Loading...
PC 04-28-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 To~e Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 28, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Austin, Mahoney, Roberts, Chairperson Harris Doyle Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Dennis Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Summary of the March 24, 1997 Staff Workshop: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the March 24, 1997 staffworkshop summary as amended Com. Roberts Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Minutes of the April 14, 1997 Regular Meeting Com. Mahoney noted that he was present at the meeting and his name did not appear. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to approve the April 14, 1997 Planning Commission minutes as amended. Com. Ma. honey Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted a letter from Anhkar Somari relative to his concern about approval of future housing developments in Cupertino. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: Historic Demolition Ordinance and 12-EA-97 CityofCupe~ino Various Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 2g, 1997 Consideration of an ordinance to protect structures from demolition on 31 potentially historic sites. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 2, 1997 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 12, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Item 3 to the May 12, 1997 Planmng Commission meeting. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Deletion of Chapter 19.96, Parking and Keeping Vehicles m Various Zones, from the Cupertino Municipal Code (13-EA-97) City of Cupertino Not Applicable Chapter 19.96 was incorporated into Chapter 19.00; deletion is required. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 19, 1997 REMOVE FROM CALENDAR MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve removal of Item 4 from the calendar Com. Roberts Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: 36-U-85 (Noticed as 25-U-76) Sunnyview West 22445 Cupertino Road Use Permit for one story 1,610 sq. ft. addition of an auxiliary dining room and service kitchen and office. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1997 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a Use Permit for a 1,610 sq. ft. addition to the facility comprising a dining room, service kitchen and office as outlined in the attached staff report. The site design and parking requirements were reviewed. Staff recommends approval of the application; a determination if reached by the Planning Commission will be considered final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 2g, 1997 Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site map and reviewed the location of the proposed addition. She illustrated the various elevations, noting their relationship to the existing building and the setbacks from Foothill Boulevard, and discussed the proposed landscape improvements. She circulated the material board for the Commissioners to examine. Ms. Ron Zielske, Executive Director of Sunnyview Lutheran Home, explained that the complex was a HUD low income subsidized project and that additional services for assisted living were being proposed for the residents. He pointed out that if the application is approved, the facility would be one of the few HUD facilities in the nation providing assisted living inside the project for residents. In response to Com. Harris' question relative to the impact on current non-assisted residents, Mr. Zielske said that it would be a gradual conversion and the residents would be invited to switch with other residents in need of the assisted living services. Chair Harris opened the hearing for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. In response to a question from Com. Roberts regarding the FAR for the development, Mr. Carl Irwin, architect, said that although he did not have the data at the meeting, it was included in the application. Chair Harris noted that the FAR on the plans was .472 and the proposed was .476. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 36-U-85 in accordance with the model resolution. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0~0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 2-U-97 Fumio Suda (Paul's Restaurant) 10700 De Anza Boulevard Use Permit for a 900 sq. ft. addition and interior renovation of existing restaurant. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1997. Staff ;~resentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the expansion and renovation of the restaurant; the expansion in the rear of the building to be used for storage, and the front expansion to be used for office space. The applicant also plans to renovate the interior of the restaurant and upgrade the restrooms to comply with handicap building codes. The major street improvements required per the South DeAnza Boulevard Conceptual Plan and ingress/egress easements were discussed as outlined in the attached staff report. It was noted that currently a chain barrier exists between the Taco Bell restaurant and the former Paul's restaurant (hereina~r referred to as "Paul's) prohibiting Taco Bell customers from accessing parking behind Paul's. Staff recommends approval of the application with the proposed condition that the reciprocal ingress/egress driveway be reinstalled between Paul's and Taco Bell. A decision reached will be considered final and not be forwarded to the City Council unless appealed. Planning Commissiou Minutes 4 April 28, 1997 Referring to the site plan, Ms. Wordell illustrated the proposed additions to the rear of the restaurant for storage and supplemental activities and the small fill-in in the front, as well as thc changes to the sidewalk and landscaping, and addition to the bus duck out required of Taco Bell. She noted the slight elevation changes to the restaurant, including color changes. Ms. Wordell reviewed the issue of the ingress/egress easement outlined in the staff report. She said that staff was recommending as a condition of approval for the use permit that there be shared ingress/egress between Taco Bell and Paul's, and that in the future, if DeAnza Center proposed new development, they would also provide identical ingress/egress to both Paul's and Taco Bell. She said that staff suggested removal of the shared parking requirement from the condition as it was Taco Bell's requirement. Ms. Wordell said that the South DeAnza Boulevard plan requires the linkage of ingress and egress for sharing that, aad staff felt it would be beneficial to Paul's customers to have access through Taco Bell out to Bollinger Road for the right turn movemem. She said that if the words "and shared parking" in condition 5 were removed, Taco Bell would have to return and amend their use permit and staff would assess if seating should be reduced. Discussion continued regarding the shared parking agreement between Taco Bell and Paul's, wherein Ms. Wordell reiterated that it fulfilled Taco Bell's need then and is still a need of Taco Bell. She explained that the requiremem for a use permit determined whether Paul's had the ability to share parking with Taco Bell. Mr. Steven Paul, representing the applicant, clarified that the restaurant would be called Yoshida, not Miyaki, which was a slight modification of the concept of Miyaki. He explained that the Taco Bell application presented in 1992 was an application by Taco Bell only, and that in order for Taco Bell to maintain 24 hour operations, they could if they acquired a shared parking arrangement with the former owner of the subject property, but if they were to lose that shared parking arrangement, their use permit would have to be modified to eliminate the 24 hour utilization of their parcel. He said that when the current owner approached Paul's restaurant in order to acquire the property, one of the conditions for approval of their close of escrow was that the shared parking arrangement be terminated, the reason being that they felt the burden of Taco Bell's utilization of Paul's site severely impacted the ability of the current owner to operate the restaurant. He clarified that the chain link barrier was installed by Paul's as a condition of the close of escrow in March. Mr. Paul said that one of the problems with the site is that Taco Bell is required to provide an ingress/egress easement to the subject property, the difficulty being that the other subject property has an easement with the DeAnza Center property directly to the north, for the use of patrons to enter and exit onto DeAnza Boulevard. He pointed out that if that ingress/egress easement is open between Taco Bell and Paul's, it is possible for a patron of Taco Bell or a motorist on Bollinger to go through the Taco Bell site, through the Paul's site and onto the DeAnza Center site turning lek and exiting onto DeAnza Boulevard. He said the issue is that the easement does not provide for that and at this juncture the city doesn't have the control over DeAnza Center to mandate it. He said in his opinion, if the ingress/egress is reopened between Taco Bell and the subject property, the owner of DeAnza Center has the ability to legally terminate the applicant's easement fights, which would require both ingress and egress access into the present Paul's restaurant site to come off Bollinger only. In other words the owner of DeAnza could terminate Paul's restaunmt's use of their driveway. He suggested to staff an alternative condition which is contained on the last page of the staff report, that when DeAnza Center comes before the Plmming Commission for modification of its use permit, an addition, or an item requiring city approval, at that juncture an ingress/egress be opened onto the DeAnza Center property from Paul's and vice versa, which would prevent Paul's from suffering the Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 28, 1997 potential loss of its access onto DeAnza Boulevard. He pointed out that he felt without the access to DeAnza Boulevard, the site was not economically viable. Mr. Paul reported that when the property was subdivided, the tentative map in the city records contained reference to an easement being required from Paul's restaurant onto the DeAnza Center driveway, and the easement was never recorded. He said another condition of the close of escrow was that an easement be recorded allowing that access, and it was not accomplished until February oft.his year. He said that there was a strained relationship with the owner of the DeAnza Center, and for that reason he expressed concern that if the chain is removed, there would likely be ramifications. He said that another factor was that Taco Bell had a sign on its property indicating that additional parking to the rear of Panl's is available and removal of the sign is also a condition of the acquisition of the property. Mr. Paul said he did not feel it was fair to burden the patrons of Yoshida with Taco Bell patrons using their parking spaces. He said that he felt that the concept of staff's alternative was appropriate and workable and suggested that the Planning Commission require the ingress/egress easement condition on the acquisition of a similar ingress/egress permit or condition when DeAnza Center comes back in the future. Discussion continued relative to parking access on the various sites and access to DeAnza Center, wherein Mr. Paul answered Planning Commissioners' questions: Mr. Paul noted that the Miyaki restaurant experienced similar problems as it does not have access to the DeAnza Center property, and patrons are not permitted to park in the DeAnza Center parking area. In response to Chair Harris' request, Mr. Paul referred to the site plan and illustrated the location of the 100 foot addition and the 700-800 foot addition. Chair Harris inquired why, when the De Anza Center was developed after the restaurant, wasn't the access to their parking required and why wasn't the ingress/egress mandated? Ms. Wordell said it was at such time that it could be implemented with Paul's. She cited that 39-U-83 for the DeAnza Center, required reciprocal ingress/egress with adjoining properties to the south at such time as it could be required of the adjoining properties. She pointed out that the dilemma was Taco Bell. Chair Harris said that setting aside the dilemma being Taco Bell, and that the application being considered was Paul's restaurant, she felt it was the appropriate time to mandate the 1983 requirement. Ms. Wordell noted that Condition 5 required that they provide ingress/egress. Chair Harris said that it was not reasonable that Parcel 17 not have ingress/egress off DeAnza Boulevard, and reiterated that it was appropriate to implement the 1983 mandate. Ms. Wordell requested that the City Attorney address the issue, noting that there had been discussions about the complication of Taco Bell's involvement and the impact to the relationship of the three buildings. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney, said that her cone, em was that Taco Bell would defacto then have access to DeAnza Center if the 1983 mandate was implemented. Chair Harris said that she felt it was an enforcement issue and was not relevant to the fact that Parcel 17 needed ingress/egress off DeAnza Boulevard. She added that it was determined by the City in 1983 when it approved DeAnza Center Parcel 25, that at such time as Parcel 17 came forward, the condition be put in; she noted there was no evidence of it. Ms. Murray explained that the choice exists to keep the chain up, and implement the condition between DeAnza Center and Paul's restaurant, and when DeAnza Center applies for a modification, implement the condition with Taco Bell. She said that a goal of the 1985 South DeAnm Specific Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 21, 1997 Plan was that these centers would have contiguous access to the secondary roads, to minimize the driveways going out to DeAnza Boulevard as much as possible; and the goal is to have DeAnza Center, Paul's and Taco Bell have equal access to the ingress/agress. She pointed out that applicant's objection was that they had the easement through DeAnza Center by granting an easement to Taco Bell, allowing Taco Bell that same easement. In response to Com. Austin's comment that she felt the 1983 agreement should be implemented now, and that a condition should be added that reflects the 1983 agreement to the DeAnza Center, Ms. Murray said she agreed, but that she objected to the shared parking, and suggested it be removed. Com. Mahoney summarized three choices: implement reciprocal access between DeAnza Center and Paul's; implement reciprocal access between Paul's and Taco Bell; or implement it between Paul's and both Taco Bell and DcAnza Center. Chair Harris stated that the Specific Plan specifies it should be set up between Paul's and both, at such time as DeAnza Center agrees to go through Taco Bell. She said that the issue of Paul's in relation to DeAnza Center needed to be addressed, as well as addressing Paul's relative to Taco Bell in light of the 1985 Specific Plan, which were two separate issues being presented at the meeting. She said that separate action could be taken. Com. Mahoney requested clarification of the choices, and Com. Roberts questioned wording of Condition 5. Ms. Wordell clarified that following a review of the wording of Condition 5 with the City Attorney, it was determined that it was not imperative to include the phrase "if the City should deem such requirements desirable at the time the northerly property proposes additional development" but that it was to clarify the intent that when DeAnza Center had additional future development, it would make it clear as a part of that additional development Use Pen'nit that they were providing access through ingress/egress to all the properties. Chair Harris said that it was defacto that would occur if both were approved, and then it would become aa enforcement issue if the DeAaza Center wanted to take action against Taco Bell; she pointed out however that the issue is that there is a 1983 ruling specifying that at such time as Parcel 17 comes forward, there will be a mandate to sign a reciprocal ingress/egress access with DeAnza Center. She questioned if it was the appropriate time, and if there was a staff recommendation that Parcels 17 and 28 have shared ingress/egress. Ms. Wordell responded that it was the appropriate time, and that there was such a staff recommendation. Mr. Cowan suggested that the condition state that pursuant to the Uso Permit the applicant provide reciprocal access agreements between all properties to the north and south pursuant to the DeAnza Boulevard Conceptual Plan, or more explicitly list each parcel on the map. He said that the policy and intent is that it would be decided between the attorneys for the City and the other party. He said that there may be a flaw in the wording because all properties served by the future access route are not linked. Chair Harris requested that staff compose wording relative to the intent of the condition. Chair Hams opened the hearing for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Planning Commission Minutes '~ April 2g, 1997 Mr. Paul addressed the Planning Commission again, and said he was astounded at the analysis presented. He presented a detailed explanation of the reciprocal access and parking between the properties. He pointed out that Parcel 25 has an agreement with Parcel 17 for reciprocal access; however Parcel 28's right to drive over Parcel 17 and vice versa can be conditioned by the Planning Commission. He said that if Parcel 28's customers drive over Parcel 17 and then onto Parcel 25, it detrimentally increases the burden of the easement and if the burden of the easement is detrimentally increased, the easement can be extinguished. He explained that Parcel 28 does not have the fight to drive over Parcel 25 and vice versa, and the Planning Commission does not have the authority at this time to condition an ingress/egress easement from Parcel 28 onto Parcel 17 and onto Parcel 25 which is what is proposed. He said that staff's alternative is appropriate, that at such time fiat Parcel 25 is presented, the Planning Commission can specify that not only will Parcel 17 be permitted to enter and exit that driveway, but Parcel 28 also, and it may be conditioned with this application at this time to take effect when Parcel 25 is presented again. Ho pointed out that the 1983 measure references only the adjacent property(ies), not Parcel 28, and Parcel 28 is not adjacent to Parcel 25. In response to Chair Harris' comment that in his earlier testimony relative to the 1983 permit, Mr. Paul did not mention what he had just reported, he said he felt there was no need because it did not relate to Parcel 28. Chair Harris noted that the conversation related to Parcel 17 and Mr. Paul had indicated there was a strained relationship between the two and implied that the access on DeAnza could be cut off. She said that after questioning staff further, it was revealed that there was a use permit of the DeAnza Center requiring it to provide access to Parcel 17. Mr. Paul said that on the tentative map it was specified, and he had indicated earlier that there was a written easement entered into approximately 60 days ago for that. He said presently Parcel 17 has access onto DeAnza Boulevard but if the patrons of Parcel 28 start utilizing Parcel 25, which they have no lawful right to do at this juncture, then the owner of Parcel 25 can move to terminate Parcel 1Ts access onto that Com. Austin questioned if applicant had an agreement with Taco Bell and Paul's and the side was fenced, was there a way to prevent Taco Bell's patrons from going out the back area. Mr. Paul said that presently there is no ingress/egress between Parcel 28 and Parcel 17, and because of that there cannot be an egress from Parcel 28 onto Parcel 25. He pointed out that was the purpose of the condition in the escrow because the extra burden on Parcel 25 could serve to terminate the Paul's restaurant Parcel 17 access onto DeAnza Boulevard. He said that the chain barrier was installed approximately 4 to 6 weeks ago. He said he was not aware of what transpired in the past, and pointed out that the center had not been operating since they purchased it. He said that staff's alternative recommendation, that at such time Parcel 25 is presented to the Planning Commission, thc Planning Commission can condition not only the ingress/egress on Parcel 17 which already exists, but can also further condition the 1985 DeAnza Boulevard Specific Plan that access onto Parcel 25 is also permitted onto Parcel 28, at which point the access would open up. Ms. Murray clarified that there could still be a condition with an ingress/egress between Parcel 17 and Parcel 28. Com. Mahoney said he felt that it was the appropriate time to finalize the 1983 agreement as it related to Paul's restaurant. He said that if Taco Bell did not exist, it would be the appropriate time to tie the other end down on the 1983 agreement. He said he felt it was also appropriate to act on the Taco Bell issue and the fact that there is a potential problem in between is not an issue. Planning Commission Minutes s Apfi'~ 2~, 199'] Chair Harris said that the 1983 agreement stated that at such time that Parcel 17 comes forward, the agreement that DeAnza Center made at the time it was developed would have to be put into effect, which needs to be one of the conditions. Mr. Cowan suggested the following wording relative to the intent of the condition: "The intent of this condition is to require vehicular access between properties located on the east side of DeAnza Boulevard between Silverado Avenue on the north and Bollinger Road on the south, as specified by the South DeAnza Boulevard area zoning plan." Chair Harris said that the only remaining issue to address was the shared parking, and whether or not to remove the words "and shared parking" from the condition, or require shared parking. Com. Mahoney questioned whether it was the only thing that could be required to the south. He said he felt the ingress/egress was appropriate and necessary to solve the tra~c problem and he did not favor shared parking. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. In response 'to Com. Roberts' question if Taco Bell would have legal recourse if the agreement between Parcels 17 and 28 were abrogated, Chair Harris stated that Taco Bell was noticed. Ms. Wordell confirmed that Taco Bell and DeAnza Center received the 300 foot notice. She added that Taco Bell and the former property owners of Panl's signed the agreement that Paul's rescinded; the chain barrier is up; and they are aware that they must come in and modify their Use Permit. Chair Harris pointed out that there were two excess parking spaces on the new restaurant because 39 are required and 41 are present. She requested input relative to who was in favor of mandated shared parking to the extent of thc two spaces with Taco Bell and Paul's. Com. Mahoney said he felt shared parking would make it more complicated. Corns. Austin, Roberts and Chair Harris concurred. Chair Harris then inquired if the Planning Commission wanted to have in the condition, the enactment of the 1983 condition with DeAnza Center, that there be reciprocal ingress/egress from DeAnza Boulevard between Parcels 17 and 25. Com. Austin responded not until the DeAnza Center came in for an application. Chair Harris noted that they did in 1983. Com. Austin said that she agreed that Parcel 17 should have reciprocal access with Parcel 25 only. Com. Roberts said now or never. Chair Harris said they were in favor of adding the word "adjoining" with the property to the north. Com. Mahoney said that relative to the wording, he would favor stating "adjoining southerly and northerly parking". Com. Roberts and Chair Harris concurred that it was the appropriate time to enact the 1983 requirement on Parcel 17. Chair Harris stated that the main issue was Parcels 17 and 28, and questioned whether they should require reciprocal ingress/egress based on the 1985 Specific Plan that encourages it. Com. Mahoney said yes, unless there was an issue and a choice had to be made, at which time we would respond no; ifa choice had to be made he would choose Parcels 25 and 17 over Parcels 28 and 17. Ms. Murray said she felt they could both be enacted individually. Com. Roberts agreed with Com. Mahoney and asked if the property to the north should specify reciprocal rather than future. Chair Harris noted that the word '~uture" would be deleted. Com. Roberts said that he concurred Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 28, 1997 with Com. Mahoney's earlier suggestion of reciprocal ingress/egress agreements, easements with the adjoining southerly and northerly Parcels 17 and 25, and Parcels 17 and 28. Com. Austin questioned the purpose of Parcel 28 going in there if they were not going to park. Ms. Murray clarified that the actual goal of the ingress/egress was to allow the people from DeAnza Center and Paul's to have access to the secondary roads instead of entering and exiting on DeAnza Boulevard, which would be burdening Taco Bell and unburdening DeAnza Center. Chair Harris said that it was to eliminate the need for the patrons of Paul's who wanted to go south on DeAnza Boulevard to have to exit at Paul's to the DeAnza Center, turn right, go to the intersection, wait, make a U-torn and travel down DeAnza Boulevard. They would prefer to go through the Taco Bell site which does inconvenience the Taco Bell site and then either go down Bollinger or go back to DeAnza and make a left turn at that intersection instead of the U-turn. Mr. Cowan commented that it was also possible that a Taco Bell customer could go north through the shopping center to conduct additional business. He said it was reciprocal easement; the theory being people doing business there could eat at Taco Bell and shop in other stores without traveling back onto the main street again. Com. Austin said that if that was the purpose, she would approve it. Com. Roberts voted affirmatively for Parcels 17 and 28; all others concurred. Mr. Cowan noted that the City Attorney would review the documents before they were recorded. Chair Harris read the text: "The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with the land subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which shall provide for a reciprocal ingress/egress easement with the adjoining southerly and northerly parcels; said deed restriction shah provide for shared maintenance responsibility for all parcels which share a common private drive or pHvate roadway with one or more parcels than the intent of this". She added that Mr. Cowan's earlier suggested wording on the intent be included. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 2-U-97 per the discussion and model resolution which the City Attorney will review and provide final approval over and changes in Condition 5. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Cowan noted the action was final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. OLD BUSINESS Report to the City Council: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 4-U-97 Peter Ko/Cupertino Village Associates Southwest comer of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road Planning Commission Minutes ~o April 2~, lc)cfi Use Permit for new one-story 6,000 sq. ft. conunereial retail building. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 5, 1997 Staff oresentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the application for a one- story 6,000 square foot commercial retail building, which was referred back to the Planning Commission from the City Council, with direction to provide a more open corner. The applicant has prepared Option I and Option 2 as alternative concepts, which are described in the attached staff report. Staff finds both positive and negative points for both options and is recommending the Planning Commissioners review the pros and cons and forward their recommendation to the City Council on May 5. Mr. Cowan referred to a site map and discussed the City Council's actions relative to the application, noting that they felt there should be a more open corner, by setting the building further back from the street. He said that the applicant prepared more conceptual plans because it dealt with how the building is to be oriented to the street and to the surrounding project to the south, the remainder oftbe center. The applicant has designed his plan to orient the store entrances to the center so that there is a common pool of parking that would be provided for both buildings, and the entr3a~ay to buildings would be viewed from the common pool of parking, even though there is separate ownership. He said if the building is shifted considerably to the southeast the orientation changes distinctly, and the back of the stores would face the remaining center unless there is a double entry store, which he said was not practical. Referring to the site plan which was previously presented to the Planning Commission, Mr. Cowan noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the setback was inadequate. He reviewed the proposed options as outlined in the attached staff report. Option 1 would shif~ the building back toward the southeast; the rear of the building would face the parking pool for the existing center; the entrances would be to a perpendicular parking arrangement that would be next to the Wolfe Road and Homestead Road. Mr. Cowan explained that Option 2 would be to expand the setback areas adjacent to Wolfe and Homestead and illustrated where the parking would be rearranged. He explained that the last four buildings in Cupertino were built with the back of the store facing the public street with the internal facade being the building entrances. He said he was not clear to what degree the Council wanted to move, how to define aa open intersection; he said the option substantially increases the setbacks but may not meet the criteria for a "much more open comer" which would imply that Option 2 would be the preferred option. He pointed out that the option provides for more open comer yet does not functionally work as well because of the relationship to the front doors of the building to the front doors of the other stores. He said it was subjective as to how to define aa open corner. Mr. Cowan summarized that in making a recommendation, the Planning Commissioners should look at the functional relationships described, as well as the aesthetics, and define for the City Council what their interpretation of an open comer is. In response to Com. Mahoney's question if one of the configurations or a new configuration would allow moving the turnout to eliminate the need to pay for the street easement, Mr. Cowan said that the district prefers to have its turnouts on the far side of the intersection, ns close to the intersection as possible, but the possibility of shifting it over could be explored. Planning Commission Minutes n April 28, 199'/ Com. Austin questioned if the proposed building could be closer to the middle or other buildings with a breezeway or overhang and yet still be part of the architecture of the other buildings, with parking in front, and a park-like setting in front. Mr. Cowan said that it was the property owner's decision. He said that there was a properly line along the back which was a former gas station site and a separate parcel. He said it was possible that the applicant was attempting to develop the parcel separately, to stand alone. Discussion continued wherein Mr. Cowan answered questions relative to Options i and 2. In response to Com. Roberts' question if the Council's discussion included comments on the issue of borrowing or assigning 3500 square feet from the general pool to the site, Mr. Cowan said that it was not discussed at the Council level. He said he did not feel a problem existed in terms of reallocation of space in the center to make it work better. Mr. Cowan discussed the allocation of restaurant seating relative to the parking allocation, and answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Peter Pau, representing the owner of the property, clarified that Cupertino Village 1 was purchased in 1995 from a different owner, with different financing. He said the other property was also purchased with him involved as owner, but with different parmers. He explained that the two reasons for the different entity included the different financing arrangements, and the property had a history of contamination. Mr. Pan pointed out that tonight he was present relative to the pad building, attempting to promote and protect the interest of the owner of the comer parcel, but said he was cautious not to jeopardize or compromise the interest of his other parmers, the owners of the Cupertino Village shopping center. Mr. Pau explained that the building's shape, although not an ideal configuration in his opinion, conformed to the unusual parcel which would not accommodate a rectangular building. He outlined Options 1 and 2. He said that Option 2 was in his opinion the best way to respond to concerns about the setback issue. He pointed out that the lot depth did not allow for that and he would attempt to work out a way to swap the lot line, adjust the lot out with the shopping center owner. He said it could be accomplished by moving the drive-by over, taking away approximately 4,000 square feet from the inland area from the shopping center owner, which would preserve the same number of parking stalls and actually provide 6 more parking spaces. Mr. Pau said that in the beginning, there were 38 parking spaces, and under Option 2 there were 25 plus a few more to be used through a cross parking type of easement. He said it was minimal, but provided a generous landscaping and setbacks. He said the setbacks were double in each ease along the from and the sole site plan was subjective. Mr. Pan discussed the building architecture, and said that they were working to comply with staff recommendations. He questioned why the bus duckout was not required in the earlier development. Mr. Pau discussed Option 1, stating that he felt it was what the City Council wanted. He said that Option 1 was workable with the building reversed, and resulted in 29 parking spaces rather than 38, and he felt it was not a good tradeoff. He said the landscaping would remain the same because the site use was not as efficient. He explained that the building would be open to the front, and that the back of the building would not be storefi.ont, because of the proximity to the property line and building code issues. He said he felt either option canses a loss of parking spaces, Option 1 for 9 spaces, and Option 2 for 7 spaces. Mr. Pau requested direction and guidance fi.om the Planning Planning Commission Minutes 12 ,april 28, 1997 Commission, stating that he felt he was receiving mixed messages from both groups. He emphasized because of the different ownership, it was not feasible to merge the lots or to have some exaggerated lot line adjustment as shown. He reiterated that the building shape was not his first choice, but because of the lot configuration and site limitation, it was adequate. He said that relative to building height, they were attempting to match the building architecture in the rear because of the possibility of a Warehouse Music store or similar store with the gable and high roof, which resulted in a taller building, with the actual building height of about 14 to 16 feet. He said that the request was for regular retail use, as the building was not yet marketed because approval had not been granted. He noted that he was requesting maximum flexibility by adding extra parking spaces as the center was strained on parking. He said he had already gone through one parking process with the adjacent Cupertino Village II, and presently did not have an excessive mount of surface parking in the center itself to spare that could be allocated to the subject parcel. Com Roberts said it was his understanding that the shape of the building was identical, but under Option 2, the elevations were aesthetically similar to what was presented at the prior meeting. Mr. Pau stated that they were identical except for the wainscoting the Planning Commission requested to block out the lower 3 or 4 feet, and minor changes. He said that in Option 1 the front and back were reversed. He said that there would not be a double entry store, as the double entry was not practical for retail. In response to Com. Roberts' question about the potential use of the building and the possibility of fast food establishments, Mr. Paul said that they were not considering McDonalds or Taco Bell, but they had tailed with Boston Market. He said he was not aware that Boston Market was considered a fast food establishinent. He said it was not an appropriate site for a fast food establishment with outdoor speakers and a drive through area, but that it did not preclude consideration of a specialty food user such as Noah's Bagels. Mr. Pau said that it was unlikely that the site would be used for a large restaurant because of the limited parking and the supermarket as an anchor tenant has the right to veto certain users and a right to protect the parking lot. There was further discussion about the architecture of the proposed building. Mr. Pau reiterated that he was working with staff to accommodate their suggestions. He pointed out that it was more costly to match the outdated building amhitecture, which is not typical of the present day retail buildings. He commented that if he was not affiliated with the shopping center in the back, it would not be his intention to match the architecture of the remainder of the center, especially the present theme. He said that he has attempted to work with the architecture of the older section of the center and the building appears more massive and taller than it is. He said he also felt he was being penalized with 1:1 sethacks in the attempt to match the architecture. Mr. Pan said that in Option 1 the entry way to the 6000 square foot building would face the street but would back onto the supermarket. He said that windows could not be added as it was a building code issue. Mr. Peter Ko, project architect, clarified that the Building Code does not permit any openings close to the property line within l0 feet. Mr. Cowan clarified that it was a fire separation wall. Chair Harris summarized the issues: Option 1, 2 or another proposal; the architecture (should it be mandated to be identical to the 30 year old food store?); trees; buses; size of building; Com. Austin said that she was in favor of Option 1, but with windows included. She said she felt the architecture should match and that she would not like a repeat of the chicken business on McClellan, Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 2~ 1997 which would be inappropriate for the gates to the city. She said that the bus duck out should be moved to save thc trees; r~placing the trees with two small ones was not acceptable. She suggested working around the trees. Com. Mahoney said that the goal was to have an attractive entrance to the city and Option 2 presented more opportunity to accomplish that goal. He said he felt that openness for the sake of openness was not necessarily the most attractive. He said the setbacks in Option 2 were appropriate and when landscaped would give an overall allracfive appearance although slightly closer to the street. He said he would not opt for an attractive comer as opposed to matching the shopping center which is far away. He said he felt it would not be noticeable that the architecture was not identical, and if it reduced the mass and presented a more attractive entrance to the city, he would prefer that alternative. Com. Mahoney said that protection of the trees was foremost in his mind and suggested that the bus duckout be located elsewhere. Com. Roberts concurred with Com. Mahoney, stating that Option 2 was more likely to provide an attractive entrance to the city. He said he would prefer 20 feet of setback landscaped rather than 40 feet of setback with another parking lot. He recalled that at the previous presentation, the idea of a rnonument sign at the entrance to Cupertino was an attractive possibility. He said he was in favor of the harmony of design between the subject property and the shopping center and commented that as the shopping center is being redeveloped, it was likely to remain in the same form for the next 20 to 30 years, and would present a positive example to emulate elsewhere in the city. Com. Roberts said that as yet a solution has not been found for the large properties with a gas station on the corner as a separate pad, but it might provide a good example and suggested that it be implemented at the site. Com. Roberts said that his earlier concern about the collection of fast food establishments was alleviated because of the deficiency of parking. He added that alternatives should be explored to save the trees. He said that as long as the architecture of Option 2 looks the same as what was presented previously, with the exception of the base, he would like to see it again. He said that relative to the setback, he was concerned about the public safety question of visibility, and he felt that moving back the additional setback would alleviate mitigating that, and someone coming around the comer would be able to see a bus at the bus stop. Chair Harris said she was in favor of 0ption 2; and that she was not in favor of parking at the corner because it is not attractive, and would be a repeat of Homestead/De Anza. She said she felt Option 2 was a good plan, with 28 feet of landscaping with an attractive building with parking in the rear. She said that the building could be integrated with the center, with windows on both sides. Chair Harris said she did not feel the 1997 building should be identical to the old center, but could be integrated into its surroundings with the use of similar materials. She pointed out that there were two other older buildings on opposite corners that the proposed building should also fit in with and not mirror the old shopping center which is no longer fashionable. She said that the wood was appropriate and the trellises were attractive and perhaps there were ways to reduce the massing somewhat and still retain some of those items. She said she was in favor of saving the trees and felt the bus duckout should have been dealt with when the remainder of the center was dealt with. Chair Hams said that she was in favor of retaining the large trees. She noted that other cities had landscape buffers which were very attractive. She said that 30 feet of landscaping with berms and the building would enhance the community more than a parking lot and a building further back. Chair Harris noted for the record that the applicant had agreed to have a base of 3 to 4 feet for the building which was recommended by the Planning Commission. She added that the applicant will attach the trash enclosure to the building and it appears in their letter as part of the commitment. Planning Commission Minutes la April 28, 1997 There was conscnsns that the building architecture should be harmonious with the shopping center. Chair Harris summarized that the Planning Commission preferred Option 2 because they were in favor of the concept of a large landscape area at the comer and the fact that the building would have windows on both sides and be oriented to the center and integrated with the center. She said the Planning Commission did not want a comer with minimal or no landscaping and a large empty back of the building that would face the center. She added that it was unanimous that the architecture be harmonious and that the bus stop be arranged in such a way to save the trees. Mr. Cowan reported flint the raw conceptual drawings would be submitted to City Council who would make the fundamental decision on orientation and the application would come back to the Planning Commission for detailed landscaping and architecture. Com. Harris apologized for the inconvenience, but explained that the Planning Commission offered a continuance of the item at the previous Planning Commission meeting and were informed that a continuance was not desired. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to report to the City Council the recommendation of the Planning Commission as summarized Com. Austin Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Chair Harris reported that the Economic Summit is scheduled for April 29, beginning at 8:00 a.m. with a continental breakfast. She noted that it was aa excellent opportunity to interact with the business community. Com. Ma.honey and Chair Harris noted they would attend. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Cowan noted that the staff summary summarized the issues discussed by City Council. Relative to the housing bank, he reported that the Planning Commission received a copy of the revised mitigation plan, noting that the changes were reviewed about 6 months ago. He explained concept at the Council level was to fine tune the mitigation plan vis a vis the General Plan amendment. In response to Chair Harris' request, Mr. Cowan explained the 20 units credited to the housing bank. He reported that the Council approved a plan from Tandem to have 34 of the Thompson development BMR units banked. He said the main driver was the BMR units in terms of how the bank works. He reported that there were 34 BMR units for the Thompson project. Mr. Cowan said that Tandem also requested the City Council approve the banking of the 20 BMR units for the Sandhill project, but the Housing Committee denied the request because the policy had changed. He explained that the banked units could also be converted to a square footage based on the formula of so many units equals so many 100,000 square feet of space, summarizing that the 34 units in the bank diverted to approximately 285,000 square feet for Tandem and with the additional 20 units, Tandem has 450,000 square feet of space exempt from housing mitigation fees. Planning Commission Minutes IS April 28, 1997 6. Discussion of General Plan Meeting Schedule Mr. Cowan reported that discussion of the general plan process was scheduled for Tuesday, May 27. He said that staffwould allocate one hour to present a continuation of the geology workshop also on May 27. Following a discussion wherein Chair Harris expressed concern about the number of topics on the agenda, there was consensus to allocate 1-1/2 hours for the staff workshop and discuss maximum heights and peak hours if Bert Viskovich has the a.m. and p.m. peak hours information. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None OTHER: Ms. Wordell reminded the Planning Commissioners of the May 17 tour from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on May 12, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary Approved as presented: May 12. 1997