the drainage was adequate. Relative to the PG&E easement, he said staff should ensure that it meets the codes and requirements and that the process is understood. Com. Doyle said that relative to building height, there should be more relief to the adjoining properties and he was not opposed to stepping down if required. He noted that he was more concerned with the neighbors than the freeway. Com. Mahoney said he felt the privacy issues could be dealt with by planting, however, the setbacks need to be adequate to allow planting. He said he preferred to use setbacks in the back, Commission Minutes S October 12, 1992 rather than push them in a particular area. He said he was pleased with the changes to the architecture, and did not feel that the back elevation too fiat. He said that he was flexible relative to the building height, and as not opposed to stepping; however, was concerned about the impact on the neighbors. He noted that there was a freeway soundwall. Com. Mahoney said the setback from Rainbow Drive was suitable. Relative to affordable housing, Com. Mahoney said he agreed with Com. Harris that the issue should be addressed on a citywide basis and utilize the in-lieu fees program to turn the money back into affordable units. He said that 3 per unit parking was appropriate, and Public Works and staffwould handle the issues of PG&E easement, drainage and absestos. Com. Mahoney summarized that the two main issues still to be addressed were height and setbacks. Com. Stevens said that he felt comfortable the privacy issue could be mitigated. He stated that the townhouses were unique, and perhaps modifying one of the buildings by lowering or terracing, would improve the overall appearance of the proejct. He said he felt the setback from Rainbow was adequate as it was identical to the other buildings. Relative to the affordability issue, he said he would like clear direction on the two letters received addressing the issue, but that it should not hold up this particular project because of that issue. Com. Stevens said that the 3 per unit parking was suitable; drainage and PG&E easement will be handled by the Public Works Department. He summarized that he felt building mass and rear setbacks needed to be addressed further. Chair Austin said she felt the privacy issue could be mitigated with trees, landscaping, screening or window placement. She said she felt the building mass and height could be reduced in certain areas, and said modifying one of the buildings would improve the overall project appearance. She said the setback from Rainbow was suitable; however, she felt the neighborhood setback should be a minimum of 13 feet. Chair Austin said she felt housing affordability was a strong issue because people were moving out of the area because they could not afford to live in Cupertino, and a BMR townhouse would be an attractive home to some. She said she would not be in favor of the project unless there was an affordable issue placed on it with staff recommendation of 2 BIVlRs. She concluded that she felt parking was a problem, and that there should be some outside parking allocation. Mr. Cowan clarified that 3 per unit was developed as a result of the Landmark project to the north following a parking study commissioned by the developer. He said however that the requirement could be increased. Chair Austin stated for the record that she received feedback from three neighbors who said parking is a problem on the weekends, at night and when people are home. She reiterated that parking was a problem, but stated that it may be difficult to enforce a requirement different from the project next door. She said she felt drainage was a problem as the area was a marsh many years and if concrete was put in the area, the water would need somewhere to go. She said the PG&E easement would be handled by the Public Works Department. Chair Austin said that she was not in favor the project because of the parking and drainage problems. Discussion continued regarding issues to be clarified for the applicant, which included setbacks and stepping issue relative to variation of roof height, and one of the units being "less than 34 feet." Direction was provided to the applicant that on the north side of the property they should maintain the setback equivalent to the Landmark property and have at least the same setback between the Landmark side of it, which would be the west side of the property, and attempt to have some stepping of height on the north side of the property for variety of height. Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 12, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 6-U-98, 8-Z-90(M), 16-EA-98 to the November 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: 14-U-97 Applicant: Ji-Mei Chen Location: 10580 John Way Report to Couincil: Use permit to construct a second story addition to an existing residence. Tentative City Council Hearing date: October 19, 1998 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of Septernber 14, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to construct a second story addition to an existing residence, noting that the application had been before the Planning Commission several times before, but applicant's modifications failed to relieve concerns over privacy and massiveness. Of the two alternative plans for second story addition, staff prefers the plan for two bedrooms to be built in the second story because it best meets the intent of conditional use permit findings f6r the residential single family zone. The proposed two bedroom design indicates that the second story will not create shadows or adversely impact the privacy of adjacent homes. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions set forth in the model resolution. Mr. Cowan clarified inconsistencies in the elevation drawings. Although the architect was not present at the meeting, there was consensus that the public hearing should proceed. Ms. Ji-Mei Chen said that some of her neighbors were willing to provide a letter of support but because she was not aware the public hearing was scheduled she did not have the letter. She said that it was ten months ago that she submitted the application for a second story addition for herself and her three children and the suggested two bedrooms upstaris would not be adequate for their needs. She said she felt she had been cooperative and was sincere in her efforts. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment. Mrs. Samantha Van Epps, 10580 John Way, requested that the Planning Commission require Ms. Chen to submit corrected plans as the ones submitted were confusing. She said she would like to see the list of neighbors who were supportive of Ms. Chen, since there was a petition signed by many of the homeowners on the street supporting single story zoning, and she felt it should be maintained single story zoning. She said the Van Epps and McFarlands chose to fight the project because they felt since they signed the petition they should not have to go through anything else. Mrs. Van Epps said they voiced their objections and opinions as many as five times at meetings and the application has been in process for a year and four months. She said that because of the single story zoning, they were able to keep a cookie cutter type house from being built next door to them, and they felt they had accomplished something. She concluded that relative to the two story addition, it was still confusing and they would like it to be finalized. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 14-U-97 to the October 26, 1998 Planning Commission meeting to allow the architect to clarify and refine Plan 2 only and provide any letters and relevant material from the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes ? October 12, 199& Com. Doyle said that the application needed to be finalized, with either a yes or no vote at the next meeting, with no more further negotiations. He advised the applicant to be prepared with all the support material necessary for a decision. SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 33-U-87(M), 26-U-74 Bethel Lutheran Church 10181 Finch Avenue Use permit modification to relocate the existing picnic tables to the play structure/sandbox area and relocat the existing play structure/sandbox to the grass play field on the southern boundary of the church property. The relocations would accommodate a previously approved classroom addition. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to relocate the existing picnic tables and an existing structure/sandbox area to accommodate a previously approved classroom addition. The item was continued from September 14 in order to allow staff and the applicant time to respond to a letter of concern by neighbors. Staff recommends that the picnic tables be relocated to the grass field maintaining a minimum separation of 35 feet from the south property line; and that the sandbox remain where it presently is, but that the play structure be moved further away from the Mitome's fence and that two feet offence, lattice, shrubs and a 24 inch box tree be added. The additions will help screen the Mitome home from the school and daycare noise and maintain privacy. Staff recommends approval of the application; a Planning Commsision decision will be regarded as final and not be forwarded to the City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, referred to the site plan and reviewed the application as set forth in the attached staff report. Mr. David Fields, Vice Chair, Bethel Lutheran Church School Board, provided a brief history of the church and school. He said that the item was continued from the previous month, and presented a letter providing the events held in the last month to help better understand and consider the issues raised in the city staffreport and the neighbors' letter which was presented last month. He reported as part of the school's plan to better understand the concerns raised and discuss the proposed plans, they held two open house events for the neighbors to the south of the chumh. He said that the staff recommendations which are different from the original proposals were studied, and they present a number of operational problems since they are normally have the eating area close to the school buildings which provides advantages for supervision, safety, and first aid. He said in order to accommodate the suggested changes, it was problematic for them, but they developed a plan to manage with additional staffing; and despite the expense and inconvenience, it would be manageable and they would support the amended plan from staff. Mr. Fields said that relative to the recommendations about trees, they were open to adding additional trees along the southern property line in order to address some of the issues that have been raised about impact on the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Dave Stofi, 10191 Yoshino Place, Brookdale Estates, referred to his recent letter, and showed a slide presentation. He referred to a map which he said contained inadequate documentation and from an architectural standpoint was questionable, and was given to the homeowners to explain their plan. He said the Planning Department provided a more helpful drawing. He said that staff in the October 12 staff report clearly recognized the history of the Commission's support for Brookdale Estates and the general lack of respect that had shown to the neighbors by Bethel over the years. Mr. Stoft said that there were five issues listed, namely the 350 sq. ft. playground area, the playground equipment, noise and visual screening, picnic tables and the use of the grassy area as a buffer. He said the first and second ones, playground location and playground equipment location, he did not dispute as staff's recommendation in keeping with existing policy. In terms of noise and visual screening, reference is made to adding 2 feet to the lattice fence next to the Mitome residence which was to have been done years ago; he said he agreed with staff that it should happen and apparently the Mitome residence is pleased with that concept, therefore he did not dispute it. He said he found it interesting relative to the picnic table issue, that there was tremendous oversight when planning 11,000 sq. ft. of building space that it was not considered where the children would sit for lunch. Given that conflict the planner made several alternate suggestions, one was to eliminate the tables entirely, another was to purchase new tables on rollers and the other was to move them. He did not recommend any of those; however, he said the issue was to look at integrating the whole space, not just move it around like bedroom furniture. He said as potential alternatives to at least consider, is that the sandbox needs maintenance badly, and it would not be out of the realm of possibility to alter its size and shape to some degree. That combined with potentially splitting lunch periods could make the necessity of total space less than present. He said he presented a number of alternatives with basis for those alternatives in his letter which ought to be considered. He said there have been 10 major instances in which there have been either misuse of permits, building structures without permits, or attempts to utilize space which do not fall within the use permit by Bethel, and in each instance, the Commission met them with a resounding no. He also stated that there have been at least 10 instances over the years when the Commission has clearly stated in written documentation, that the south southern extension is in fact a buffer zone, it is needed for peace and quiet and no excursion into that including act of play shall be allowed. Mr. Stoft discussed a number of recommendations to be considered. One is that the alternate proposals in terms of tables should be considered; two that for clarity now and in the future, all limitations that exist for the buffer space should be of a tree that they should be directed to plant in dense landscaping which was also directed and intended to be there in the original plan and is no longer there in adequate area. The grassy area is no longer grassy; what is growing there cannot be considered lawn, which shows a lack of maintenance; and finally the trellis and planter boxes are in a state of disrepair and the Commission's approval of those structures seems to have been abridged and should be removed for safety reasons of the children that play in that area. Mr. David Gili, 19327 Sakura Way, said that he had lived in his home since 1984 when the school was a preschool and few students, and it has become a much different world today with upwards of 150 students and it has had a significant negative impact on the quality of life in the area. He acknowledged members of the church and school for reaching out to the neighbors and extending an invitation to review their plans and explain the situation. He said that he understood they had a difficult situation on their hands; however, he supported Mr. Stoft's position that primarily grassy buffer zones not be infringed upon; as it is an important sound activity barrier and sight barrier and he asked the Commission that it be sacrosanct and not violate it. Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 12, 199g Mr. Jung explained some issues not contained in the staff report. He outlined three other alternatives that staff did not recommend. First, if there were no picnic tables and the children took their lunches in the classrooms, there would be problems associated with cleanup and labor costs. The other alternative is that the church would purchase new picnic tables on coasters to roll out to the parking area which is already a multi use area serving as both a parking lot and playing field on Sunday; or in the courtyard area. The other alternative which is a partial alternative because the area is much smaller is to better utilize the small courtyard space located where it says future addition, it is actually an open courtyard now with a tall redwood or cedar tree in the center of it. He said some alternatives that the opponent put forth is to utilize two of the parking stalls and another alternative was to cut some of the sandbox space and put some additional tables there. One disadvantage is that the sandbox area is used as a play area as well. Ms. Ellen Wu, 19537 Sakura Way, said that she supported both opinions; to keep the buffer zone as is and move the picnic tables somewhere else, because of the concern about the noise level. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. Ms. Yvonne Waters, Principal of Bethel Lutheran, said that the hot lunches were catered by Cupertino High School, delivered on carts, and served from one area. She indicated on the site plan where the proposed serving area would be. She pointed out that the children had to remain in a gated area, therefore the suggested area was not feasible. Ms. Waters and Mr. Fields answered questions relative to the scheduled lunch periods for the various grade levels, and possible relocation of the eating areas. Mr. Jung discussed the history of the usage of the property, present utilization of the various areas, and parking lot usage. Com. Doyle summarized the issues: What should be done about the grassy area, should it be maintained as it is currently or should development be allowed to start occuring in that one? Is them agreement on increasing the height of the wall? Is there agreement in keeping the elevated platforms away from the fence as far as possible? Is them agreement with addition of landscaping and making sure that past requirements have been met? Some other location for the picnic tables. Com. Doyle said to keep the grassy as it currently is; do not increase development because the boundary has been established and a lot of decisions have been made based on the predication of that buffer zone. He said he was in favor of increasing the wall height, make sure the plantings work; work with staff to take the elevated platforms, minimize their height and move them away from the fences as far as possible. Relative to the landscaping, follow staff recommendations, and make certain past requirements are being met. He said he was not sure where the picnic tables should be located, perhaps in the parking lot or south side, but they should not be up against the fence close to the people. Com. Mahoney concurred, stating that something creative could be accomplished with the parking area. Com. Stevens concurred, stating he visited the site and found the parking lot to be a very reasonable multi purpose area. He said moving the tables in that ama would be preferable to the grassy area. Com. Harris and Chair Austin concurred. Plannlng Commission Minutes lO October MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 33-U-87(M) per the model resolution, with the following modifications: keep grassy area open; do not increase development in that area; increase the wall height to 8 feet; keep elevated platform as far away from nearby residentials with staff to work with the applicant on that; landscaping as recommended in staff report; plus revisit of past requirements to make sure they are met; change location of picnic tables for staff recommendation to another location away from the residential areas Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Chair Austin declared a recess from 9:45 p.m. to I0:00 p.m. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 8-U-98 and 22-EA-98 Cupertino Dental Group 10383 Torre Avenue Use permit for a 1,890 square foot addition to an existing office building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to construct a 1,890 sq. ft. addition to the rear of an existing office building in the Cupertino Dental Group complex. The item was continued from the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting to address the ten concerns outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends that the application be denied, and the Planning Commission's decision will be considered final and not be forwarded to the City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Jung reviewed the proposed addition, noting the revisions to the plans. He discussed parking Schemes A and B which both included new parking direction signage. Staff concluded that direction signage would not remedy the parking overflow problem. Mr. Jung said staff does not support the building proposal even with an increased parking supply, and is also concerned with the architecture of the addition. Mr. Michael Ashkar, AM Construction, thanked the staff and neighbors for their cooperation, and stated they had addressed many concerns the neighbors had, and felt that many of the issues were mediated. He reviewed the two different site plans; Scheme A, with compact, standard and unisize parking stalls. He said that getting larger stalls would not be a problem. He said the site presently had more landscaping than any of the neighbors and according to the ratios surpassed the city requirement. Mr. Ashkar said that the parking was minimized due to the landscaping because it was a Planning Commission concern. He reviewed the floor plan, noting there were presently no handicapped restrooms, which was an issue they wished to address as part of the addition. Addressing the concern of parking for the project, he said that they would not be adding any more staff, and the four operatories would add only 4 patients, and only adding 4 extra cars if the area was maxxed out. He noted that a current parking problem existed and they were trying to resolve it. According to the plans, there are 21 parking spaces being added. He explained that the present office setup does not allow the doctors to consult with their patients as they share offices with 2 other doctors. Mr. Ashkar pointed out that they also changed the roofline as requested by the neighbors, and the changed the access door away from the Pacifica side. He concluded by stating that he felt the application should be approved. Dr. Ken Frangadakis, 10383 Torre Avenue, representing Cupertino Dental Group, said that he had been in the dental practice in the Cupertino Town Center for 32 years. He said that they met with the neighbors and explained their situation and proposed changes and asked for suggestions. He said they needed more operatory space as most dentists can practice more efficiently with one or more operatories and some partners only had one operatory. He said the impact to the center would only be 4 parking stalls. He said in the worst ease scenario with a patient in all 4 operatories and a practitioner in all 4 operatories, there would only be 8 parking stalls, with a net gain of 21. Dr. Frangadakis said he felt the parking issue was addressed. He added that they have encouraged their employees to park in the back and found it did not create a problem over the neighbor's building. Relative to the landscaping issue, he said they would replace any trees they remove. Dr. Frangadakis reported that he met with Mr. Whitaker and was presented with three proposals from the group; one was to do nothing, not to expand; two was to make a limited expansion; and three was to wall off the dental group parking lot. He said he felt some of the proposals were unreasonable but he assured Mr. Whitaker in writing that they would restrict their employees from parking by their building, and if there was anything legal that the city could do such as speed bumps or striping of the parking lot to discourage parking on the side of the building next to his, he would do so. He concluded by asking the Planning Commission to act favorably upon their request to expand. Mr. Dennis Whitaker, Whitaker Insurance Agency, 20395 Pacifica Drive, Suite 102, said that he has worked for 25 years in the Town Center area and since 1981 in the building. Referring to Scheme B, he said their building was landlocked but parking was the primary issue. He said many of the dentists' patients park in other businesses' spaces, and they were addressing the parking problem by adding compact and unisize spaces. Mr. Whitaker reported that last week he and their attorney walked in back to look at the parking spots and counted 32 cars, of which only one was a subcompact. He explained that the problems were threefold: (1) The people will park in the regular size stalls before the unisize and forced elsewhere; (2) He expressed concern about the use of the building, stating that he understood the permit is to go with the portion of the second floor, and he felt they would possibly ask for expansion across; (3) Precedent setting - The buildings are single story and when expansion starts, it will start wars; and where will all the people park when all the buildings become 2 story buildings in the future? Mr. Darrel Lum, 20395 Pacifica Drive, Suite 102, said that Cupertino Dental Group is one of five buildings in Torre Professional Center, and leases its building from the Torre Professional Center. He said that several points required clarification. Is Cupertino Dental Group as lessee or tenant the proper entity to be applying for the use permit and is any commitment by the Cupertino Dental Group relative to the use permit or any conditions or restrictions binding on the present or future owners of Torre Professional Center? He said the other factor is they were stating that they are giving 22 parking spaces; however, they increase the spread over the whole complex around the area where there is already a parking problem and where it is anticipated there will be future increased parking problems; the fron~ parking lot will only have three extra spaces and the back parking lot might have three or six. The redesign of the west parking lot or the rear parking lot five foot extension of the curb is going to narrow the access to that rear parking lot and anyone driving through the alleyway is not going to turn into a 20 foot access opening; they would turn left into the 30 foot access into Pacifica Suites. Mr. Whitaker said he felt the meeting with Pacifica Suites was very unproductive and felt that designing the parking lot with compact and unisize stalls would not solve the problem. He recommended not approving the application for expansion. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1998 Mr. Joe Maddigan, Suite 103, attorney for Torre Professional Center, said that he was also a Pacifica Suites tenant for the last ten years and has never been unable to park on the Pacifica Suites site. He acknowledged that a parking problem existed, and some days there was tight parking and parking in the back instead of the front, but said that overall it was not true that there was insufficient parking. He said to the extent that the parking is a legitimate issue and a legitimate concern, the Cupertino Dental Group is the only party in this action coming in with any solution to help make the situation better, to the extent there is a problem and they should be dealing with it, he said they should not be cavalier about walking away from the fact that there is a possibility to add 20 parking places to the configuration. He added that if parking is indeed a problem, they should not be tuming their backs on adding 20 stalls to be able to deal with it. Mr. Maddigan addressed the issue related to the landlocked parcel in the back, stating there had been a concern that nobody would go to that back parcel if left to their own devices. The tenant put into effect dealings with the other tenants and with their staff and they fully utilized that back landlocked portion in order to address the concerns. He said to have staff go in and say well it is fully utilized, therefore it is not going to help any to have signs pointing people to the back is hypocritical. He summarized that they said it could be used, they used it and demonstrated they had control over the employees and the other tenants. He said if there are spaces in the back, they can see that they are used and the result is that it opens up for patients the spots in the front of the units that face onto Tone Avenue and those are the ones you want to have the most access and will be most likely to impact the neighbors. Mr. Maddigan said that the issue of the trees and landscaping needed to be recounted. He reported that he went through the plans with the architect and came up with different numbers from what staff reported. He said if landscaping is indeed a problem, there is ample grass area in the front and other areas to restore and add trees. He said he felt the parcel was already over- landscaped compared to others. Mr. Maddigan said that pursuant to the Planning Commission's direction, the applicant made considerable efforts to incorporate the concerns they and other tenants had, and was disappointed to hear them characterized as unproductive. He reported that the landscaping was addressed so not to lose the trees; they addressed the concern about unisize parking by reincorporating a mix into the units; and access to the building was moved to the back so that it was not directly adjacent to Pacifica Suites. Mr. Maddigan referred to Mr. Whitaker's earlier discussion of what he saw as three problems. Relative to parking, he said that as a tenant in Pacifica Suites, he was interested in parking, because he was impacted and interested in having the additional 20 spaces. Concerning the future of the complex, he pointed out that they were not presently concerned about the site plans for the future, and the likelihood of any further density in that site was extremely remote and he felt it was a red herring issue. He said that stating that it set a precedent for two story buildings waws not true, sicne there would still be FAR limiations, and the building backs up to a Town Center building which is two stories high with a higher elevation, and therefore was not out of character with anything in the surrounding areas. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the application for expansion. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. A brief discussion ensued regarding parking spaces, wherein Mr. Jung answered questions. The issues of concern were summarized as parking, architecture, and further development of the center. Planning Commission Minutes ~3 October 12, 1998 Com. Mahoney said he did not see the center developing in a global way, and the addition would stick up, and questioned if they could solve their expansion in another way. He said he was not compelled by the fact that if there are 4 operatories there are going to be only 4 more parking spaces needed, which assumes there is no waiting mom, which is not accurate. He also stated that he did not feel going to unisize or a mix was going in the right direction with current parking. He concluded tht he was not in favor of the expansion. Com. Stevens said that relative to the parking issue, there were various combinations of A or B, and he would prefer either standard or using the right ratio. He said it appeared that the site is a small piece of one building of five, but the particular parcel was at the maximum. Com. Harris said it is a well designed one story complex, is successful with great community resource and is 85% built out, as Cupertino is now. She said she was opposed to the parking approach and felt the one unit should not be victimized with parking problems that exist in the entire center; however, they are treating the 19,000 sq. ft. as one project and it has parking problems, and adding a second story would only exacerbate the problem. She said she concurred that there is a lack of integration of the addition into the existing structure, and the remainder of the center is one story and fully parked. She said the parcel is built out, and she was not in favor of approval of the expansion. Com. Doyle said that he would favor the development if they took all five of the buildings and linked it to their existence and then put it into their requirements or CC&Rs, eliminate the impacts on the adjacent properties and then get into the architectural essence of the project. He said the applicant needed to return with a concept that addresses the parking issues for the entire site. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on 22-EA-98 Com. Stevens Com. Harris Passed 4-1-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to deny Application 8-U-98 according to the model resolution Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Mr. Cowan pointed out that the denial of the application could be appealed to City Council within 14 calendar days. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-98, 11-EA-98 (construction of a new service station) Hossain Khaziri 10002 DeAnza Boulevard (northeast corner of the intersection of DeAnza & Stevens Creek Blvds.) To demolish an inactive service station and construct a new 788 square foot service station and 648 square foot car wash. Tentative City Council hearing date of October 19, 1998 Because of the time constraints, Item 6 was continued to the next Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: OLD BUSII~SS: None NEW BUSII~SS: None 14 October 12, 1998 Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 5-U-98 and 11-EA-98 to the October 26 Planning Commission meeting Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p..m. to the October 26, 1998 regular Planning Commission meeting. Approved as presented: November 9, 1998 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary ~