Loading...
PC 09-27-1993 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252 -4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINNG OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Austin Vice Chair Mahoney (arrived 6:30 pm) Commissioner Doyle Commissioner Bautista Commissioner Roberts Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wardell, City Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner II APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve the minutes of September 13, 1993, as presented SECOND: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 4 -0 -1 ABSENT: Com. Mahoney POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: - None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Computer Simulation Workshop City Planner Wordell stated the purpose of the Computer generated rendering workshop is for the Planning Commission to provide direction to staff in implementing the General Plan policy. She stated this direction will be built into the requirement for applications. She noted Daryl Fazekas, Architect and Scott Futyrk, Designer, will share their knowledge and experience with computer PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 27, 1993 Page 2 generated renderings. Mr. Cowan stated he did contact the American Society of Architectural Perspectivness (ASAP) and they do not think this computer simulation will effect their business. Mr. Daryl Fazekas, Architect, stated the goal is to make the computer generated model look as if the building is built. He showed examples of photomontage to the Commission, and compared these to hand drawn examples. Mr. Fazekas reviewed the benefits of computer generated vs. hand -drawn renderings? Mr. Fazekas reviewed five goals the Planning Commission may take when reviewing a presentation using computer simulated modeling: 1. No errors, it is in the City's best interest to have no errors; 2. No tricks, don't let a good presentation win you over; 3. Complete citizen inclusion; 4. Virtually real presentation; 5. Test by being there. Mr. Fazekas went on to review the costs of computer simulated modeling as opposed to hand drawing. He stated the photomontage would be cheaper in the long run as opposed to hand drawings. He explained how computer montages are built and noted they then can be looked at from any angle. Mr. Fazekas explained the audit trail. He stated, in his opinion, a major project is anything commercial that is viewed from a major arterial which is over 2,000 sq. ft. He suggested, for every major project, the following steps be followed: 1. Submit 12 black and white renderings; 2. Staff selects three of the views, both favorable and unfavorable; 3. Do color renderings for staff approval; 4. Do final renderings and splice into the site photos, to make photomontage; 5. Submit three color, highest quality photomontage to the Planning Commission. Mr. Scott Futyrk, Designer, reviewed the proposed Doubletree Hotel. He showed examples of photomontage which included the proposed hotel. He explained texture mapping and noted this will be used in the near future. He stated computer modeling has an audit trail and the building can be rechecked. He added the computer modeling is very accurate. He stated as much detail as wanted can be added with the computer modeling. Mr. Cowan stated that developers are concerned about the computer simulation. They feel the Planning Commission may be designing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 27, 1993 Page 3 their buildings. He stated the question is how far does the Planning Commission go? He added that photomontage gets into more design detail. Com. Roberts stated if this tool had been available when the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed parking garage at Sears, they could have made a better decision. Mr. Futyrk stated this tool is ready to be used and it can be done on low cost equipment. In response to Com. Roberts question regarding hillside homes, Mr. Fazekas stated the strategic hillside areas could be mapped, and then charge a 3 -D fee. The Commissioners were asked if there is value to this computer simulation? Com. Bautista stated there is value to this and the Planning Commission should take advantage of more accurate plans. He stated if the costs are the same as what is currently required, this tool should be utilized. Com. Roberts stated this has a lot of potential and believes it is cost effective. He noted it would be a help to the Planning Commission and the public when reviewing plans. Com. Doyle stated it will bring many advantages to the Planning Commission when making decisions. He expressed concerns regarding secondary effects which have not been discussed yet. He stated this would be a better tool for site plans and major projects, but { believes it would be cumbersome for smaller projects. Mr. Cowan stated more problems seem to occur with the smaller { projects. He added the larger projects have better resources. He noted if the cost can be reduced this tool should be used for all projects. Com. Mahoney stated this tool would help make projects more accurate and could be used on all projects, but more so on larger projects. He stated it must make economic sense. Chr. Austin stated this is a valuable tool to show buildings in context. She noted, if the Commission will be making architectural decisions, they should see as much detail as possible. She added she has no reservations about the tool, except for cost. Com. Doyle stated this should not be applied across the board at first, but should ease into this. The Commission discussed what the model would cover. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 27, 1993 Page 4 Com. Bautista stated it is difficult to decide what this should cover until they find out the associated cost. He stated there should be a competitive market. Mr. Cowan stated the costs outlined by Mr. Fazekas are accurate. He stated a service bureau will be done. He noted there will be no cost to the City. Mr. Cowan stated staff will come back with a follow up report. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Application No: 4 -U -76 (Modification) Applicant: Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co. Property Owner: Russell & Dorothy Bilinski Location: 10655 Mary Avenue Modification to the site development plan to increase the maximum height to construct a 60 ft. cellular telephone antenna. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report noting the applicant is proposing a 60 ft. free standing monopole tower with associated antenni in one of two locations. Ms. Bjurman stated at either location the antenna will be visible from adjoining properties and roadways. She outlined the residences which will be affected by this antenna. She pointed out the 3 ft. difference in land elevation between the proposed antenna and the closest single family residence. Regarding Electro Magnetic Fields, Ms. Bjurman stated there has been recent speculation regarding EMF, but no confirmed association between EMF causing cancer. She stated the FCC has adopted the 1992 American National Standards Institute exposure limits and the applicant is required to meet this standard prior to issuance of their permit. She stated staff is recommending approval of the preferred location primarily because less people will be affected and the antenna can be obscured with landscaping. In response to Commissioners questions, Ms. Bjurman stated the PG & E tower is 25 ft. away from the proposed antenna. She also noted the additional antenna will provide increased service to the utility and enable increased use of the communication system for emergency use. Chr. Austin opened the public hearing. Applicant presentation: Mr. Mike Mangiantini, Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company, stated they are in the process of improving service. He noted the proposed antenna would result in a higher quality call transmission and better service for Cupertino. He stated this will also add capacity to the existing cellular network. Mr. Mangiantini addressed condition 3. He asked that any PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 Regular Meeting of September 27, 1993 Page 5 external changes be brought back for review as opposed to internal changes. He also addressed condition 6 and noted he does not believe that the Public Utilities Commission will certify a consultant. He asked that this condition be reworded so the decision is made by staff. In response to Com. Roberts question, Mr. Mangiantini stated the levels of EMF at the homes wilL be much less than the maximum numbers presented in the report. He stated there are many factors to consider when looking at the height of the towers. Chr. Austin closed the public hearing. Ir In response to Commissioners questions Ms. Bjurman stated the PG & E tower is much higher than 60 ft. Regarding condition 3, Ms. Bjurman stated she reviewed three different EIR's conducted on cellular antennas and they recommended, to some extent, that changes should be reviewed by staff because a change in the orientation of the transmittant antennas can cause the fields to be directed in incorrect locations. She stated the applicant's comments regarding condition 6 can be applied. Com. Bautista expressed concern about safety. Ms. Bjurman stated the area is closed off by a fence and the electronic equipment is within a structure. Com. Roberts stated he would prefer the alternative site. Com. Mahoney stated either site would be acceptable. Com. Doyle and Com. Bautista concurred with Com. Mahoney. Chr. Austin spoke in favor of the alternate site. MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to recommend approval of application 4 -U -76 subject to the :Findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modification: Cond. 6 "Exposure Standards: A consultant, acceptable to the Planning staff in consultation with the Public Utilities Commission, shall submit data within 30 days of beginning operation that the 1.992 American National Standards Institute exposure limits are not exceeded." SECOND: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 5 -0 OLD BUSINESS: 3. Status report for "Heart of the City" Design Charette. City Planner Wordell stated this is on the agenda to bring it to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 27, 1993 + Page 6 the attention of the Commission and the public. Ms. Wordell outlined the schedule for the design charette which will be November 12 and 13. She stated the design team, which will consist of 24 professionals, will work on their own on Saturday and give a presentation Saturday evening. The public will have an opportunity to comment. She noted the concept, as presented by the design team, will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council as a basis for preparing a specific plan. Ms. Wordell noted there will be a public briefing on October 19th at the Senior Center and staff will also meet with neighborhood groups. Ms. Wordell commented on the tour guide that staff will prepare. In response to Com. Mahoney's question, Ms. Wordell stated the design team will be selected approximately one month before the Charette. She noted the first time they come together is Friday, November 12. Regarding the ground rules, Ms Wordell stated staff will publish parameters which will be based on the General Plan and these will be the ground rules. Com. Bautista expressed concern about the lack of specific information for the design team to work with. Ms. Wordell stated between the Charette and the specific process that follows it will become more specific. She also noted there will be opportunity for public input both on Friday and Saturday. Mr. Cowan stated staff will be the resource people at the design charette. He noted a video will be available for the design team to review. He also stated staff has a meeting scheduled with neighborhood groups. He added, designers from the major property owners are being asked to participate in the design charette. 4. Modification of agenda to accommodate Planning Commission Review of Architectural, Landscape, and Sign applications. Planning Director Cowan stated beginning October 11, 1993 the Planning Commission will review Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) applications. He noted staff recommends that the Planning Commission place the ASA applications at the front of the agenda. The was a consensus of the Commission to put ASA applications at the beginning of the agenda, NEW BUSINESS: (continued) 5. Request Planning Commission to initiate a public hearing to rezone all hillside properties commensurate with the General Plan. Planning Director Cowan stated that State law requires zoning to be consistent with the General Plan and noted staff recommends that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 27, 1993 Page 7 the Planning Commission initiate a change of zone for hillside properties from Ri to RHS. MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to initiate a public hearing to rezone hillside property consistent with the General Plan. SECOND: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 5 -0 In response to a resident's concern regarding the cellular antenna, Mr. Cowan stated the applicant must initiate the project within 2 years, but it can be started the day the permit is issued. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: - None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 8:30 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of October 11, 1993 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine M. Robillard, Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of October 11, 1993 Donna Aus n, Chairwoman Attest: Kim Smith, City Clerk Amended 10 -11 -93