Loading...
PC 07-10-00CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUT£S OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 10, 2000 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Colin dung, Associate Planner; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the dune 12, 2000 Planning Commission meetings' MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2000 Planning Commission meetings as presented SECOND: ~ Com. Doyle ABSTAIN: Corns. Doyle and Stevens VOTE: Passed 3-0-2 Minutes of the dune 26, 2000 Planning Commission meetings Com. Stevens referred to Page 6, and asked that Mr. Monk's specific comments asking for a benchmark study to be made., be included in the minutes with Mr. Monk's comments. Page 7 - Com. Stevens said he was not opposed to the height; however, asked that the text be modified to state: *'some members of the public voiced their concern regarding height exception" ...hpprovals and he expressed caution that a plan existed and it should be met. MOTION: Com. Stevens moved to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2000 Planning Commission meetings as amended SECOND: Com. Doyle ABSTAIN: Com. Corr and Chairperson Harris VOTE: Passed 3-0-2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted a letter from Mr. Monk expressing concern about traffic impacts related to the hotel projects, and requesting traffic studies on certain streets for volume of traffic and speeds, and questioning what the norms were and that staff assess traffic calming measures where appropriate. POSTPONEMENTS FROM CALENDAR 4. Application Nos.: l-V-00, 10-U-00, 5-EXC-00 Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 10, 2000 Applicant: Ann Welsh, Whalen & Company Location: Located to rear of 10590 Stoke 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. Variance to allow an aerial to be located less than 50 horizontal feet from a residentially zoned property. Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None STUDY SESSION Com. Corr moved to postpone Applications l-V-00, 10-U-00, 5-EXC-00 to the July 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Com. Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: 9-SP-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Study session with the Telecommunications Commission regarding a scope of work for the Wireless Communications Master Plan. Staff presentation: The members of the Telecommunications Commission introduced themselves: Chair L. T. Guttadeauro, D. Eggelston, E. Tsui, S. Algeri, and W. Malmion who was attending a meeting in Rancho Rinconada relative to communications issues. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, said that there was no precedent for a wireless master plan in Cupertino, or the county and most likely most of the State of California, and said it would be a pioneering effort for the city. He said these types of facilities were not well understood by public agencies and were much better understood by the private-industry who have hired the experts in the area. He said he was grateful that the Telecommunications Commission has stepped in at this point to attempt to prepare the master plan since they were receiving applications for antennas despite the perception that they were already built out to the maximum in Cupertino. Mr. Jung highlighted a portion of the ordinance as it pertains to the wireless master plan. 1. Maximum height of 55 feet except when mounted on a building, or when an exception is granted, as an exception for height. They have been restricted to non residential zone properties only. When an applicant comes in with an antenna, they are asked to prepare a master plan for other future antennas to be built in the city. Occasionally, carriers comeback revising their master plan, so it seems that technology is evolving even faster than the carriers and the people they hired to permit them understand it. Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 10, 2000 4. Visual simulation of what the antennas will look like is required. 5. Screening of the antennas as part of the design review process is required. Mr. Jung explained the difference of the master plan from the ordinance in effect. The ordinance is a reactive type of ordinance in that there is an application which is addressed based on the standards established in that ordinance relative to height, dimensions, and locations. It is not a plan for the future buildout of a wireless network, and does not for example, contemplate what this network would look with eight or nine carriers with their networks superimposed on each other. It does not anticipate the possibilities of co-locations in particular areas in the city. The ordinance at this point does not address the potential incursions of antennas in residential areas, churches and also on other public properties such as city parks, or even school sites. He said there are a number of other issues that can be addressed in the master plan that is not being satisfactorily addressed in the wireless communications ordinance. He briefly reviewed the objectives outlined in the staff report and the handout, including industry participation, map of appropriate antenna locations, policy development, outside expertise, public involvement, and cost recovery for planning. Mr. Guttadeauro explained the role of the Telecommunications Commission (TC). He said they were not planning on taking this on as a project as it was well beyond the scope of the TC; but they were willing to serve as an additional resource to staff as a subcommittee, with 2 of the 4 persons being available at any one time as a subcommittee to offer technical guidance. He emphasized they were not expert in the area of creating a master plan. He reported that the TC's purpose was to serve as a liaison between AT&T Cable and the city, and said when it was the Cable Commission, they were initially involved in reviewing the contract and making certain recommendations regarding both aspects for the city and DeAnza College which serves as the studio. He outlined the TC's involvement and role in utilizing the DeAnza facilities for public broadcasting, and educating the public and schools through grants. The TC charter was recently expanded to include all telecommunications that Cupertino may be interested in, including wireless, such as DSL. Another goal is to promote more competition coming into Cupertino to benefit the residents by reducing their costs. They were initially involved in antenna applications by submitting their input and getting their involvement started. Chair Harris questioned the scope of the rules, and the justification for granting permits for antennas . Mr. Jung said that the federal legislation b-broad and expansive, and the federal authority did preserve a local zoning authority to site antennas, with the exception of some smaller ones for residential purposes, but for the most part the city retains its zoning authority to review the applications for certain range of issues, fairly inclusive of any other type of development in Cupertino, with one or two exceptions. He said relative to the access issue, he believed it was the federal intent that the city be accommodating in that they do not exclude carriers from providing coverage in Cupertino but still retain the zoning authority to decide where the antennas can be located. He said the master plan under discussion is only going to be discussing the wireless applications; none of the hard wired ones; it is more general than cell phones. It was stated that some service providers are coming in with broadband wireless access, and will also include data as well as voice. Planning Commission Minutes 4 July I0, 2000 Mr. Jung discussed tile process to arrive at the present status. He stated that Cupertino was a low profile community, with lower buildings. He discussed what other cities are doing and what criteria they are using The cities either have an ordinance or a set of design guidelines, but have not taken a holistic approach to planning the facilities; they approach it in a reactive way when the application is submitted. There is a set of criteria, and with flexibility in design review, the applicant is informed what is needed to make it work and the antenna is placed in much the same location as industry requests, given the ordinance or the design guidelines articulated by the city. He pointed out that Cupertino was fortunate that they were getting a network built in the range of only between 40 and 65 feet, since other communities in Florida and Washington were getting 200 foot towers. Mr. Jung said that they had an exception process and until now the industry had not felt the need to use it with the possible example 6f the Apple height exception which was not viewed favorably by the Planning Commission, and which the applicant subsequently withdrew and proposed in a different configuration. He said they assumed through the master plan process that they could refine their criteria somewhat and be more specific about their needs~ resulting in fewer exceptions. Com. Stevens said that the concept of bringing the TC to the Planning Commission and asking questions, is that the Planning Commission has been asked to approve various antenna installations and has been responding to public input on the height, possible safety implications, etc. and being that they are not a technical body, felt this should be considered by the TC. He said he wanted safety concerns to be addressed and publicly known, and wanted safe, consistent answers that have been reviewed and are not speculation. He said that height and aesthetics are also issues; height determined by the topography, in that there are hills and valleys and with wireless, there are areas that are not covered. He referred to an earlier comment that these issues were not unknown, that they were not politically or economically driven, but a scientific standard. He said it was proposed that the unknowns or scare factors be demonstrated and answered, so that the public could be rest assured. Because of the competition, several companies would be vying for particular locations, etc. He questioned consideration of using a single area or multiple antenna, a single antenna with a multiple transmission concept being reviewed, and have this as a city concept not as a reactionary; and lastly, who does the Planning Commission say yes to, and whose request is denied; is the FCC dictating or does the city dictate? He said the most important factor is that the community be rest assured of safety, and their views not be obscured by antennas when not necessary. He said the aforementioned areas were where the Telecommunications Commission's expertise was needed. Mr. Piasecki said that one of the purposes of fl~e study~was to better understand the limits of authority, and the state and federal regulations imposed upon the limited cities. He said they did not have unlimited power and did not know if the answers to some of the questions were available, but would be empowered to try to answer them. Com. Stevens questioned whether the TC was the appropriate body to be the focal point for the City of Cupertino as the Planning Commission was looking for guidance since they felt they were not experts in the area. Mr. Guttadeauro said they were asked to comment on the ordinance and did so, as well as accepting many suggestions; but being citizens as well, had similar concerns and questions, and would be willing to assist with whatever areas they specialized in. Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 10, 2000 Com. Corr said from his standpoint if an application is received stating they need a tower a certain height, he questions whether they need that particular height or just want the specific height; the Planning Commission wants to be able to seek advice from the TC relative to thenecessary height for that particular antenna. He said he did not want unattractive antenna farms placed all around the city. Mr. Jung said he envisioned working with a subcommittee of the TC which would involve extra meetings. Mr. Piasecki said that the TC would be a sounding board for the Planning Commission to bring issues to them for their expertise and advice on whether or not it was the right direction to go in terms of a policy standpoint, and make recommendations which would be forwarded to the City Council. The industry participants would attend the meeting and explain their needs and goals and a consultant, if hired, would also attend the meeting and help shape a policy for the future. He said a Planning Commissioner could be assigned to the committee. Mr. Jung said that it need not be a complicated effort; but something simple and viewed as more of an educational process for the Planning Commission as well as staff, so that they could develop worthy policies and a good plan and map for the city. Mr. Tsui said that in the future, wireless technology will become more dominant and more people will have antenna requests which will require more coverage, and they need to work diligently in putting together a framework that can accommodate all types of wireless technology. He said the ordinance should be written to address future needs. Another member of the TC said that Mr. Jung had the foresight to seek help with one of the exceptions,;since the relative questions had to be posed to the applicant, with an understanding of the answers. The TC recommended that Cupertino look at the overall picture. Part of the goal of the TC is to increase the access to telecommunications in Cupertino, but at the same time remain aesthetically pleasing, and inform the public what some of the issues are, such as safety concerns with so many antennas in close proximity to residences. Most of the members of the TC have engineering backgrounds and can offer assistance in that area. He said that plans from other cities should be studied as well. The wireless industry is in the early stages of a boom in wireless communication, which is growing rapidly and will have a lot of force behind if there is no a plan to compare it to. The TC could assist in the industry participation to ensure honest dealings with policy development and be involved with public information to better inform the general public. He questioned the role of the TC in being able to look at other plans, and should a consultant be hired. Mr. Algeri concurred with the previous speakers, mad said that Cupertino was a good candidate for an early deployment of wireless networking to the home, as it was indicated at a recent forum that they would not have DSL for one or two years, leaving cable as the only high speed service. He said it needed to be viewed in a more global fashion, and those with engineering backgrounds could lend their expertise to keep the industry honest and on top of the table by their responses. They could assist on a part time basis to accomplish those things; and hire consultants to work on policy, which is their weak area. Chair Harris questioned why it wouldn't be a function of the commission as a whole rather than a subcommittee, as part of their agenda. The members of the TC said it was a reasonable suggestion and would be considered at their next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 10, 2000 Com. Kwok suggested that the TC at their next meeting could discuss the scope of work for the consultants, the technical aspects, the policy aspects, and some of the areas outlined by staff and work with staff to see what is the best scope of work for the consultants to handle, and when the consultant is on board, steer them to come up with the final products. The TC could also provide expertise, assistance and comments in the best interest of Cupertino. Mr. Guttadeauro said their agenda was already finalized for the year, and since they were halfway through the year, to take on such a scope would disrupt what they are already working on. He said they would consider the suggestions and would discuss it at their meeting and bring back a recommendation regarding the extent of their participation with the Planning Commission. Chair Harris said that the TC could provide recommendations and their expertise and the City Council would take care of the policy issues. Information from other cities could be also be useful, to see what was successful and eliminate reinventing the wheel. · Com. Doyle suggested that staff work with the TC to look at the best way to come back with a roadmap for the development of the program; is it more feasible to have it part of the regular agenda or have two people working on the project separately for a month, six months, or a year? He said relative to what they were looking to accomplish, the major concerns were addressed, and he felt they should not attempt to identify potential technologies and legislate around those, but identify the main concerns, and what impacts they may have on what is allowed. If iris a safety issue, how would it impact the siting or the realities of what would be imposed. That and the visual impacts are other issues, and there may be two or three other ones that could be identified. When the new technology comes on board make certain there is some review or trip line that questions if it does meet the criteria from the past and if it is not safe, identify rights and limits, help characterize that, and have a means of creating lower and fewer exceptions or impacts. Co- location has been unsuccessful in the past; are there other elements that could bebrought forward, and make some synergies out of these, that may not happen by themselves. Mr. Jung distributed photo simulations and discussed various antenna locations. He addressed the olnmumty s perception about commercial intrusion onto the residentialenvironment with the placemeut of the antennae. He said he felt it was unobtrusive; however, he was not certain how .the community would react Chair Harris suggested writing into the ordinance 5 year reviews, and not allowing perpetual use, which would require them to choose the newer technology even if there is cost involved. Relative to commercialization,-she said it could also be conceived as a benefit to the residents in the community to have better cellular and wireless service, so they would be willing to sacrifice the aesthetics for the beneficial use. She said that in strictly residential areas without commercial locations, an ordinance is written allowing only in commercial locations, and the city may be keeping people from having that benefit in their part of town. She said she did not advocate it since she was concerned about safety as it was next to a park, where the children are; however, it is a balance, and the need and use has to be weighed against what the issues are. Com. Corr likened it to an elephant in the picture, as there was discussion about bringing in services to the community, while ignoring the fact that there is a telephone pole in the middle with electrical wires at the top; and later the phone wires above where the proposed antenna is, together with a transformer and cable, which are located throughout the neighborhoods, so if one can unobtrusively as iudicated put one more technology on the existing elephant, it seems to work. He Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 10, 2000 said it did not make sense to be so concerned about adding a small box when all the other technology was already strung throughout the neighborhood. Chair Harris said that she felt there was adequate direction, and she hoped that the TC would use their expertise to assist the city for the benefit of the community. She said theymay decide to have a subcommittee that would meet and forward recommendations on, which would allow members to work on the project and not become overburdened. In response to a question about the anticipated schedule, Chair Harris said she estimated 4 to 6 months. Com. Doyle said it would be beneficial if they could address the major considerations in safety and technical, and some of the considerations resulting from the first review, to alleviate the possibility of doing something that puts people at risk, and to buy time until they have a more comprehensive process to utilize. Mr. Jung said he did not have a staging plan since part of the work requires an outside consultant. He said he felt it would not be too difficult to get outside input from the industry as materials were readily available to address the issues and there needs to be a steep learning curve, not only getting the industry information, but perhaps some presentations by an outside consultant to understand what the parameters are and how the concerns would fit in or conflict with the work parameters. Once educated, putting together a plan might not be such a difficult task, aside from the actual site locations. Chair Harris said there was an existing ordinance and it was not their intent to hold anything up while the o~rdinance is revised; suggestions will be considered and a reasonable time allowed for the process; hire the consultant when the funds are available and in the meantime work on other things as outlined. Com. Stevens said that they were not asking for, or recommending, a policy or procedure for something they are not familiar with, but to identify what is needed before the policy is developed that would be in the community's best interest. Com. Corr commented earlier that possible use of existing telephone poles and the like throughout the neighborhood should have the specter of trying to get rid of them and put them underground; therefore if it is decided that they can be put on an existing telephone pole, it indicates that the telephone should be there forever, which is not the concept. The basis rule and concern is safety, aesthetics and city boundaries. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. ---~ Mr. Chris Fowler, Cellular One, said that he acquires real estate for cell sites and understands what Cellular One is attempting with the master plan in Cupertino. He said they were built out in Cupertino except for two locations they are currently pursuing, and he said he felt that thewest side of Highway 85 is lacking coverage and also the corner around Bollinger and Blaney is presently weak. He said there were presently six sites in Cupertino and two were missing according to the engineer's buildout plan. In response to a question about co-locating, Mr. Fowler said that it was dependent on frequency, who was broadcasting at what frequency. He said that usage of cell phones was highest on high traffic roads with backup. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Com. Stevens commented that acronyms were useful to those familiar with them; however. those who were not familiar with them, it might appear that the discussions were' for not accomplishing anything. He said he was aware of what Sutro Tower looked like, but also knew why it was built, and that is another alternative that should either be considered, denied or at least addressed; meaning that should we have a Sutro Tower or not; and if not, why, and put the question to rest. Chair Harris asked staff to return with a specific recommendation on how the process should work with the other committee, together with the two documents and the minutes; and a recommendation to be forwarded to City Council of how much money to request for the consultant. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 9-SP-00 to the July 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: I-U-00, 2-EA-00 Pinn Brothers (The Adobe Inn Hotel) 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit ;to demolish a restaurant and construct a 47,000 square foot, 77 room hotel. Continued from June 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Tentative City Council Hearing date.. July 17, 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish a restaurant and construct a 47,000 square foot hotel. Exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan height and setback allowance are requested. Staff recommends approval in accordance with the model resolution. The application was continued from the June 26th Planning Commission meeting to address the following issues: east side setbacks; visibility of third level trellis;wainscoating band; size of north and west entrances; mid-block pedestrian access; perimeter landscaping; revision to front setback; sanitary sewer capacity; and development allocation. The issues are outlined in the attached staff report. Chair Harris asked for explanation of the front setback revision issue. Mr. Jung discussed the correction to the drawings, which accounted for a decrease in the front setback from 60 feet to 35 feet. He noted that the actual setback of the building to the face of curb was 45 feet. He pointed out that despite the increase in the setback, staff feels additional setback is still needed for the following reasons. There is concern about the visual mass of the building itself and its presence on Stevens Creek Boulevard as it is a tall building set back closer to the street than the podium and dominates the one story building to the south of it. Mr. Jung said there was also concern about the ramping down to the garage itself. Modification needs to be made so that the trash collection can take place outside the garage with an increased setback, and it will provide a safe access out of the garage. He said he was requesting that an ASA review be completed by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Jung indicated that the only resident concern was from George Monk, who was primarily concerned about intensification and diversion of traffic onto residential streets. Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 10, 2000 Chair Harris expressed concern that staff was recommending approval despite the number of major items to be changed and reviewed. Mr. Piasecki clarified that the changes recommended by staff were bringing back the initial plan set shown; the building will be set back closer to 55. feet; the 5 foot setback on the east side will enhance the relationship to the neighboring property instead of reducing it; a condition of approval states that the application has to be returned to the Design Review Committee to look at the other details. Staff feels the plan is an enhancement from the previous submittal, and meets the objectives discussed. Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, said that in terms of trip generation, the project would generate 43 a.m. peak hour trips, and 47 p.m. peak hour trips, with no anticipation of pass-by trips because of the type of land use; in terms of the traffic operations, he said there were no significant impacts in terms of queuing except for DeAnza and Stevens Creek; all intersections will operate at Level Service D or better; no queue spillbacks because of the project; there is adequate site access and circulation at the particular hotel site, and they do not perceive any neighborhood traffic impact. Mr. Fred Kelly, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., reviewed the table indicating the LOS for existing conditions, noting that the LOS for DeAnza and Stevens Creek did not change; the cumulative conditions scenario including the City Center Development with no changes. He also said there were no queuing impacts at the intersections for the left turn and right turn movements. Mr. Jung answered Planning Commissioners' questions. Relative to potential hotel liability pertaining to the Lake Biltmore residents having access to Stevens Creek, Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant ~ity Attorney, clarified that the hotel has liability issues when someone is on their property. The City would not have liability. Mr. Piasecki pointed out that the City Council reiterated to the Planning Commission on several occasions that they desired a more walkable community and access points through projects, which is something being addressed across the board. Mr. Gregg Pinn, applicant, clarified that the proposal was for 50 feet and the project was now 45 feet. He said he was not opposed to moving the building back, but it would necessitate relocating 4 guest rooms from the meeting facility area on the first floor. He pointed out that the room count would not change, and relative to the 15 foot east side setback, they were being penalized for a nonconforming use, which is a 20 foot two story. He said that when taking the air conditioning cover into account, which roughly is the same size as ~ two story structure along the back, it enhances the structure and the beauty of the new structure is diminished. Relative to parking, it is common knowledge that the hotels are very rarely at 100% occupancy; however the 80 spaces will accommodate it, and in discussions with the hotel operators that plan on bidding on the property, most of the back of the house staff either get rides to work, take the bus or bike ride. If it were to be 100% occupied, there are 77 rooms and the 3 is more than adequate for a reception person, an accounting person and a marketing person as well as one for the back of the house person. Relative to fire safety, he said he felt they have gone above and beyond what the project called for. There is currently a 20 foot public service easement up against the podium which is for fire access. He said the building needs to stand on its own, therefore they went forward with a Type 2 structure and one that is fireproof, so we at great expense decided to go forward with a typo 2 structure and one that is fireproof. The fire department is in agreement at this time. Planning Commission Minutes lO July 10, 2000 Responding to a question, Mr. Pinn said plans included a small exercise area with a treadmill and some dumbbells for a business traveler, currently on the third floor penthouse level. A discussion ensued regarding the setbacks wherein staff answered Planning Commissioners' questions. Mr. Pinn discussed the setbacks and architectural modifications since the last presentation. He said the stucco materials blended with the building. He illustrated the location of the access from the Lake Biltmore apartments. Mr. Piasecki clarified that any time an access is opened up, a certain amount of risk exists. He said that the Biltmore apartments owner would have to want to do this and understand that they were opening that risk. They could limit the gated area to their own residents only. He said they were aware that the development was proceding forward and the saffwas considering the option. If the apartment owner was not agreeable, the applicant would be asked to record a covenant agreeing to provide it at such time in the future that the adjoining property owner would be willing to accept it. Mr. Pinn said that there was a 20 foot PUE running past the parking lot to the Lake Biltmore all the way through to Stevens Creek Boulevard where potentially a gate could be located; the problem occurs where the public service easement jogs for fire access, and there would be an area to the street that would be another property owner's problem. He said that it if was a requirement, they would notify the neighbors what is available to them Mr. Jung said that the setback requirement for the Heart of the City Specific Plan was 35 feet from the face of the curb, but in addition to that there is a General Plan design requirement of a one to one building height to setback ratio. He explained that the side setback exception is basically for the length of the building; the minimum setback shown is 10 feet, but what is required is 19-1/2 feet along the side. Mr. Piasecki said that if you approve tbe 15 foot setback on the eastside, you would change that to read 15 foot in lieu of the 19 feet. Chair Harris asked where moving the trash enclosure out of the garage was addressed. Mr. Jung said that tbe issue would be addressed in the ASA review. The setback requested in the resolution takes care of that from a spatial standpoint but the details will be worked out in the design review application. Mr. Piasecki clarified that trash enclosure location would be added to Condition 10. Chair Harris expressed concern with the bad precedent stating that the hotel of 77 rooms could be serviced by 3 employees and our rules say one per room, and one per employee. If we can say that it will be 77 plus 5 parking spaces and one per employee it would be more realistic. Mr. Piasecki noted that Condition 1 could be modified to indicate that the exhibits are modified to provide a minimum of 82 parking spaces in the garage. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Mr. Chong said that the traffic department would address Mr. Monk's concerns regarding the traffic study. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved approval of Application 2-EA-00 Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes l~ July 10, 2000 MOTION SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of Application 6-EXC-00, including the amendment in the headnotes "exception for a maximum building height of 45 feet in lieu of 41 feet, and the westside setback of 10 feet in lieu of 19-1/2, and the eastside setback of 15 feet in lieu of 19-1/2 feet", and the remainder as stated. Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 Com. Corr moved to approve Application l-U-00 as amended, with the changes in Item 1 and Item I0 Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING cOMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Next meeting Wednesday, July 12. Housing Committee: No meeting held Mayor's Breakfast: Tuesday, July 11 at 7:15 a.m. at Hobee's Restaurant. Chair Harris reported that the sculpture Four Seasons was chosen for the Four Seasons Park and said that other designs were chosen for other parks in the city. She reported that the Public Safety Committee planned to work on a no loitering ordinance. She cautioned that when the ordinance is presented to the City Council to keep in mind that there is a more global view to consider, in that the city is working to develop areas for residents to congregate and an ordinance to take care of one problem shouldn't undermine what they are working hard for. Chair Harris said that the guidelines for community standards should be updated, including the rules for motorhomes, decibel ratings, maximum number of pets for households. Chair Harris recommended that each Planning Commissioners receive a copy of the historic research committee document. Chair Harris discussed the upcoming Railvolution Conference in Colorado relative to transportation, land use planning, etc. and recommended attendance. Com. Doyle reported on the recent Residential Design Review Committee meeting where the approval of changes in siding and removal of washing machines in the Biltmore Apartments was discussed. A brief discussion followed relative to whether an issue should be heard by the RDRC or the Planning Commission. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki highlighted the upcoming Leadership Conference. He also stated that avideo tape of the meetings would be sent out to Commissioners if they were absent from the meeting. He presented a list of staff phone numbers and encouraged the Planning Commissioners to call staff with questions prior