Loading...
PC 03-08-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MARCH 8, 2004 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY The Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Marty Miller Angela Chen Lisa Giefer Staff present: City Planner Senior Planner Public Works Assistant City Attorney Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli Staff Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the February 23, 2004 Planning Commission meeting: Com. Giefer: Page 6, under notes for Mr. Chao: add a new bullet stating: One of the reasons we are trying to add additional subgroups to the parking ordinance is for ease of use to our clients--to make it easier for developers to determine the parking requirements without having to go to staff. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller to approve the February 23, 2004 minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) Minutes of the March 1, 2004 Regular Adjourned meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Giefer to approve the March 1,2004 minutes as read. (Vote: 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 1. U-2003-06 Maria Chen 888 Auto Corporation 10550 S. De Anza Blvd. Use permit for an auto service/auto sales business and renovations to an existing building and landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes 2 March ii, 2004 Planning Commission decision final unless Appealed. Request removal from calendar. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong second by Com. Chen, to remove Application U-003-06 from the calendar. (Vote: 5-0-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 2. TM-2004-01, EA-2004-01 Gregg Bunker 1375So. De Anza Blvd. Tentative map to subdivide a .69-ßcre parcel into two parcels for an approved planned develop- ment project; one parcel is for residential use (6 condominiums) and one is for retail/ Commercial office use (Wolf Camera) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner: Application is for a tentative map for 2 lots There is a previously approved use permit, and this tentative map is following Slide presented shows the commercial building on the ITont lot and the second lot shows the location of the proposed residential building where parking is currently seen Condition of approval requires reciprocal parking agreement between the two lots before tentative map is recorded Previous use permit condition of approval required provision of additional 20 parking spaces on adjacent lot If applicant demonstrates that the adjacent commercial property does not have parking rights on the project property, he will not need to provide the additional spaces Staff recommends approval of tentative map No environmental action on the tentative map, because it came under the environmental action on the original use permit and a 2-lot subdivision is exempt from CEQA Vice Chair Saadati: Remove EA-2004-01 ITom the application Com. Wong: Asked the reason for dividing the parcel Ms. Wordell Explained that the parcels could be sold separately There could be separate ownership on the commercial property versus the residential property The residential units will be condominiums, so the people who live there will own the residential property Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 8, 2004 Com. Wong: Asked the status of incidental parking (item 3) of Section III of the Conditions of Approval in the model resolution requiring at least 20 additional stalls on the adjacent commercial property Ms. Wordell: Explained that addition of the 20 stalls is a condition of the use permit. The condition for the tentative map application has an additional sentence saying that if the applicant can demonstrate that the adjacent property owner did not have an easement to park on the subject property, the applicant would not have to re-5tripe the adjacent property If the applicant does not have to provide additional parking stalls, the conditions of approval for the use permit may have to be amended to have the same wording Applicant expects to do the striping on the adjacent property Com. Giefer: Current parking lot shows 32 spaces Project is changing fonnula to mixed-use-20 spaces underneath condominium development Asked if there is concern about minimization of parking at site Ms. Wordell: Explained that these concerns were addressed by the use permit Commercial area is sharing parking with the residential area and this was analyzed at the time of the use permit approval Cupertino resident, John Karleskind, Newcastle Drive: Opposed plan due to inadequate parking Turning commercial property into residential property destroys tax base Proposed project located in very crowded area-on weekends people are double-parking Putting 6 condominiums on roughly 1/3 acre This is more than Concerned Citizens of Cupertino recommendation of 15 units per acre Ms. Wordell: Said it is important for public to know that the project can proceed whether or not tentative map is granted This is just a question of who owns the property Chairperson Saadati: Explained that the project was previously approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council Cupertino Citizen, Preston Oka, Yamagami Nursery, S. De Anza Blvd.: Wanted clarification for Yamagami Trust, which owns the adjacent property, that any parking easements affecting one or both of adjoining properties would remain in effect Asked what would be the process for an appeal if Mr. Bunker could prove to the City Attorney that there are no current parking easements Ms. Wordell: Responded that any existing parking arrangements that existed for the use permit regarding the reciprocal between the commercial and residential and the requirement for striping on the Yamagami property are still in effect. The last sentence of the condition for approval in the Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 8, 2004 tentative map resolution is different. Asked Assistant City Attorney to comment on appeal process. Assistant City Attorney, Eileen Murray: Attorney's office has already looked at easement language containing the reciprocal parking. Will not know exactly what will happen until their office reviews any papers the applicant presents to prove there are no current parking easements Mr.Oka: Wants to make sure the public gets information about the process and can make comments if this does come for review by the City Attorney Ms. Wordell: Said it would be appropriate to inform anyone associated with the Yamagami property of any changes that occur Mr.Oka: Said he wants to be sure that tenants of the Yamagami commercial property be informed as well as the members of the Yamagami Trust Chairperson Saadati: Requested that it be added to the condition of approval that notice be given to the tenants if any changes are made Cupertino resident, Wildflower Way Home located behind Summerwind Nursery This project would impact traffic and noise for residents of Wildflower Way Residents of Wildflower Way would like to find a way to block their street to prevent traffic on the residential portion Residents would be willing to put up with the inconvenience of a roadblock to keep traffic out of the neighborhood Chairperson Saadati: Said such a request would not be part of the action on this application Explained that the residents could request the Public Works Department to address the issue Ms. Wordell: Based on information received ITom Public Works, it is illegal to close streets Suggested that residents discuss traffic calming options with the Public Works Department, but it would not include blocking the street Cupertino resident: Asked if residents could request parking permits for the street Asked if they should start a petition to collect signatures asking for the parking permits Ms. Wordell: Explained that residents should contact the Public Works Department to discuss their concerns before they began circulating a petition Chairperson Saadati closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 5 March S, 2004 Com. Wong: Expressed concern about the trend to divide properties for mixed-use purposes The way the parking issue was written in the resolution, the burden is on the applicant Expressed his hope that the parties would continue to have open communication to resolve any future issues Com. Miller: Supports project Supports the division of the property, because that makes the individual parcels easy to redevelop should the need arise Questioned why the additional sentence about incidental parking was added to the resolution, putting the City in the center of the issue between the two property owners Ms. Wordell: The intent of the additional sentence is that if there were clear evidence that the need for the subject project to provide the parking was not in effect, that could be made at the attorney's level Assistant City Attorney Murray: The City Attorney's office has already reviewed the paperwork presented When it first came to the City Attorney, it was not clear whether the applicant is obligated to provide parking for the adjacent property There would have to be definitive proof before the City Attorney could determine that the applicant did not have to provide additional parking Com. Miller: Since the City Attorney's office could not make a clear determination the first time they reviewed this, so it is not apparent why they would be able to make a clear determination this time Assistant City Attorney Murray: If the applicant is willing to provide the 20 additional parking stalls, that should be the condition Applicant, Gregg Bunker: Said they are still enthusiastic to stripe the 20 spaces on the Yamagami Trust property Architects and contractors have re-designed the plans and they can begin the re-striping at any time they can get onto the property to do the work Believes that there is additional information that can be provided to the City Attorney showing that the effect of the easement is unenforceable, unplottable and would not bind them to having to provide additional parking Emphasized that they are still willing to provide the additional parking, feeling that it would enhance the value of both properties Assistant City Attorney Murray: Suggested that the alternative condition be stricken or that the item be continued until the City Attorney's office can review the evidence that the parking does not need to be provided This alternative condition does not provide the opportunity for public input and is not a reasonable request PlannIng Commission Minutes 6 March 8. 2004 Mr. Wordell: Said the condition would be removed and the applicant could come back at a later time to request a modification if necessary Mr. Bunker: Pointed out that no parking spaces were lost with this project. There are currently 32 spaces available, and with the new design, 34 spaces will be available When the original easement took place, it was the City's intention to integrate activity between contiguous property owners At the City's request, the ingress and egress wording was added In his opinion, the wording was supposed to be " .. . ingress and egress for parking purposes." rather than the wording". . .and parking purposes." When the property was purchased, the lot was a fenced-off, dirt area for 3 or 4 years before it was developed It was not the intention of either party for the adjacent property owner to have parking rights over this property, since that parking lot did not exist The driveway was created 3 or 4 years later Com Miller: Asked the applicant if he preferred to strike the wording or to ask for a continuance so there could be a public hearing and a ruling could be made on the evidence Mr. Bunker: Said he preferred to have the map approved and agreed to strike the wording of the alternative condition Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller to approve Application TM-2004-01 as amended to strike the last sentence of condition number 3 under Section Ill. (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: 3. Final Approval of the Rl survey Senior Planner Peter Gilli: A hard copy of the survey will be available on Tuesday, March 9 The mailing will be done by the end of the week There will be an insert in the "Cupertino Scene" on March 25 The survey will be posted on the website later in the week Questions 15 and 20 were originally phrased to have the same kind of answer choices As survey evolved, the questions were no longer consistent Staff recommends that the choices be amended so there is consistency between the two Question 21 was added at the study session. The original version had some terms which were undefined. Two options of questions were presented in the staff report that would define those terms and would get at the intent of the original question as much as possible Tried to simplify wording in the survey to describe "compatible" development. Example: substitute "building forms" for "architectural forms" to lessen confusion Staff recommends reconciliation of the choices on questions 15 and 20, rø-word question 21 Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 8, 2004 and finalize the wording of what "compatible" means At the Planning Commission meeting of March 22, a preliminary schedule will be presented showing what the rest of the review process on the Rl ordinance will be Com. Wong: Has no problem with staffs recommendation on question 21 Questions 15 and 20: wants to stay away from "single-story" homes Prefers to leave question 15 as is, showing the choice as "all additions...." Change the choice to "New homes" and omit the reference to single-story homes Com. Miller: Suggested that questions 15 and 20 provide the same answer choices to make it easy Com. Chen: Asked if the third answer choice on question 20 refers to all two-story additions, or to all additions Mr.Gilli: Stated that the intent of the choice was twO-5tory homes or two-story additions Com. Miller: To be consistent, remove all the current choices under question 20 and replace them with the choices under question 15 Com. Giefer: Wants to continue to include single-story homes as part of the response to questions 15 and 20 Is interested to know if the public feels there is a problem with single- family homes This would not necessarily mean the Commission needs to act on it, or change the RI ordinance or add it to the Design Review process If it is an issue, she would like to advise Council with regard to that Wants to keep single-story homes as part of the response Com. Miller: Single-story homes would be included in the choice: "All additions resulting in increased square footage" Com. Giefer: Wants to understand public sentiment about whether or not there is a problem with sing1e- story homes At the initial hearings people spoke out about single-5tory homes invading their privacy when the new single-story homes are taller than the neighboring houses Com. Wong: The privacy issues could be addressed by privacy protection planting Design of the building was not the main concern of the people who spoke about the single-story homes---they were more concerned about their privacy Mr.Gilli: P1anning Commission Minutes g March S, 2004 Stated that part of the Commissioners' scope of work is to examine what needs Design Review and what doesn't Added that asking the question would help the commissioners understand whether or not the public is interested in single-story review Com. Miller: Reiterated that the last choice is "All additions resulting in increased square footage" The choices range all the way from just two-stories over 35% to all two-stories to all additions Those choices will provide information regarding single-story additions Com. Giefer: Asked if the instructions for questions 20 tell the people to check all that apply or to choose just one Mr.Gilli: Said that the instructions would depend on the wording the commissioners decide upon: If the wording in question 15 were to be selected, the instructions would be to check one box. The wording as shown in question 20 would be to check all that apply, because the categories are not as inclusive Com. Giefer: The last selection in question 15 does not address new single-story homes-it refers only to additions Com. Miller: Suggested that the wording be changed to "All new homes or additions resulting in increased square footage" Mr. Gilli clarified that the answers for question 15 would be used for question 20 also, with the exceptions that question 15 would have the answer choice of, "There should be no design review for anything" and question 20 would have the answer choice of, "Nobody should have to meet guidelines." Regarding question 21, it was decided that staffs recommendation of Option 2 on page 3-3 of the staff report should be followed. The commissioners reached consensus to use the terms "building forms", "roof heights" and "wall heights" for question 20 to describe consistency with neighboring homes within individual neighborhoods. Commissioner Giefer asked that the word "home" be inserted in the first sentence under the heading of Heights, so the sentence will read: "In general, the RI Ordinance allows a single-story home to be..." Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Giefer to approve the Rl survey as amended. (Vote 5-0-0) NEW BUSINESS: None Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 8, 2004 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held. Housinl! Commission: Housing Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, March I\. Commissioner Giefer unable to attend. Chairperson Saadati agreed to attend in her place if his health improved. Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners: Commissioner Giefer is scheduled to attend the Mayor's meeting on March 16. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None MISCELLANEOUS: Commissioner Miller presented slides of a mixed-use project in West Palm Beach, Florida. He feels this is an exceedingly well-done project and it was clear by the masses of people who were there that it is a successful project. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the Joint Study Session at 5:00 p.m. on March 15,2004. Respectfully submitted: