Loading...
PC 03-12-01CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 12, 2001 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Corr, Patnoe, Chairperson Kwok, Staff present: Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the February 12, 2001 regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as presented SECOND: Com. Auerbach VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Minutes of the February 26, 2001 study session with Larry Cannon MOTION: Com. Patnoe moved to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2001 work study session as presented SECOND: Com. Auerbach VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Minutes of the February 26, 2001 regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: Com. Chert moved to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as presented SECOND: Com. Auerbach VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR 4. Application No.: 14-U-98(M) Applicant: Lake Biltmore Apartments Location: 10159 So. Blaney Avenue Request postponement to Meeting of March 26, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 12, 2001 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to postpone Application No. 14-U-98(M) to the March 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Com. Auerbach Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: 01-U-0I Ann Welsh/Whalen & Company 10655 Mary Avenue Permit to install a wireless communication facility consisting of 16 panel antennas on a PG&E tower and one equipment cabinet on a cement pad. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed "Com. Patnoe noted for the record that he had previous experience with Metricom; however, lhe company was no longer a client of his public relations .firm. He sought advice from the City Attorney's office and they informed Com. Patnoe that there was no conflict of imerest present and he was able to participate and vote on this agenda item." Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, reported that the application was for the use permit to install 16 panel antennas atop a PG&E tower, and locate one equipment pad to the rear of the tower; and for a height exception. He referred to the site plan, reviewed the location of the proposed antennas, and also showed a slide presentation which illustrated the locations of the proposed antennas. Staff recommends approval of the use permit and the height exception, with additional use permit conditions including camouflaging the antenna color; a condition relative to aerial abandonment (if the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a period of 18 months, the aerial and its associated facilities shall be removed, the cost of demolition shall be borne by the tower owner or applicant (Metricom); and a condition relative to the expiration date (possibly 5 years). In response to Com. Patnoe's request, Mr. Jung provided a brief history of the application. He reported that last year the applicant had proposed another antenna, similar facility, on another latticed tower located behind a single family home on Stokes Avenue, with similar installation mounted atop a tower. Staff requested the applicant consider two other towers within the search ring being considered for installation, one of them being where the current proposal is, which was staff's choice, the Cupertino Lock and Store because of its separation from the residential area; another was further to the west in Somerset Park, close to residential, with the possibility of extra trees planted to help with mitigation. The parent company decided to pursue the Stokes Avenne tower and it was vigorously opposed by most of the neighborhood residents along Stokes Avenue; staff recommended denial based on the fact that there were preferable visual alternatives. The Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 12, 2001 Planning Commission also denied the application and directed the applicant to look at the Cupertino Lock and Store facilities as well. Com. Corr said that it was suggested that the antenna be mounted on the tower itself rather than Oil the top, and it was felt that it could be done as long as it would use only three of the legs as PG&E would use the fourth leg to get up the tower. He questioned if there was technology that would allow the top array to be suspended inside four of the legs. Mr. Jung explained that staff considered the possibility of suspending it among the tower legs, but PG&E was opposed to having the antenna mounted on the leg itself, and was also opposed to having any type of attachment such as a bracket. Staff felt PG&E would not support a suspended one, because lbr structural reasons they would need to hook it on the legs themselves and the PUC rules do Jlot al low that. Com. Auerbach suggested the possibility of mounting them on the cross braces rather than suspending them in the middle, to get 4 panels for 360 degree coverage, and moflnting them on cross braces that are not located on the main support legs. Mr. Jung said that the design itself is 12 feet tall and the antennas were not flush mounted to tile tower legs which would put them at an angle; they rise straight, which would result in a 12 foot rectangular extension on a pyramidal shaped lattice tower body, which in staff's opinion would look more unusual than putting it on the top of the tower itself which is somewhat rectangular in shape. Mr. Jung explained that the Generation One system was 12 by 12 inch chiclets mounted on the building wall, painted the same color as the building. He said it was in the wireless communication facilities ordinance, that if staff feels that the antenna installation is not visible or minimally visible from residences or public right of ways, staff can approve it through administrative approval. With installations such as the proposal, even though it appears to be architecturally integrated with the structure itself, it still is visible; and wouldthen require, depending on its level of visibility an architectural site approval or use permit. The visibility of the proposed antenna necessitates that it come before the Planning Commission in the form of a use permit. Mr. Jung said that requests for increased height limits are not frequent, and he discussed previous applications and the justification for approval or denial. He said if the antenna is approved it would be the highest tower in Cupertino. He said the height limitations would be studied in the telecommunications study, which would be completed before the end of the year. In response to Chair Kwok's question relative to the advisability of waiting until the telecommunications study was completed, to ensure consistency within the city, Mr. Jung said it was the Planning Commission's decision, but the previous Planning Commission had stated they were not going to put a moratorium on approval until a master plan was approved and would evaluate each of the applications on its own merits and in accordance with the present ordinance. · Chair Kwok questioned if three sectors could be used, so that it could be mounted on top of tile conductors, allowing the fourth one for PG&E access. Ms. Ann Welsh, Metricom, 2607 7th Street, Berkeley, explained that tower climbers install the antennas on the tower, using a crane and bucket. Relative to lowering the box in the center of the tower, she said that Metrieom worked diligently with PG&E to come up with something aesthetically unobtrusive and felt the proposed design blends in with the tower itself. She noted that as a safety consideration, it was not suitable for the tower climbers to climb in front of the Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 12, 2001 antennas. Ms. Welsh also addressed the Generation One and Generation Two systems and noted that Metricom was developing a Generation Two system to increase the speed of the system to keep up with technology, as the Generation One system with tbe chiclet antenaas was much slower than other systems in use. The Generation Two system requires larger and more ante,mas. terms of why Metricom has to locate their antennas at a higher point, vs. Sprint or Nextel having to locate their antennas at 55 feet, there is a large difference between cellular teclmology and the Metricom wireless data, which is not a voice data. She explained that the Metricom system interacts with the chiclets all of the time, and needs the height in order to achieve the coverage objective and address safety. She said Metricom designed its system on afour sector system, and if the fourth sector was eliminated, it would lose their coverage in that particular area. Chair Kwok reiterated his request why it could not be the same as what Pac Bell and Sprint have in the current tower; and pointed out that Com. Tsui from the telecommunications committee said that there was no reason why it could not be duplicated; why three sectors could not be used; and why it had to be built on top of the tower. Ms. Welsh said that Metricom could configure the antennas lower, but it would result in an aesthetically unattractive device, which would project out from the tower. Each antenna needs a certain amount of separation distance and in order to maintain the separation distance they have to have that configuration and keep the extra leg free, which is a concern. She said there was a design that places the antennas on a single plane with 16 antennas on a single plane below the conductors, but it is a very unattractive design. Metricom feels that the design atop the tower is less visible and more aesthetically pleasing. She noted that cost was not a factor. Ms. Welsb said that Metricom would have difficulty covering areas if they were unable to use the PG&E towers. Ms. Welsh explained how the site was chosen. When Metricom designs a system, they develop search rings on a map covering about 1 to 2 miles, cover the entire coverage area, and secure a license to cover the Bay Area. The search rings vary based on topography, landscape and buildings, and a site bas to be located within the search ring. It is difficult in a residential area or an area with Iow buildings, which is why they had a difficult time coming up with a site and had to resort to the PG&E tower. Mr. Jung said that it appeared that Metricom was attempting to take advantage of using the towers in existence to build their facilities, since it was more cost effective to use towers already built, rather than construct new ones. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Kwok said he concurred with Com. Tsui's position that there were other options other tban granting the extension, which would set a precedent for future applications for beigbt exceptions. He said he felt there were other technologies available and was not convinced that the three or four sectors could do it, or it could be mounted below the conductors similar to Sprint andPac Bell. He said for those reasons, he could not support the project. Com. Patnoe said he felt it was important to try to provide the wirelessinternet to as many people as possible in the community; however, he was opposed to increasing the limit they were discussing. He said the issue was twofold, one to allow for the antenna use and the other to change the height; and he partially wanted to support the use of the anteana to allowMetricom the opportunity to see if they could configure it using three legs, which demonstrates support for bringing technology to Cupertino; and he also was leaning to denying the request for the extra 12 Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 12, 2001 feet. He said he felt it was a difficult decision to vote yes for one portion and no for the second portion. Mr. Jung questioned if the reluctance was based on the extension above the tower itself; or if they could find some easy way to locate on the tower itself, the spring antennas are already at the ordinance height maximum of 55 feet, was it the commission's wish to have them lower than Sprint since it was the only thing available; or were they willing to consider something higher than Sprint, even though they may need a height exception for it as long as it is on the tower vs. an extension of the tower. Chair Kwok pointed out that another consideration was that the study would show whether 55 was a realistic number or not and what technology would be available. Com. Corr said he was pleased with the proposal and said that the applicant had moved to the other side of the road and away from the homes, and more into the industrial arch as requested. He said he felt it was not obtrusive and most residents would not notice its presence. I lc expressed concern that there were many unanswered questions, and questioned if expecting the applicant to wait another 9 months for the study results was unreasonable. He said he was not as concerned about setting a precedent in terms of the higher tower, because the applicant moved to this one since it was felt to be an area where the height could be handled. Com. Corr said they were not interested in that height or granting those exceptions in the other areas, and he came to the meeting prepared to support the application, but was presently on the line about a decision because of the lack of solid information from the applicant. Com. Auerbach concurred with Com. Corr's ambivalence, stating that on the one hand given the difficulty of getting these kinds of permissions that the applicant has already gone through, it seemed incredible they have not explored 120 degree technology further and the likely possibility of objections in other marked places. He said he felt at odds with his own philosophy of government to try and keep a competitive landscape for everybody, and it seemed to be an unfair advantage by giving a premium position to one applicant through several exemptions. On the other hand, he said he detested the idea of government leading people around and a number sites have been considered. He asked staffwhen the applicant was directed to look at this site, was it with the idea that to satisfy the requirements they would have to put a tower atop a tower, or at the time was it felt that it would be a technology that was below the power lines? Mr. Jung said it was his understanding that they were going to propose their top hat design whether it was on the Stokes Avenue one or this particular tower. He said he felt if there was any site that was approvable for a top hat design, it would be this site as a preference vs. any other site because of its wide separation from residential areas. Com. Auerbaeh said he came to the meeting with the mindset that the applicant had done what was asked of him, and the tower is out of the way and no more objectionable than the other towers in the area and the application warranted approval. Com. Chen said that based on the requirement of Gen 2, the height exception is required wherever the equipment is, and she agreed with the staff report stating that the visual difference is a matter of degree since there is already a high tower there. She said she supported the application based on the fact that the tower is already there and is not noticeable at this point, and will not become more noticeable. Com. Corr pointed out that it was a limited permit for a term of 5 years and could be reviewed again at the end of the 5 year term; therefore it was not a permanent thing. Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 12, 2001 Mr. Jung suggested the alternative of continuing the aPplication to another bearing date so that the applicant could come back with answers to sorne of the questions before rendering a decision. Ms: Welsh expressed surprise about the remarks from the Telecommunications Commission and said she was unaware they had input iuto the process. She said that the proposal was based on the direction given by the Planning Commission to go to the site and did not address the issue of height with any great concern as they thought it would be unobtrusive. Mr. Jung clarified that Ms. Welsh was a new representative working on the aPplication; it was the same height, same proposal, but essentially moved from one tower to another tower, still a top hat design. He added that Com. Tsui said that the comments still applied to the new location, MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve the use permit Application 01-U-01 with the three conditions expressed by staff Com. Chen Chair Kwok Passed 4-1-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved t~ approve Application 02-EXC-01 Com. Auerbach Chair Kwok Passed 4-1-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 01-Z-01 Lin-Hai Nan 10599 No. Stelling Road Prezoning of a .22 acre single family lot to Pre-RI-10 (Garden Gate area) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Mr. Jung explained that the applicant was initiating the application tbr prezoning of the Garden Gate area lot so that the applicant could build bis home as quickly as possible and not wait for the city initiated effort to be completed. He retS:fred to a map and illustrated the other Garden Gate area lots that Cupertino had prezoned and annexed at property owners' initiative in the last 3-1/2 years. He explained that theprezoning process was a legal process that the City goes through to assign a zoning district to a piece of property betbre it is subsequently annexed to the city. It has no legal effect until the property is annexed, but it lets the property owner and all adjacent owners know what exactly the city's development rules would be for the piece of property upon annexation. Staff recommends approval of the prezoning. The applicant did not appear. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application 01-Z-01 Com. Patnoe Passed 5-0-0 5. Application Nos.: 01-EXC-01 and 07-ASA-01 Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 12, 2001 Applicant: Location: Peter Ko (Evershine Group) 19620-19770 Stevens Creek Blvd. Sign exception for the Marketplace Shopping Center to allow four ground signs including one electronic readerboard sign where only two ground signs are permitted. Architectural and site approval for Marketplace Shopping Center for design details relating to the building architecture, landscape, signage, trash enclosure, and circulation parking for an approved modification to the shopping center. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Chair Kwok provided background on the application, noting that the project came to the Planning Commission approximately six months ago, when it was redirected back to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for the detail architecture, site and landscape design. A DRC ineeting should have been held but did not take place; the design review would have gone through the DRC beibre coming to the Planning Commission. Staff suggests review of the sign exceptions and also approval and review of architecture and site approval of the project rather thau go back to the DRC and let them do the design review first before coming back to the Planning Comlnission. The options are to approve the sign exception and at the same time approve the architecture and site plan; or to grant the sign exception and return it back to the DRC for detail review of the architecture and site plan. Com. Corr said that as Chairman of the DRC he suggested addressing the issue now rather than doing part of it and sending it back to the DRC, which was an inefficient use of time. Staff presentation:. Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, explained that the application was a modification to an already approved use permit. He noted the corrected description that the readerboard is not part of the application at this time; the applicant is interested in the Plauning Commission's comments on the readerboard but it is not part of the application, and in order to do it they will have to come back to the Planning Commission with details of thereaderboard. He said the process was outlined by Chair Kwok; and one of the strong poiuts that staff felt the Planning Commission could review this directly is that the use permit condition required the Planning Commission to approve the recommendation of the DRC. In general the DRC would have the final approval for both the sign exception and an architectural and site approval but in this case it was required to come back to the Planning Commission as it is. Mr. Gilli referred to an aerial map of the project and described the application. The project included demolition of an existing vacant restaurant and construction of two new buildings, with architectural improvements and minor additions to the existing center and overall improvements to the site. He noted that the architectural and site approval issues were: refinements to architecture; landscaping; trash enclosures and signage. He reviewed the proposed modifications relative to the architectural and site issues as outlined in the staff report. Staff feels that the architectural and landscaping issues were adequately addressed in the proposal. He said the location of the trash enclosures could be improved upon, but meet staff's requirements. Staff feels that the findiugs on the sign exception can be made, as the signs are subtle and only identify the center and are not a tenant advertisement. Staff recommends the sign exception be approved. Staff feels the readerboard sign is justified since many of the tenants do not have slgnage on the monument sign. At this point what is being proposed are the monument forms with standard signage and staff is Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 12, 2001 comfortable with those; the size and locations conform to the ordinance, therefore staff is recommending approval of the signs as they are now with a condition added into each of the resolutions specifically stating that an electronic sign is not included in this approval. Staff recommends approval of the architectural and site approval. Mr. Wayne Okubo, Evershine Group, thanked staff and the Planning Commission for allowing resubmittal of design changes to make the project work both for the center and the community. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the trash enclosure, wherein Mr. Okubo answered questions about the location of the trash enclosure relative to the various tenants. Mr. Gilli explained the trash pickup procedure to be followed by the trash pickup company. Mr. Okubo said that a comprehensive signage program was being developed to allow changes to some ot' the current signs and to maintain the current variety of signage for the tenants; a monument signs for Stevens Creek Blvd. which currently exists. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Jerry Stevens, former Planning Commissioner, said the project was of interest to hi,n, and highlighted two legacies to consider, namely: (1) Landscaping, trees, etc. He said previously, the project owner was allowed to remove trees with the promise of putting them back in and it took several years before they were put back in. He recommended that the issue go to the DRC so that a time limit would be stated. (2) Traffic flow: He illustrated on the site plan the areas where he was concerned about traffic flow in the center. Mr. Stevens said that he felt it was a good proposal despite his two concerns. Chair Kwok thanked Mr. Stevens for his input into the project. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of adding a condition related to the co,npletion of the landscaping, such as 30 days after completion of the project. The applicaut was agreeable to a condition that all landscaping would be completed within one month of the building inspection. Mr. Jung said that typically with projects, aside from the normal building conditions, there are complicated planning conditions; normally the building is not final approved for occupancy until the planning conditions have been satisfied, including landscaping. Chair Kwok said he wanted to be certain that the landscaping would be completed in a timely matter, and not run into problems similar to those encountered with the Armadillo Willys project. Mr. Gilli recommended that landscaping be completed prior to the final inspection. Coin. Corr said that he felt keeping a trigger point similar to ones that Public Works and staff work with was more viable than a special one. Mr. Jung said that phased building would complicate the landscaping preceding occupancy. Mr. Gilli said that the applicant indicated that the building would not be phased, and asked that the conditions be stated that landscaping must be installed prior to certificates of occupancy, which is after the final inspection. Chair Kwok closed the public hearing. Com. Corr said that the layout is somewhat different from the original one which they had concerns with, and it now includes a more natural flow. He said he felt the sign exception was appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 12, 200l Com. Auerbach expressed concern about the possibility of encountering future problems with the location of the trash enclosures. Mr. Gilli clarified that the concern could be addressed by placing a condition on the use permit requiring a review at a later date. Mr. Jung said that the Assistant City Attorney suggested that usually the remedy in a similar situation is code enforcement if there is no condition on a use permit which can't be enforced because the use permit is not being reviewed. If code enforcement does not work, then it becomes onerous enough and the Planning Commission does have the power to open up the use permit and address something, especially if there is a health and safety issued involved. Com. Auerbach said that he liked the plaza, and said he felt it added atownlike atmosphere to the area. He said he felt there was a lack of parking and he would not be opposed to a more parklike feature. Relative to traffic mitigation efforts; the radii on certain street corners could be reduced to mitigate high speed turns into the center and the like and turning in front of cyclists on the route. If the oak trees fail to survive, he questioned staff if they would be replaced with new oak trees. Mr. Gilli said that new oak trees, likely 36 inch box trees, would be planted to re[ilace those that did not survive. Com. Auerbach said that he liked the fact that the building does not have any backside and that it is accessible from all sides. He said that the signage request was appropriate. Com. Patnoe said he felt it was an excellent project, and he was excited about the buildings right up to the street, since the goal was to make Cupertino walkable and family friendly, with additional trees. Mr. Gilli said that there would be additional trash receptacles located throughout the existing center and the new addition, and their use was the responsibility of the applicant. Com. Patnoe said that he did not like electronic signs and felt there would be a lot of signs in front of each of the stores. Com. Corr said that if there were electronic signs, there would be only one and something similar to the scrolling sign on Wolfe Road. He said he was opposed to the large TV type screen such as the one on Bayshore Highway. Com. Auerbach said he felt the readerboard sign on Wolfe Road was hideous and unfriendly. He said that the sign ordinance states that readerboard signs are important for large shopping areas, but he was not convinced it would be a suitable addition for the proposed center. Mr. Gilli provided more background information on the signage. He said one of the two monument signs would be converted into the electronic readerboard; there would not be 4 grouud signs plus a readerboard. He pointed out that electronic readerboards have improved over the years and said that the readerboard would look like the sign on Wolfe Road. As stated in the staff report, if the applicant was willing to work with staff and the city in order to regulate the signs to make sure they are not an eyesore or a traffic hazard, it may be possible to approve it at this site. The ordinance allows for one sign with Planning Commission approval for a shopping center with a certain amount of square footage or a certain number of occupants. This shopping center without the addition meets both of those. Com. Patnoe said he understood the applicant's belief that it is helpful to securing tenants for the complex to be able to offer the signage to them for a certain period each year. He concurred with Com. Auerbach's comment about electronic signs, and he looked forward to the presentation and was open to see what technology offers. Planning Commission Minutes I0 March 12, 2001 Com. Chen said her thoughts on readerboards were already expressed by others, and she had not been impressed by any one thus far. She said she was opposed to the readerboard signs. However, she said she was willing to review the signs and the quality of the signs before a decision is made. MOTION: Com. Patnoe moved conditions as discussed SECOND: Com. Auerbach VOTE: Passed to approve Application 01-EXC-01, 5 -0-0 with additional MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 07-ASA-01 with the condition about the oak trees and the condition about landscaping to be installed prior to certificate of occupancy Com. Auerbacb Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmntai Review Committee: Chair Kwok reported that the next meeting was scheduled for March 14th,with the main topic being Garden Gate area city initiated prezoning to Pre-RI-010. Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported that the Housing Committee met and reviewed recommendations to the City Council for allocation of community development block grant funds. HUD regulations require that projects selected for funding benefit very Iow and Iow income households eliminate blighted areas or address an urgent community need. Mayor's Breakfast: Next mayor's breakfast is March 13th; Com. Corr to attend. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Com. Patnoe referred to the report relative to the City Council General Plan vision brainstorm aod said lie was looking forward to addressing some of the negatives listed on the report to be incorporated into the General Plan being reviewed. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on March 26, 2001. Respectfully Sub, miRed,