Loading...
PC 11-22-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF Ttl E PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 22, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Comnlissioners present: Corr, Harris, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development: Ciddy Wordcll, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; P, hys Rowland, Plannitlg Intern; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the November & 1999 regular PlannhTg Commission meelh~g: Com. Kwok noted that on Page 6, second paragraph, line 4, "was willing" should read willing". MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve the minutes o£ November 8, 1999 I'[alming Commission meeting as amended Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director reported that Item 5, originally scitcdulcd ["or postponement, would be presented as an agenda item, and that Item 9 was requested Iobc postponed to the January 10tb meeting. Application No.: Applicant: Location: I I-EXC-99 Apple Computer I Infinite Loop, Bldg. 2 Height exception to exceed the allowed antenna height in accordance with Chapter 19.108 of thc Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of Navember 8, 1999 Request continuance to meeting of,January 1 O, 2000 Plamung Comlmss~on Minutes * Novclllbcr '~'~, 1909 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 6-Z-99, 10-U-99, 28-EA-99 Steve Saray 20655 Cleo Avenue Rezone a 10,347 square foot parcel from P(R3) to P(RES) Use Permit to construct two single-family dwellings (2,446 and 2,262 square feet) on a vacant 10,347 square foot lot. Request removal from calendar Application No.: Applicant: Location: 13-U-97(M) Sunnyvale Lutheran Home 20445 Cupertino Road Removal of and replacement for two protected trees and to modify the roof materials aad iminl colors of an approved addition. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved that Applications 1 I-EXC-99 and 13-U-97(M) bc conlhmcd to the January 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved that Application 6-Z-99, removed from the calendar Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 10-U-99, and 28-EA-99 bc ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Com. Harris requested that Item 5, Application No. 2-U-72(M) be removed Ii'om Ibc Conscm Calendar for discussion Application No.: Applicant: Location: 18-ASA-99 Pacific Peninsula Group 22180 Canyon Oak Way, Lot 2-03 Architectaral review ora new 4,788 square foot residence at Oak Valley Development Application No.: Applicant: Location: 19-ASA-99 Pacific Peninsula Group -22238 Hammond Way, Lot 1-03 Architectural review of a new 4,610 square foot residence at Oak Valley Development 4 Application No.: 20-ASA-99 Applicant: Pacific Peninsula Group Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 22, 1999 Location: 22150 Canyon Oak Way, Lot 2--06 Architectural review ora uew 4,477 square fogt residence at Oak Valley Development MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Items 2, 3 and 4 of the Conscm Calcudar Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 2-U-72(M) Roger Weft (Northpoint Homeowners Association) 10880 Nortbpoint Way Director's referral of a minor modification of a landscape plan to remove and/or replace trees in an existing residential development. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to a tneeting of January 10, 2000 Staff presentation: Corn,. Harris questioned wily the three canary island pine trees were proposed for removal as they were presently in good condition; and although originally a poor sclcctioa; tbey were now large and provided a significant backdrop for the area. She said she wits not comfortable removing healthy, large trees. Mr. Rbys Rowland, Planning Intern, referred to tire arborist's report, which indicated that tile Irecs were in average health, but indicated tbat the tree was a poor selection for thc uarrow growing space. He noted tbat there were narrow planting strips causiug problems to tile trees. Mr. Mort Schorr, 20151 Northpoint Dr., President of Northpoint Board of Directors, explained Ihal the trees were tagged for ease of identification tbr the residents to report tree problems. I Ic reported that aa arborist inspected the trees and compiled a report tbr thc Norlhpoint Board. said that the residents took pride in tile landscape and it wns not their desire to climim~tc hcallhy trees; but the goal was to address the condition of the trees that were encroaching on their living conditions and breaking ap curbs and roads. Mr. Scheft referred to a vicinity map. and illustralcd the location of the trees. Chair Doyle opened tbe meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Coin. Harris said she felt the recommendation should be approved with tile exception of Iht Ihrcc canary island pines (7, 8 and 18), which were healthy and not causing damage al this lime. She said it was obvious that the others were diseased, unsafe or causing damage, which were reasons for removal of large trees. Com. Kwok concurred with Com. Harris as the three trees were healthy, lie rcctfllcd tis an example, the Rainbow Drive project close to Highway 85 which ,,vas approved, with thc com. lilion that a pine tree be saved from removal. Com. Corr pointed out that in the Rainbow Drive project, the pine tree was tile sole tree remaining, whereas the Nortbpoint development had many trees. He supported stafffs recommendation removal as he felt tbe trees would likely cause damage. Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 22, 1000 Com. Stevens concurred with staff's reconllllelldatiOll for removal of thc trees. ~lolhlg thai occasion healthy trees have to be removed to prevent future damage. Chair Doyle said that he was supportive of retaining tree 18. Followiug further discussion and clarification, he supported the staff recommendatiou. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, noted that ell Page 5-6 of the staff rupert, it was indicated that all three trees were causing damage to the improvements. Mr. Scheft explained that the tree replacement process was a very selective process and woukl bc carried out over a gradual period of time; replacing those trees in the most danger of bciag ill or endangering the surrounding structures. Chair Doyle suggested that when future phases are presented, the issues bc clear as lo whclhcr they are presently happening or anticipated to happen in the future. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 2-U-72(M) Com. Stevens Corns. Harris and Kwok Passed 3-2-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Locatioa: I 1-U-99 Whalen and Colnpaay (for Spriat PCS) 10011 No. Foothill Blvd. (northwest corner of Stcvcus Crock Blvd/Foothill Blvd. intersection) Use Permit to locate a 45-ft. high monopole at an existing office center. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued.from Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 1999 Staff presentatiou: The application ~vas reviewed at tile November 8th meeting, and Ibc Phuming Commission directed staff to prepare a map showing existing telecommuaication aerial approwds citywide; determine cost and schedule to complete a citywide wireless master plan; alld survey surrounding cities to determine their efforts to address the impacts oftelecommuuicalion Ihcilitics. The issues are addressed in the attached staff report. Mr. Colin Jtmg, Associate Planner, referred to an aerial map, which illustrated the approved aerials in Cupertino and surroundiug areas. He also illustrated photos of areas where monopoles wcrc located throughout the Cupertino area. Mr. Jeff Merse, Whalen & Co., addressed the issue of Iocatiug equipment at alternate sites, notiag that some of the requirements include replacement of poles and iucrease of heights of poles. Ilo also discussed the visual impacts of locating the equipmeat at the Liquor Store site on Foolhill Blvd. He said that relative to the proposed site, he concurred with the conditions limiting Ibc minimum pruning of trees, so that density does not become an issue for the radar ['rcqucncy. l lc said they did uot want to reduce the tree limit below the proposed antenna pole. Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 22, 1999 Mr. Cowan asked tile applicant to address tile issues of co-location and over-saturation o1' a particniar antemla. Mr. Merse responded that they were agreeablb to tile co-location condition as written; and said il would be designed to accommodate it ifa carrier came in. Mr. Mci French, Sprint property specialist, referred to tile over-saturation problem, and stated that the pole was designed with two sets of antennae, which would allow tbr a significant amotml expansion electronically in the basic equipment before additional antennae is required. Relative the over-saturation issue, he said that in order to attract another user, they woukl nccd ltl have another antenna space available on the pole high enough to meet their needs I'or coverage. [lc recalled that it was noted at the previous meeting that extending the pole another 5 to 6 feet would enhance the value of the pole to another carrier, which would potentially reduce tile number new applications. Responding to Coln. Harris' question, Mr. Jung said there were no prior instances.ol' stmccssl'ul agreement for co-location, He said that on previous monopoles engineered tbr co-location, thc city has required, as part of the building permit, tbat the pole be structurally engineered to handle at least another set of antennae, and that a mounting ring be installed on tile top of the monopolc for an extension if needed. He concluded that it was in tile planning stages. Chair Doyle opened tile public hearing for public input. Mr. Leslie Burnell, 21466 Hollyoak Dr., said that he felt there was no system engineering planning. He said be felt the analysis should be an overlay of the five telephone systems, wilh colored overlays to differentiate the towers ill the different gronps. He noted that there were three co-locations on Mary Avenue in Cupertino. He said be felt the Telecommunications Conlmission should have a set of overlays that shows not only tile red spots indicating locations, but thc power of each antenna and its coverage. He predicted an increase of'cell phones in the home usc arca, and said there needed to be more of a systems look f¥om the Telecommunications Commission based on more analysis. Ms. Teri Wiss, 10011 No. Foothill Blvd., Suite 109, expressed concerns about sal'cly issues relative to the height of the poles. She also questioned if the height of the poles would pose a risk to the trees. Mr. Merse addressed the safety issue. He said tbe installations were an expensive venture Ibr his company, and they would compIy with tile uniform building code and cnrrent requirements pole installations. He said they would also comply with thearborist's recommendations relative Itl the trees. Chair Doyle closed tile public hearing. Chair Doyle summarized the issues: pole height, 5 year permit, and master plan reqLdremcnt. Com. Harris said that she felt the Planning Commission lacked tile education about tile industry to know all the alternatives, but she felt that the company building the system would built lhe most economical system . She said she supported a pole height of 40 feet, without the ability Itl co- locate; a 5 year term; and a plan on the part of the city. Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 22, 1090 Com. Corr said he was pleased to learn that thepole could be adapted with a ring il' it nccdcd Iobc extended in the future. He said from that standpoint, the45 foot pole height which was lower Ihan the trees is appropriate; 5 year term; and a pi'an that tile Telecomnaunications Commission to, Id work on. Com. Kwok said he agreed with a 5 year plan, and recommended a general phm m eliminate lengthy discussions for each future presentation; 45 tbot height appropriate; general support or' the project. Com. Stevens said that he felt the height was a technical situation, rather than aesthe6c. I lc said hc concurred that there was a need for a master plan; 5 year term appropriate; general support o1' Ibc project. Chair Doyle said he supported the 40 foot height, 5 year term, and creation of a master plau by thc Telecommnnications Commissions. Chair Doyle summarized tile discussions: 45 loot height, term 5 years, trim thc trues, hut no topping trees; and plant another tree. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved approval of Application 11-U-99, with conditkms as specified: 45 feet height; trees not to be topped oft'; planting of tree in t'ronl: wilh the use permit term of 5 years with the hopes that on renewal a smaller producl would be put t-brth. Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to adopt a Minute order for staff to bring forward to Iht Telecommnnications Commission with an eye to them or a joint group coming up with a master plan; or encourage the city to develop a master phm for an engineering plan, including present coverage area, and anticipated need, so tirol the whole picture is addressed, rather than just one island. Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS lO. Application No.: Applicant: Location: Amend Municipal Code regarding review of single I'amily residential applications City of Cupertlno Citywide Amend the Municipal Code to shift all family residential review to residential design review committee and to discuss the Planning Commission Snbcommittees Continued,from Planning Commission meeting of November 8. 1999 Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed tile possible amendment Io Iht ordinance that created the Residential Design Review Committee (RDRC). The two aspects include the direction to determine whether to colnbine all single thmily detached review It) Iht Planning Commission Minutes Novclnbcr 22, 1'}~9 RDRC, which stemmed out of Oak Valley single family ASA going lo thc I)csigu Review Subcommittee; as it seemed appropriate that anything related to single lhmily detached should go to that committee. Tile first change to consider would be that any siugle I'amily detached prtzjcct unless it is minor and can be approved at sta3T level or unless it is connected to a tentative mup would be approved by the RDRC. She said a good example for the wording change Iklr Ibc tentative map is the project at Homestead and Maxine, as it would not work I'or tile RI)I>,C to approve the }louses and then have the Planning Commission and City Conucil have thc map~ because they are small lots and it would not be prudent to approve the small lots without seeing thc entire picture. The changes, if not approved at staff level, could go to tile RDRC because the map and project had already been approved. A discussion ensued regarding tile functiou of the RDRC. Com. Harris expressed concern thai Ihe language may convey a different purpose than the original purpose el'the RDP, C. She pointed otll that it was for individual applications only, and not multiple units. She said that the iuitial usc permit should go through tile Planning Commission, and changes should be presented Itl thc RDRC. Com. Stevens said that he was supportive of changes because he and Com. I larris were looking al architectural designs and the architect served on tile other committee, which was his reasoning I'or the requests to go where the architect was. Com. Stevens said he was looking to where thc architect was, and not necessarily changing the structure. He said the I)csign Review Subcommittee was formed to reduce the Planning Comlnission workload by having a preview aud then reaching consent; he said the committee would help as tile architect is the key point and hc and Com. Harris did not have tile expertise of architects. Com. Harris said that she and Com. Stevens had looked at two story homes also which appeared Itl be an overlap of what the other committee was doing. She recommended that the w/ting body bc composed of two Planning Commissioners and the architect, with the Director el' Community Development and staff planner as staff representatives on the committee. Ms. Wordell clarified that the Design Review Subcommittee had tile ability to seek input fi'om tile architect even though he did not attend tile meetings. If tile projects are large cuough to watt'alii his review, a deposit is required from tile applicant, and tile architect provides his input. Com. Stevens suggested that tile RDRC still continue with singles, not multi; aaythiug wilh architectural may be viewed by them, not necessarily approved if it is part o1' a larger orgauizational program. He recommended the committee consist el'two Planning Commissioners: however, only because they are appointed and there is still the Planuing Commission; whcrcas i~ is currently an architect, one Planning Commissioner and staff. Com. Kwok concurred, stating Ihal multiple families would be presented to the Planning Commission. Com. Corr said lie supported RI, two Planning Commissioners and an architect. Com. Harris and Chair Doyle concurred. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Leslie Burnell spoke about tile compositiou of the committee, noting that it evolved tit thc City Council level based on inputs from discussions and a vote on the reduction o1' thc FAP,. I lc said that he had expressed a concern earlier about Chair Doyle's and Mr. Cowan's participation on the committee, but that they had both done a very professional job on the committee. I Ic saki hc there was not justification to change the composition of the RDRC to two Planning Commissioucrs Planning Commissiou Minutes Novcm her 22, 1999 unless tile Planning Commission felt there was some bias with staff involvement; however, it was a Council based decision based on community input. Com, Harris explained that the two commitiees were set up with the understanding that their success may have to addressed later. She recalled an issue where it may have been perceived that there was a conflict of interest, and as a resnlt there was discussion of having thc Dircclor uf Community Development ex-officio on tile committee, to attend the meetings and supervise. When the City Council opted for individual review of the houses, the Planning Comnlissioa meetings were extremely lengthy and a committee was needed to help with the workload, which is why Com. Harris brought it forward and proposed a change. Mr. Burnell offered a suggestion that tile telecommunications companies be required Io come lo the City with their system plan and an overlay, which be felt would save tile City money. Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue tile Mtmicipal Code Amendment to the next Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 NEW BUSINESS I1. Schedule a special meetiag to discuss 2000 Work Program and Dcvclopmcat Intensity Manual Staff presentation: Mr. Cowaa explained that the purpose of the special mcetiag was lo review Ihe work program and focus on three or roar primary goals for recommendations to the Cily C'ouncil for the year 2000, and to work on the Development Intensity Manual. Following a bricl' discussion, there was consensas to schedule tile special meeting on Monday, November 29, 1999, from 6 to 9 p.m. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Harris asked Ibr an ulxlatc on thc Nokia banner sign. Staffalso provided an update oil the Armadillo Willy's landscape phm. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. to a special Planning Commission meeting on Monday, November 29, 1999 at 6 p.m. in Conference Rooms C and D. Respectfldly Subcaitted, - Eli~t'oeth Ellis Recording Secretary Approved as presented: December 13, 1999