Loading...
PC 08-14-00CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 14, 2000 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Raymond Chung, Traffic Engineer; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the July 24, 2000 regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: Com. Corr moved approval of the minutes of July 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as presented SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Minutes of the July 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, requested the following changes to the July 10, 2000 Planning Commission minutes: Page 2, Paragraph 2, last sentence: Substitute the word "perception" for the word "fact". Page 6, Paragraph 6, second sentence: Substitute the word "environment "for "involvement ', third sentence: Substitute the word "unobtrusive" for the word "obtrusive". MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approved of the July 10, 2000 Planning Commission minutes as amended Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR It was noted that because of conflicts, the September 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting would be rescheduled to Wednesday, September 27, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 1,t, 2000 Application No.: 10-SP-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Consideration of modifications of Title 19 (zoning) of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to regulations for basements, professional offices and other modifications as may be needed to clarify the zoning ordinance. Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2000 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 1 l-U--00 Nextel Communications (Cupertino High School) 10100 Finch Avenue Use permit to replace an existing light standard at a high school stadium with a light standard/antenna and replace an existing snack shack with a snack shack/Nextel shelter. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of September I1, 2000 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 01-EXC-00, 03-EA-00 Chung Yeh 11837 Upland Way Hillside exception to build a 4,533 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes greater than 30%. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2000 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 04-SP-00, 14-EA-00 City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of modifications to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding construction noise. Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com Kwok moved to postpone Application 1 l-U-00 to the September 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Com Corr moved to postpone Applications 10-SP-00, 01-EXC-00, 03-EA-00, and 04-SP-00 to the September 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes ~ August 14, 2000 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 10-U-00, 05-EXC-00, 01-V-00 Ann Welsh, Whalen & Company Located to rear of 10590 Stokes Avenue Use permit to allow 16-panel antennae aerial on top of an existing 138-foot tall PG&E lattice tower plus associated cabinets at ground level. Height exception to allow a lattice tower mounted aerial at a maximum height of 150 feet where 55 feet is allowed. Varied to allow an aerial to be located less than 50 horizontal feet from a residentially zoned property. Continued from meeting of July 24, 2000 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the use permit, height exception and variance for the installation of a 16-panel antennae atop an existing PG&E lattice tower. Staff recommends denial of the application, believing other locations are more appropriate for the installation. A decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days. Mr. Jung explained the recommendation for denial. He noted that staff does not oppose antennae on lattice towers; however, the tower itself is visually obtrusive in the neighborhood, and the antenna would not improve on the visual obtrusiveness. In addition, there are no opportunities to mitigate either the appearance of the tower or the antennae themselves. It is felt that there are other suitable locations to mount the antennae on other lattice towers to suit the applicant's needs and not have the visual impacts the community is being asked to accept. He referred to a street map which illustrated the locations reviewed and two locations suitable for the applicant; one at the Cupertino Loc N Stor facility and the other at the lattice tower at Somerset Park. He explained that the Loc N Stor facility was not an economically feasible location for the applicant, and the Somerset Park location was outside the applicant's search ring of locations. Ms. Laura Spano, Whalen & Co. representing Metricom, distributed photo simulations of PG&E towers. She reviewed the specifications and application descriptions as set forth in the attached staff report. Relative to the two sites considered, she clarified that issue relative to theLoc N Stor facility was not a cost factor, but a time factor; noting that Sprint took over a year to finalize a lease and start building the site. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Emily Lee Kelly, 10571 Stokes Avenue, spoke in opposition of the application. She said she also owned the home at 10690 Stokes which took over a year to sell since it backed up to a PG&E tower. She said they felt it was not a minuscule addition to add something on top of an already Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 16, 2000 existing PG&E tower, and they were concerned about resale of their properties on Stokes Avenue. The neighbors are adamantly against any additions that would obstruct the views. Mr. Robert Wallace, 10600 Stokes Avenue, said they felt it was the third strike in the residential evaluation process, as their property backs up to the Highway 85 off ramp, with power lines and a tower behind the homes, and adjacent to the property with a tower behind it. He said the wireless panels would add to the devaluation of his property, and the placement of the panels requires more thought. Mr. Wallace said he felt the Loc N Stor facility was a suitable alternative to locate the antenna. He said it appears that all parties but the residents would benefit from the installation, because the residents have to view the structure on a daily basis. Mr. Alan Slusher, 10590 Stokes Avenue, said that his property was immediately in front of the proposed structure, and he is strongly opposed to the proposal. He submitted a petition in opposition to the project. He expressed concern about the visual impact of adding an antenna or hat on an existing structure; the safety issue during construction and the visual impacts, resulting in lower property values. He said that everyone benefits from electrical power, but wireless communication does not meet the same criteria, benefiting a much smaller segment of the community and does not warrant the visual pollution of the community. He said approval of the project would also open the door to other projects in the future. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Hams pointed out that a petition with 65 signatures was submitted from the immediately community in opposition of the proposal. Com. Doyle said that he was opposed to the application based on staffs recommendation. He said he felt the concept of going from a 150 foot exception to 25 feet was extreme; and suggested moving the location to the Loc N Store site. Com. Doyle said that ground rules should be set as he felt this would be the first of many applications for such proposals. Com. Kwok said he was opposed to the application based on staff's recommendation. He said there would be a telecommunications study in the neighborhood and additional information may be available. Other more appropriate sites should be considered. Com. Corr said he felt putting antennas on top of towers was a good concept; however, he was opposed to the particular application because it adds to what is already there, and the tower is outside of the applicant's ring of influence. Com. Stevens said he also supported denial of the application. He said the steel tower would be logical sites for antennae. He said the Loc N Stor facility was within the ½ mile radius and a more suitable alternate site. Chair Hams supported denial of the application. She said that the applicant's argument that it would take too long to get their negotiating complete does not have merit. She suggested thatfive year limits be put on all approvals when making the telecommunications study. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to deny Applications 10-U-00, 05-EXC-00 and 01-V-00 SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed (denial) 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes s August 14, 2000 Chair Harris noted that the decision was final unless appealed within 14 calendar days to the City Council. 5. Application No.: 12-U-00 Applicant: Nextel Location: 10555 Mary Avenue (City of Cupertino Corporation Yard) Use permit to replace an existing 40' Pac Bell Wireless monopole with a 60' Nextel/Pac Bell tree pole and ancillary ground equipment. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Mr. Jung reviewed the application for a use permit to construct a 60 foot tall tree pole to accommodate 12 four foot tall Nextel panel antennae mounted at a maximum height of 52 feet and three existing PBW panel antennae to be relocated to the tree pole and mounted at 40 feet in height. The project also includes the construction of an equipment shelter and the removal of an existing PBW monopole. He reviewed the background of the integration of the artificial tree pole, the site location, and the aesthetics of monopole, as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application in accordance with the model resolution. Mr. Ashra, Nextel, reviewed the aesthetics of the monopole and the integration of other foliage to create a satisfactory environmental context to obscure the antennae, and answered Planning Commissioners' questions. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Com. Stevens said he felt the application was an exciting proposal and he supported the application and use of the artificial tree to camouflage the antennae. He suggested the use of another tree, natural or artificial to complement themonopole. Com. Corr said that he supported the proposal in accordance with staff's recommendation. Com. Kwok said he supported the application in accordance with staff's recommendation. Com. Doyle said that he preferred the 52 foot monopole as it was in an area with no intrusions, and he felt the proposal looked like an unattractive Christmas tree. He added that it would be more appropriate in a grouping of trees matched to the area. Chair Harris said that she supported the application with the remOval of the pole that is presently there; addition of live trees, but not with the addition of a second artificial tree. She said that it could well serve as a model for the community for the future. Mr. Piasecki suggested that Condition 6 be amended to include the artificial tree as an option. MOTION: Com. Kwok moved approval of Application 12-U-00 including modifications to Section 3, No. 6, the addition of one live tree, approximately 35 feet, species subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development SECOND: Com. Corr NOES: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-1-0 Com. Doyle noted that his opposition related to his preference for the shorter visual monopole. Mr. Piasecki clarified that the natural tree was in lieu of providing a second tree pole. Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 14, 2000 6. Application Nos.: 20-U-99, 34-EA-99 Applicant: San Wang Restaurant Location: 1655 So. DeAnza Boulevard Use permit to extend hours of operation to 2:00 a.m. and to allow karaoke music in an existing restaurant;' 6-month review of temporary use permit. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Staff presentation.' Mr. Jung reported that staff was recommending re-approval of the use permit with no changes to the previous conditions, other than removing Condition 8 relative to permit expiration. He noted that the applicant was not present; however, wanted to draw attention to Condition 4 relative to exterior cleaning activities. The applicant questioned how relevant the condition was since it related to the maintenance of the parking area and landscape areas, which was not the responsibility of the restaurant operator; but the responsibility of the property owner who was performing those activities, and had no control over it. The applicant's attorney requested that the condition be modified or deleted in its entirety, or stated that any maintenance and cleaning activities would be performed by the applicant. Mr. Jung noted that the existing hours of operation were Sunday to Thursday, 10 to 9 p.m.; no new patrons after 9 p.m.; all exitpremises by 10 p.m.; Friday and Saturday 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., no new patrons after 10 p.m., all exit by 11 p.m. The applicant is responsible for cleaning 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. Sunday to Thursday and 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Staff recommends no change in permit, but recommends removal of the condition for six month review and modify the condition on cleaning and maintenance activities to make certain that it refers to cleaning and maintenance to be conducted by the applicant. Com. Corr referred to Condition 7 relative to the inspection and maintenance of the ventilation system and stated that it was written at the time that there were problems with the ventilation system, and that they needed to be addressed and applicant would arrange to have the ventilation system inspected by a licensed contractor. He said he felt it was now inappropriate because they were informed it was taken care of. He said he felt it should state that the applicant shall keep the HVAC system in good working order and in compliance with current health and safety codes and shall also perform regular maintenance of the system to curb the emanation of detectable food and grease odors from the restaurant into the adjacent residential areas. The applicant was not present. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. P. LaBobera, landlord of the property, said that he concurred with what was discussed. He said that professional cleaners cleaned the premises although it was difficult to work within the conformance of the 10 p.m. time period, as the front area was cleaned first and the workers would return to clean the back section early in the morning. He reported that shields were installed on the lighting system in the rear of the building. He noted that the residents to the rear of the property had trimmed the trees to allow more illumination on their property. Chair Hams closed the public hearing. .... s ? August 14, 2000 Plannlng Commission Minute MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 20-U-99, modifying Condition 4 to read that cleaning and maintenance activities be performed by the applicant; and modify Condition 7 to read: "The applicant shall keep the HVAC system in good working order and in compliance with current health and safety codes and shall also perform regular maintenance of the ventilation system to curb the emanation of detectable food and grease odors from the restaurant into the adjacent residential area." Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Chair Harris declared a recess from 8:25 p.m. to 8:40 p.m. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 13-U-00, 15-EA-00, 07-EXC-00 Pinn Brothers 19979-19999 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use permit to demolish an 19,105 square foot shopping center and construct a mixed use development consisting of 5,600 square feet of retail, 6,000 square feet of office, and 46 condominiums/townhome units on a 1.71 gross acre site. Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow a 15-foot side setback where 20 feet is required to a mixed use development. Tentative City Council date: September 5, 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to demolish an existing shopping center and replace with a mixed use development consisting of retail and office uses and condominium townhomes, as outlined in the attached staffreport. The applicant is requesting an exception to the Heart of the City Plan setback allowance for a 15 foot side setback in order to push the project away from Blaney Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the application and will be forwarded to City Council at the September 5th meeting. Mr. Peter Gilli, Assistant Planner, summarized the project's conformance with the General Plan and the Heart of the City Specific Plan, followed by an overview of the commercial component, residential component, traffic impacts and shared parking analysis. He noted that the applicant was providing an additional landscaped front yard area on Blaney Avenue and as a result has reduced the side setback with the office building to 15 feet, which staff feels is appropriate because it is an office use and the 5 feet could be more suitably used on Blaney Avenue to provide more green space between the building and the public right of way. He said that the General Plan allows for discounting of parking standards for mixed use projects, and the zoning ordinance provides a table for small mixed use projects, but for larger mixed use projects such as the proposal, the ordinance instructs reliance upon the traffic report and a study based on the demand of parking stalls over time between the uses. Staff answered questions relative to parking, traffic, site design and open space. Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, reviewed the Traffic Operations Analysis, including trip generation, traffic operations, project scenarios intersection LOS, parking operations and Stevens Planning Commission Minutes g Augugt l~, ~000 Creek/Blaney intersection modifications. He noted that no significant queuing was found at the intersections, LOS was adequate at D or better, site access and circulation was adequate; and in terms of neighborhood traffic impact, there may be 6 trips going to the neighborhood, which staff felt was not a significant impact. Staff concludes that the development is adequate, but with concerns relative to shared parking which could be remedied with a parking management plan. Mr. Greg Pinn, Pinn Brothers, pointed out that there was a shared parking agreement with the owners of the office building. Mr. Jim Yee, Dahlin Group, clarified that the proposed units would all be condominium units. Mr. Yee acknowledged the excellent working relationship developed with staff. Referring to the site plan, he reviewed the existing site and the proposed development, and answered Planning Commissioners' questions. He said that the onsite amenities included 60 square feet of private decking, fountains, and passive open space. Mr. Piasecki explained that the 5 below market rate units would be determined by staff and the developer using the guidelines of the BMR program. Mr. Yee answered questions relative to the setbacks, parking, site access, and architectural design of the buildings. Chair Harris expressed concern that there were no amenities provided for the residents, such as parks, athletic club or spa. Mr. Gilli said that the developer paid the park fees required for the development; otherwise all that is provided is the passive exterior common open space areas which are within walking distance to Portal Park. Mr. Gilli answered questions on setbacks, color palette, and said that the project would go through architectural and site approval for the details including the color. Mr. Yee requested that Condition 2 be amended to address a neighbor's concern that a double row of larger trees be planted along Blaney in front of the residential component, which would be part of the architectural site approval. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Rich Lorden, 10128 Meyer Place, commended the Planning Commission on their thoroughness. He said that he supported the overall aesthetics of the plan, which he said were a vast improvement over what was present. He said they were also supportive of the camphor trees on the north side of the facility and the concept of larger trees on the Blaney side. He said he was also concerned about the parking on Blaney, which would block traffic; and the overall parking plan. He requested a condition of development be that there be a shared parking agreement. Relative to the use of a bar, he said he hoped that another bar would not part of the development. He expressed concern about the maximum plan occupancy for each unit, stating that it seemed overcrowded. Chair Harris clarified that there was a need for the cities to provide housing and Cupertino did not have an abundance of for-sale condominium units. Planning Commission Minutes 0 .~ugust l,t, ~000 Mr. Rick Woodlin, Rick's Shoe Repair, said that his business had been located in the center for over 25 years, and although the proposed plan was attractive, there was no contingency for current tenants to remain in their current spaces; and based upon research he felt the new rents would likely prohibit his business from remaining in Cupertino. He said his customers indicated they would like to see their past services maintained. He questioned if there was a plan to assist the small businesses staying in the area. He said the plans for the new center included eateries, which were already in ample supply in Cupertino. Mr. Woodlin questioned the timeline for the beginning of the project, and how much time the tenants would have to vacate their premises. He said he would prefer to remain in the same location if possible. Chair Harris clarified that the Planning Commission was not involved in those decisions, and the tenant and landlord would have to work out such issues. Ms. Felicia Thompson, Wheaton Drive, said that she was thrilled with the proposed project because there have been ongoing problems for the past 17 years with the present center. She expressed concem with the density of the proposed project; property values, noise impacts, and parking on Wheaton Drive. She said she would like assurance that if a parking spillover problem arose in the future, it would be addressed without having to return to the Planning Commission. She said she was supportive of the project, and commended the Pinn Brothers for their communication with the neighbors. Mr. Pinn said that he planned on meeting with the tenants to discuss the timeline and schedules. He said that there would be shared access and parking, and he did not foresee any problem with overflow parking. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Hams asked staff to outline what would not be part of the approval, but would be accomplished outside of this forum through architecture or working with the Community Development Director. Mr. Gilli stated that Condition 3 delineated what was covered under the architectural and site approval. He explained the architect's planned use ofkoolstone would break up the blank wall, and other detail would be considered to make the wall appear more dressy. Com. Doyle expressed concern that the open space on the east side met the intent and requirements, and is not just a setback with a walkway surrounding it. He also said that the fences on the Blaney side of the development are in the Heart of the City Plan setback zone, and the interpretation is that the Heart of the City Plan does not apply to that side of the parcel. He pointed out that a ruling was needed on the interpretation. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said that a decision could not be rendered this evening if it was to be a conditional approval. Chair Harris expressed concern about the lack of onsite amenities such as BBQ areas, spa, and exercise facilities. Com. Stevens expressed concern about the parking in general, reciprocal parking and parking on Blaney Avenue. He said he felt there was not adequate parking. Below is a summary of the issues Planning Commission Minutes I0 August l& 2000 Issue Doyle Kwok Corr Stevens Harris Approval of Excellent Supports Supports Supports Supportive, yet ~roject project; )rojects for project project not at approval supportive of added housing point because project too many open questions Parking Unisize Questionable Ok if shared Concerned - Ok if there is spaces but suitable parking part of unisize reciprocal appropriate original spaces not agreement for approval solution 19 spaces Reciprocal ok with Shared Should be part Define Define parking shared parking ok of initial "reciprocal" "reciprocal" agreement approval Parking on Lose it Yes, Lose it No OK because of Blaney consistent shortage with S. Blaney Architecture/ Excellent - Appropriate- OK- lighten OK- lighten Suggested Stevens Creek lighten lighter color base color base color mitigation of Frontage color; fine Stevens Creek Mitigation Stevens Ck. Frontage frontage mitigation needed Setback 15 ft setback 15 ft. setback Setback Staff 15 ft setback exception of appropriate appropriate exchange requirement appropriate 15 vs 20 ft appropriate ok Breezeway Needs more Needed for Improve- Add lighting Need safety detail security ments ok for or windows lighting/mirrors (windows) purposes security for security for safety South Break up Ok- add OK- OK Add interest; elevation (tuck wall - add interest add interest applicant's under) interest suggestion ok East side open Make sure ~t Make sure it Is exception Is exception Is exception space is recognized Is used & required? required? required? as an asset Recognized as Asset Onsite Need some Need some Not needed Should have Need some amenities some Heart of City Need legal Subject to Need legal Need legal Need legal /Blaney interpretation legal interpretation interpretation interpretation Setback interpretation Mr. Piasecki recommended onstreet parking on Blaney Avenue since it creates a residential environments and provides a buffer, making it pedestrian friendly. He said he did not feel anything happening on the east side of Blaney would interfere with circulation movement on the west side of Blaney. He also said that the issue of open space would have to be addressed. Planning Commission Minutes 11 August 14, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 13-U-00, 15-EA-00 and 07-EXC-00 to the September 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Corn. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported that the City Council met August 8th to discuss the capital improvements program and were considering setting a minimum reserve level which will require rcprioritization of some projects in the CIP. He reported that the contact phone numbers would be issued on a wallet sized card for ease of reference. He briefly discussed the upcoming Railvolution Conference. Chair Harris recommended that Com. Con' attend the conference and said she would also like to attend if the city was able to assist with a portion of her expenses. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Mayor's Breakfast: Chair Harris noted that the August 15th Mayor's breakfast was cancelled and the attendance schedule would be modified by staff. Environmental Review Committee: Com. Corr reported on the recent ERC meeting. Housing Committee: Com. Kwok reported that the next meeting of the committee was August 17th. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on September 11, 2000. (Meeting of August August 25, 2000 cancelled). Respectfully Submitted, Elizabet~~/'' Recording Secretary Approved as presented: September 11, 2000