Loading...
PC 03-08-99CITY OF CUPERTINO ! 0300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 8, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Harris, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Planner II; Tricia Maier, Planning Intern; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the February 22, 1999 regular Planning Commission meeting: Com. Kwok noted that the word "specialty" in the last paragraph on Page 1-9, was incorrectly spelled. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of the February 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting as amended. SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Doyle noted communications received relative to the agenda items, and a report from the Director of Community Development. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: MOTION: Com. Harris moved to postpone Application 32-ASA-98 (Item 3); 16-U-98, and 43-EA-98 (Item 4) to the March 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. SECOND Com. Corr VOTE Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 2. Application No.: 17-U-9-80 (M) Applicant: Glenoaks Park Villas Association Location: Homestead Koad and Sweet Oak Street Modification of a landscape plan to remove and replace trees in an existing residential development. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 1999 Com. Harris requested that Item 2 be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered later in the meeting as she did not receive a copy of the item until late today and did not have ample time to read it. Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 8, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to consider Item 2 later in thc meeting Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 1 -EXC-99 Cal-Neon Signs (Walgreens) 10795 So. Blaney & 20075 Bollinger Sign exception to exceed the number of ground and wall signs in accordance with Title 17 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for sign exception for three ground signs, in lieu of the two allowed ground signs; a total of 108 sq. 1~. of ground sign area in lieu of the allowable 100 sq. f~. maximum; and three wall signs, in lieu of the maximum one wall sign. The present application is a reduction of the original 7 requests for sign exceptions to 3. The property has received City Council approval for a three lot parcel map and is to be recorded in the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office. The placement of the proposed ground and wall signs was reviewed as outlined in the attached staff report. Staffrecommands approval of the three sign ordinance exceptions but recommends that the height of the Watgreans' wall sign be reduced to 2 feet. A Planning Commission decision if reached will be considered final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, explained that presently the property is a one-lot parcel and the exception is for the one-lot parcel; however, in the near future, the map would be recorded as a three-lot parcel. He clarified the relative differences for both situations in terms of the exception requirements. Mr. Cowan complimented Colin Jung of the Planning Department and the applicant on developing an improved application package for presentation. Mr. Cowan referred to the site plan, and noted that the property, now considered one lot, in reality is going to be a three lot package and ilinstrated the three-lot parcel boundaries. He said that the application of the sign ordinance differs based on the number of lots involved, and explained the process based on three lots. He pointed out as one lot, there would be an allowance for two signs and the applicant is requesting three; however, as a three lot parcel, there is an allowance for three signs. He indicated their proposed locations, and said it would not require a variance in terms of the number of signs. He said that staff felt that allowing two additional wall signs was reasonable because it was a difficult center and Walgreens would be competing with the nearby new Rite Aid. He summarized that staffwas recommending the exceptions for both the number of ground signs and the interpretation of the wall sign issue. Mr. Cowan reviewed the revised condition of approval and answered questions regarding the proposed signs. Mr. Mike Tevis, Intrinsic Cupertino, expressed his appreciation to staff for their cooperation and said he was pleased with the conditions and the proposed package. He answered questions regarding the placement of signs and expressed his willingness to work with staff on the positioning of the signs to minimize the impact on the sidewalk. Relative to the illumination of the signs, Mr. Tevis said that the signs would not be illuminated 24 hours per day as the store was not a 24 hour operation. Mr. Cowan clarified that the actual sign ordinance does not specify letters per se, but states the maximum height of a wall sign, and if considering approval of the wall package, an exception would have to be granted. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 8, 1999 Chair Doyle summarized that a request for a decision was being requested based on 4 exceptions; the 3 ground signs, the 108 sq. ft. vs. the 100 sq. ft; the 3 wall signs vs. the maximum one; and the size of the wall sign. Added concerns were: hours of sign illumination, location of signs, and sign content. A summary of the preferences of the Planning Commissioners is listed in the table below, with additional comments included where applicable. Relative to ground signs, Com. Stevens said the 3 ground signs were suitable with the stipulation that it be recorded as 3 parcels. He said he was in favor of the 3 wall signs vs. 1 because the building was located on a corner, with a sign on each side, and the drive through pharmacy sign. He added, that although he would prefer not to have a sign for the one-hour photo because the service was common, the sign content was appropriate because it was Walgreens' standard. Com. Kwok commented that he was pleased with the improved presentation. Com. Corr said he was also pleased with the improvements over the previous submittal. He expressed concern about whether or not the applicant could return with more signs, but said given the conditions limiting that, the package is for three parcels, and he was in favor of the entire package. Com. Harris said that relative to the size of the 3 wall signs, she did not feel they should be granted an exception for both; she said she was in favor of the 'Pharmacy' sign in addition to 'Walgreens' but not 'One Hour Photo'. She said that she was not opposed to the Bollinger 'Walgreens' sign, and granting the exception for 'Pharmacy' but not for the sign which already states 'Drive Through Pharmacy' which would be permissible at 24 inch height. She said that she was opposed to sign 3 because it was one foot from the property line and posed a danger. Relative to sign content, Com. Harris said that she was opposed to advertising the one hour photo service. Chair Doyle said that relative to the 3 ground signs, it should be restricted for the three parcels, so that a precedent is not set. He said that the 108 sq. ft. was a tradeoff to remove the 17 ft. tall, 100 sq. ft. sign which is presently there. He said relative to the 3 signs vs. 1 wall sign, he preferred 2, the 'Walgreens' sign and the drive through sign but the ordinance states only one, and he felt three was not appropriate. He said he felt there should not be restrictions on the sign illumination as there haven't been problems in the past. Issue JS PK CC AH DD 3 ground signs ok ok ok ok ok 108 sq. ff. vs 100 sq. ff. ok ok ok ok ok 3 signs vs 1 wall sign ok ok ok ok 2 size of 2 walls signs sign ok ok Bollinger ok ord only illumination time restrictions closing closing closing closing none location of monument signs ok ok ok too close move back walt sign content ok; no ok ok no photo ord photo Mr. Cowan clarified the sign ordinance which indicated that the sign had to be turned off at 11 p.m. or within 2 hours of close of business, whichever is later. Chair Doyle said that the unresolved issues were sign content and the size of two wall signs (Pharmacy and One Hour Photo). Com. Harris clarified that the issue was the ordinance vs. allowing an extra one foot for exception on the two signs, or allowing the second sign. She said she felt it was appropriate to permit the 'Pharmacy' sign on Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 8, 1999 the Bollinger side because it is a community service, but would not allow that exception on the Blaney side because there is a/ready a sign there for the pharmacy. Com. Stevens said there would be a problem with visibility of the word 'Pharmacy' from driving up Bollinger to Blaney as the drive through would not be visible until almost at Blaney; but if on the wall, it would take only a glance to see it on the comer of the building, but rather difficult to have to look down the street to see the other sign. Mr. Tevis said that the monumem sign was reserved for anchor tenants in the rear of the center, and that 'Walgreens' would not appear on the monument sign on the comer. Discussion ensued regarding the issues of sign size and content. Com. Harris said that the issues were related because she did not feel there should be less than a 2 foot 'Walgreens' sign. Mr. Craig Maynard, Intrinsic Cupertino, said that they attempted to design an effective sign system that works not only for Walgreens but also for the building and identification. He said that as a frequent traveler he has been confronted with locating a pharmacy in an unfamiliar area and would drive into the parking lot if he saw the sign. He said that relative to the wall signs, they felt it was important not only to be a certain size, but also to tie in with the building. He referred to the site plan and indicated that although the signs took up a major portion of the tower, they were significantly smaller than what would normally be permitted for the building if spread across the face of the building; however, he felt that spreading the signs across the face of the building would not be atttactive to the community, building, or the Planning Commission. He said that if the letters were reduced to 24 inch size, the lower case letters would be further reduced in size and would look distracting. Mr. Maynard said that because all Walgreens stores are not alike, the one hour photo sign was important because it offered that service, and some stores did not offer it; however every Walgreens store has a pharmacy. Chair Doyle said that he supported the 3 signs, one on each side, but relative to sign content, the size should meet the ordinance. Com. Harris said that she was willing to grant the exception to indicate a pharmacy on the Bollinger side. Com. Corr said he felt it was important to say Pharmacy no matter where, especially for people who didn't know specifically what Walgreens was. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application I-EXC-99 according to the model resolution, with the sign illumination restrictions to be store closing time and specifying that the exception is for three parcels, not one. Mr. Cowan clarified that the Walgreens sign would be reduced from 30 inches to 24 inches, and the other sign would remain at 1 foot 4 inches. SECOND: Com. Kwok NOES: Com. Harris VOTE: Passed 4-1-0 Com. Harris clarified that the issue was the one hour photo sign. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 15-EXC-98, 40-EA-98 David & Kim Gudmondson 22362 Regnart Road Hillside exception to demolish an existing residence, construct a new 6,500 sq. fr. residence on a prominent ridgeline, to exceed the allowed setbacks on the downhill elevation and exceed the maximum grading quantity of 2,500 cubic yards in accordance with Chapter 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 8, 1999 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish an existing residence and construct a new 6,500 sq. ft. residence on a prominent ridgeline, to exceed the allowed setbacks on the downhill elevation and also to exceed the maximum grading quantity as outlined in the attached staff report. The original application was continued fi.om February 8, 1999, so that concerns could be adequately addressed. Additional information on the following issues were presented in the staff report: (1) Visibility analysis of the prominent ridgeline; (2) Second story setbacks; (3) Flat yard area; (4) Drainage; and (5) House trim color. Staff recommends approval of the application; a Planning Commission decision will be considered final, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the applicant's proposed changes to respond to the concerns previously addressed, which were set forth in the staff report; and answered Planning Commissioners' questions. Ms. Kim Gudmundson, applicant, said that the proposed design conforms closely to the code, and is a landmark example of how a home can blend into its environment, incorporating the suggestions discussed at the February Planning Commission meeting. She said the design allows for a much safer, less visible and more private emergency road, taking out two 90 degree blind tums; and the property is not highly visible, noting that in the few places that the property can be seen fi.om in the city, it seemed relatively small, viewing less than one half of the design and predominantly in the one story area. She said that additional trees reduced the visibility. Ms. Gudmundson reported that the design was supported by the engineers, geologists, and geotechnical consultants hired to work on the project, and also the expert hired by the City of Cupertino to review the documents. Ms. Gudmundson clarified that the statement of evidence of active recent historic landsliding within the existing and proposed development area, related to the ridgetop where they were working; and stated that the soils area where the landslide evidence is on the map were areas that were not being developed. She said that they had worked diligently on a design that would not disturb greater than 30% slopes, or areas that had any historic landslide activities. Mr. Chris Wright of Dibble, Wright Associates, project geologist, explained that the verbiage in Cotton Shires' letter was standard verbiage; stating that as with any hillside property, there is potential for landslides. In this particular case, there is expansive soil and the foundation for the proposed house has been designed to address expansive soils. He noted that seismic shaking is true of any area in California. Mr. Wright reported that they had made specific recommendations for increasing the design for seismic structural issues by 15% over building code which addressed the verbiage in Cotton Shires' letter. He clarified that by saying they recommend approval of the project, they are stating all the issues have been addressed by either the company or the soil engineer. Mr. Walter Chapman, building designer, said the plan review referred to in Cotton Shires' letter is a review of the construction documents. He said that construction documents had not been drawn or drafted as yet, nor have they proceeded with the engineering. Once the conceptual design has been approved, the structural engineer will prepare the necessary documents, would then be drafted and presented to the soils engineer for his review. Once the soils engineer has reviewed the design, they are submitted to the City of Cupertino who will then forward them back to Cotton Shires' office to review the review letter from the geotechnical consultants. Mr. Chapman explained the excavation procedure for the underfloor rooms and crawlspace. He said that the structure would be built on drill pier foundations, which go through the upper topsoil into dense soil, and the engineering design is based on the dense soil, not on the top surface material, which is the standard practice for a drill pier foundation. Mr. Wright explained the review process followed to make certain that areas such as the sport court, new roadway are not part of the development area referred to as being potentially constrained by ground failure Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 8, 1999 (landsliding). He said he felt confident that there is not a major unusual risk relative to landslide or slope instability within the proposed building areas. Mr. Chapman discussed the retaining walls, stating that when the sport court was shit~ed closer to the residence and recessed into the hill, the walls were reduced on the downside of the hill. He said that the height of the retaining walls varied on the downhill side from 2 feet at the comers to 3 feet in the middle of the sport court, and similarly on the uphill side. In the swim pool area there is a section on the uphill side that is at ground level, and on the downhill side, there are some retaining walls supporting the terrace around the backside of the pool. There is one portion to support the terrace portion, and at that point the wall does reach as high as 6 feet. He answered further questions about the coverage of the retaining wall. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one presem who wished to speak. Chair Doyle addressed the issues: reflectivity of window trim; fiat yard area; additional landscaping; grading; second story setbacks; and location on a prominent ridgeline. Relative to reflectivity, he suggested a darker roof color to blend in on the prominent ridgeline; fiat yard area no longer was an issue; there should be downhill landscaping on all retaining walls; grading was no longer a concern; second story setbacks no longer an issue; location on a prominent ridgeline no longer a concern. Com. Harris expressed concern that items 1,4 and 6 of the geologic/seismic hazard section of the Environmental Impact Report indicated there was no environmental impact; however the reports indicated there was an area with potential for major geologic hazard. She said she felt they should not approve it if the geologist said it is indeed in a slide area. She suggested a change to indicate that it is not significant or state that significant mitigation is proposed. She referred also to the section on drainage and flooding where it is indicated, that there is no impact; and stated that as soon as the road is moved and the sports court is built where they were not before, it would change the absorption rates and the drainage patterns; therefore the response is not "no." Com. Harris said that before she could approve the EI1L the report should be modified. Chair Doyle suggested that staffwork with the applicant on the EIR. Mr. Cowan said that it was preferable to correct the EIR at the hearing. Discussion continued wherein Mr. Cowan clarified that it was permissible to state that Section B1, 4 should be modified, which is the basis for the decision. Com. Harris mitarated that she was not comfortable approving the environmental part of the application with an incorrect document. Com. Harris said that she expressed concern about the problem before, that the preparer should be the staff and not the applicant, because the applicant has a different viewpoint. Mr. Cowan stated that it would be noted that the Commission made the changes. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 40-EA-98, stating that Item B1, 4 and 6 should state significant mitigation proposed and that B3 should say significant mitigation proposed Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 15-EXC-98 Com. Corr Following a brief discussion the motion was amended, and accepted by Coms. Kwok and Corr AMENDED MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 15-EXC-98 with the condition that there be included downhill landscaping on all retaining walls Ms. Wordell proposed a change in wording for Condition 2, Page 6-5, to read: "Portions of the existing emergency access road proposed to be removed shall be abandoned and new portions shall be added." Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 8, 1999 Access for emergency personnel shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and the City." Item 6 would also be modified "subsequent to demolition." VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Mr. Cowan noted that the decision was f'mal, tmless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Chair Doyle declared a recess from 8:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 2c. Item 2c which was removed from the Consent Calendar earlier in the meeting was considered. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 17-U-80(M) Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 1-U-99, 3-EA-99 (construction of 7 townhouses) Judy Chen 7359 Rainbow Dr., (easterly most apartment lot on north side of Rainbow Dr., next to freeway) Use permit Use permit to demolish an existing apamnent building and construct a 7-unit townhouse development Planning commission decision final unless appealed. Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish an existing 6-unit apartment building and construct a 7-unit townhouse project on a .34 acre parcel. A similar application for the parcel was submitted and denied last year by the Planning Commission and City Cotmcil; however, the applicant attempted to soften the effect of the building on the residential development to the north of the proposed development. Three areas remain as major concerns: architecture, building height and setbacks. Staff feels that the applicant has not addressed the architecture and building height issues, but that the setback issue has been addressed by increasing the north and west setbacks. In order to address the architecture and building height concerns, the Commission may need to direct applicant to reduce the size of the development and redesign the entire development. Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, reviewed the history of the item. She referred to the modified elevations of building 1 and illustrated the proposed changes, which included modulation along the roof, clipped ceilings in areas, lowering the wallplains and lessening the total wallpl~m in some areas. Staff does not feel that they have met the Planning Commission's direction, which was to lower the entire building. Ms. Gil requested direction if the roof modulation alone was adequate or should the applicant redesign the project and actually lower the building height itself. Referring to the illustrations of the applicant's proposed concept and the staff's proposed concept, Ms. Gil stated that the applicant felt they could not move the area forward as suggested by staff's proposal, because of the stairwells. She noted that the building height was 34 feet, the building to the north was 30-31 feet, the building to the west 34 feet high. Staffanswered questions regarding the height of the buildings in the area and the history of the immediate area. Mr. Tom Sloan, Metro Design Group, acknowledged there were several concerns the applicant attempted to address, such as site drainage, resulting in ponding on the site, and privacy issues and security for the neighbors. He referred to the building elevations, and explained the proposed modifications and landscape mitigations. Mr. Sloan explained the reason for proposing to raise the grade on the existing property, and discussed the mitigation measures to address the drainage concerns. Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 8, 1999 Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Chris Crawford, said that the applicant had made significant improvements in the setback positions; however he felt there were still two outstanding concerns, overall height as perceived from the Gardenside complex to the north, and setting a precedent for higher buildings. He suggested that the model resolution, Paragraph 5, last sentence, the following text be added to the last sentence: "...developments to the west and to the north." He said the Gardanside Homeowners Association were in favor of the project proceeding, subject to the height being addressed and the landscaping being adequate and written into the CC&Rs. He said his main concern was building height, that if additional buildings were built to the north, their height should be less than 34 feet when the adjacent buildings were 30 feet from street level. A neighboring resident reiterated that the applicant had increased the setbacks to the north, and said it would be ideal to push it back further, but 14 feet from the base of the structure and 13 feet from the nearest face would be suitable. He said from the beginning of the project, the height has been 34 feet, and although the applicant has been requested to lower the height, it has not been accomplished. He expressed concern about the use of 15 gallon trees when several members of the City Council recently recommended 36 inch box trees to block views of the new development which impact the neighbors. Referring to Drawing A-6, he said it was misleading in that it showed the top of his structure above their structure; and he pointed out that his building height was 31 feet which is below their 34 foot height. He said that if the back yard is backfilled, the neighbors would look down on his backyard. Currently the existing building is 25 feet back and the proposed project is at 14 feet, going up 3 stories vs. the 2, which is a major change. He said his complex agreed that the development should occur; however, because it is a key location in Cupertino, they recommended lowering the height and stepping it up to improve the appearance. He urged the Planning Commissioners to consider his concerns. Chaff Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. Chair Doyle summarized the outstanding issues as architecture - larger eaves (2 feet) and building height. Ms. Gil proposed addition of wording for Condition 15 to address the drainage issue: "Drainage from neighboring properties at northeastern edge shall not be impeded during or after construction to preserve natural flow of all existing storm and sewer easement." Modifications to the landscaping plan were discussed. Com. Heals suggested that "to be approved by staff' be added to the condition. Also add that "planting has to be on the north and west sides and they should be 24" box trees instead of 15" at least on' the north side." Relative to architecture, Chaff Doyle recommended larger eaves. A discussion ensued regarding building height as it was the only unresolved issue remaining. On a straw vote of 3:2, the overall maximum height of 32 feet was selected for all buildings, with the stipulation that the roof area be maintained, and the general architectural concerns remain. Chaff Doyle summarized that landscaping was modified to 24 inch box trees; drainage and setbacks are suitable; building height a maximum of 32 feet, keeping the architecture in tact; and eaves moved out to 2 feet. Relative to the maintenance of the trees, it was recommended to include language in the landscape plan "comprehensive landscaping planting and maintenance plan"; Chaff Doyle requested the language be used as standard language in all landscape plans. Mr. Sloan said that he would prefer a continuance to enable them to redesign the roof and bring it down to the maximum height of 32 feet and deal with the eaves. He said they would utilize a variety of roof pitches in the redesign. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to continue Application 1-U-99 and 3-EA-99 to the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 8, 1999 Com. Harris requested that staff amend the conditions in preparation for the April 12 meeting. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 2-U-99, 4-EA-99 The River Church 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit to hold church seminars in an existing office building Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a Use Permit to hold church seminars on the first floor of an existing office building. The church seminars would be held on weekday evenings from 7 to 9:30 p.m., Saturdays from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and Sundays from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. The regular congregational services for the church are held in Sunnyvale. Parking is the only issue of concern identified by staff; however, because the seminars are held in the evening, and the business hours for the co-tenants of the building are 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and the church is working with Bank of America on a shared parking agreement, staff feels the parking needs will be met. Ms. Tricia Maier, Planning Intern, reviewed the application to hold evening seminars in the office building, stating that the anticipated attendance was 20-60 people, except for Thursday evenings, when attendance may reach 100 attendees. She referred to the floor plan of the first floor of the building which illustrated the areas where the seminars would be held, and the area used for administrative offices. She said that the applicant was in the process of finalizing a shared parking agreement with Bank of America. Ms. Maier noted that letters from neighboring tenants were sent voicing concerns over traffic, parking, noise and loitering, based on seminar attendance of 200 people. Ms. Joy Porter, The River Church, provided a background of the church, which has been in existence 2 years, and is associated with the South Hills Community Church in the Almaden Valley of San Jose. The church services are held in the Sunnyvale Community Center on Sundays. She said the church is very active in the community and provided over 550 volunteers for community based programs last year, and contributed over $100,000 for various city and community programs. She explained that the office building would be used for administrative offices and the evening and weekend seminars. Ms. Porter pointed out that classes other than the Thursday evening class, would be limited to between 20 and 60 people. The only schedule on the calendar presently is the Foundation seminar, which is available to 100 people; the remainder of the programs are long term projections. The Foundation seminars will be held on Thursdays evenings, one night a week for approximately 10 consecutive weeks, and held ttu'ee times per year. She acknowledged that they were aware of the adjoining neighbors' and property owners' concerns about the noise and the parking issues; however, she said that the seminars would be limited to 100 people, not 200. She said they intend to restore good relations with the neighbors and met with them earlier to address some of their concerns. She said that the church is willing to monitor the evening parking, either by signs or directing the traffic by persons to ensure that parking restraints of other buildings are not violated. In response to Com. Harris' questions, Ms. Porter expressed willingness to have a condition included that limited the seminar hours to not starting before 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and ending at l0 p.m. on weekends and 11 p.m. on weekdays. She said she was also willing to have a condition state that they would be responsible to advise attendees to park only at the subject site and the Bank of America. Ms. Porter provided an update on the negotiations with the Bank of America for shared use of their parking lot. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. There was a brief discussion about potential conditions of approval to handle parking problems if they came up. Mr. Cowan said that typically there would be a review after six months; however, in this case, because they would have built and improved the office space, if parking becomes a problem, they would have to Planning Commission Minutes 10 March 8, 1999 restrict the attendance to a lower number. Ms. Porter said she was agreeable to that condition. Chair Doyle clarified that it was the Planning Commission's goal to provide flexibiIity for the church to be successful, yet did not want to inflict hardship on the neighbors. Com. Harris proposed that under Condition 2a, the following sentence be added: "As determined by the Planning Commission, this number may be reduced" Condition 2b, add the following sentence: "Seminar attendees will be advised to park only at the subject site or the adjacent Bank of America site." Condition 3, Hours of Operation: After "...except office use" change wording to: "and seminar uses may begin at 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 7 a.m. Saturday and Sunday, and may extend to 11 p.m. each day." MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve the negative declaration on Application 4-EA-99 For the benefit of the applicant, Com. Harris clarified that a condition of approval was that the parking agreement with Bank of America be recorded. SECOND: Com. Harris VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 2-U-99 with the amendments discussed Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-2-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to RI Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Set date for tour of Fairgrove and Polynesian neighborhoods. Staff presentation: There was a discussion about a suitable time and date for a tour of the Fairgrove and Polynesian neighborhoods. There was consensus to schedule the tour for Saturday, April 3ra fi.om 10 a.m. to noon. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to co~inue Item 9 ~ the March 22, 1999 Planning Commission me~ing Com. Co~ P~sed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved that the Planning Commission schedule a tour of the Fairgrove and Polynesian neighborhoods, on Saturday, April 3*a fi.om 10 a.m. to 12 noon. Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS I0. Annual General Plan Review - Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 1999. There was a brief discussion relative to the agenda topics for the March 29 meeting. There was consensus to discuss the General Plan and Public Works, and the special meeting fi.om 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue the Annual General Plan Review to a special meeting on March 29, 1999 at 7 p.m. Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 11 March 8, 1999 NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan said that he distributed a report on the canopy issue for the station, and noted that it would be an appropriate topic for discussion at the March 29t~ meeting. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on March 22, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: March 22, 1999