Loading...
PC 11-09-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 9, 1998 SALUTE TO TI-IE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Doyle, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Harris Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner II; Vera Gil, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the October 12, 1998 regular meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the October 12, 1998 minutes as presented Com. Doyle Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 Minutes of the October 26, 1998 regular meeting Assistant City Attorney Eileen Murray referred to Page 13 of the minutes, second paragraph, and asked that it accurately reflect Ms. Chen's and staff's remarks with the addition of the following sentence: "She said she was unhappy with the design. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, asked Ms. Chen if she wanted to withdraw her application." MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the October 26, 1998 minutes as amended Com. Doyle Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted the correspondence received relative to the agenda items. 2 November 9, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 6-U-98, 8-Z-90(M), 16-EA-98 (construction of 8 townhomes) Judy Chen - 7359 Rainbow Drive (easterly most apartment lot on north side of Rainbow Drive - next to freeway) Use Permit to domolish an existing apartment and construct an 8 unit townhouse development on a .34 acre parcel. To rezone a .34 acre parcel from P(Res 20-30) to P(Res 10-20) Tentative City Council hearing date of December 7, 1998 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 1998 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 1998 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to R1 Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Public hearing to consider an amendment to the Single Family Residential ordinance regarding building mass, setback and height. The Planning Commission will consider an interim ordinance to address privacy issues. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1998 Request continuance to November 18, 1998, 6:00p. m. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-TM-98, 12-Z-98 and 32-EA-98 First Baptist Church of Cupertino 10505 Miller Avenue (portion of church property) Rezone 2.26 acres of a 5.96 acre lot from BQ (Quasi-Public Building) to RI-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. Subdivide 5.96 lot into 10 lots ranging in size from 6,120 square feet to 9,000 square feet and a remainder lot for the church. Tentative City Council Hearing Date: December 7, 1998 Request continuance to November 23, 1998 10. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 13-U-98, 29-EA-98 Hamid Abtahi 10121 Foothill Blvd. Use permit to convert the auto repair portion of a service station to a convenience store. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to November 23, 1998 11. · Application No. Applicant: Location: 11-U-98 Sam & Helen Sung 10420 S. DeAnza Boulevard Blvd. #C-8 (Town Center Professional Center) Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 Use Permit to operate a specialized school (educational) in an existing office center. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request that application be withdrawn _ ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No. Applicant: Location: 20-ASA-98 Daphne Fan (Monica Villas) 19028 Stevens Creek Boulevard Review of landscaping details for an approved co, mmercial/residential development Planning Commission decision final unless appealed MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 20-ASA-98 Com. Doyle Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS Application No.(~): Applicant: Location: 12-U-98 and 26-EA-98 Hamid Ghazvini 10061 Pasadena (near Granada Avenue) Use Permit to demolish an existing residence and construct a 4,206 sq. ft. building consisting of 1,439 sq. ft. of office/retail space and 2,767 sq. ft. of residential (3 apartments). Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish an existing residence and construct a building consisting of office/retail space and 3 apartments. The applicants are returning as a followup to the public hearing held on the application in September to address several issues raised at that time. It was noted that the square footage of the building has been reduced by 172 square feet since the application was first submitted. Issues raised by the Planning Commission concerned whether the building's FAR proposed at .65 is too high, whether its proposed 10 foot front setback is too small; whether the design could incorporate more architectural interest along the north and south elevations; whether there will be enough parking spaces for both the office and retail use portions of the building as well as the three apartments which are to be built on the upper floors; and whether it is appropriate to demolish the existing building which is over 50 years old. Staff has conducted a followup review and continues to recommend approval of the project. A decision if reached will be considered final and not be forwarded to the City Council, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the elevations and illustrated the proposed changes relative to the windows, eaves and architectural design. She also reviewed the proposed changes to the parking lot, which resulted in 8 parking spaces for the project. Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 9, 1998 Mr. Ross Gamble, project architect, reviewed the FAR data Contained in the report submitted to the Planning Commission. He noted that the FAR for the project is a .62 FAR for total square footage to the site area, which is in the general adequate approval range for FAlLs based on the calculations. He reviewed the results of the front' setback~urvey taken, and noted that the project's setback is proposed as 12 feet for the front wall. The parking survey indicated that there were adequate parking spaces for the project. Mr. Gamble showed a slide presentation which illustrated the setbacks of neighboring properties. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, briefly reviewed the setback requirements for the Monta Vista area. In response to Com. Doyle's concern about the one space per Unit parking, Mr. Cowan pointed out that the Monfa Vista area is the only area in Cupertino that permits street parking. He said that the on-street parking was designed to meet the needs of the apartment residents and their visitors. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney movi~d to approve the Negative Declaration on Application No. 26-EA-98 Com. Doyle Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. l~ahoney moved to approve Application 12-U-98 in accordance with the model resolution Com. Doyle Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 Application No. Applicant: Location: 11-EXC-98 (sign exception) Taisei Construction 10741 No. Wolfe Road (southwest comer of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue) Sign exception to exceed the allowed wall sign height in [ccordance with Chapter 17.24.060 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 1998 Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell explained that the application submitted was for an exception to the size of the ground sign. She noted that because of the design, the sign exceeded 140 square feet and staff did not recommend an exception for the extra signage because applicant received extra signage on the apartment site and staff also felt that something smaller would be more acceptable. Mr. Rick Alpers, Taisei Construction, pointed out that the proposal was the standard Hilton signage, although it did exceed the city's regulations. He requested that consideration be given to Planning Commission Minutes $ November 9, !998 the applicant's request to adhere to the Hilton standard. Mr. Alpers answered commissioners' questions relative to the signs. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no-one present who wished to speak. A brief discussion ensued wherein all commissioners present concurred with staff's recommendation that the sign exception not be granted because the sign well exceeded the standard and the applicant already had received extra signage for the apartment site. Com. Mahoney said that if the sign did not exceed the 100 square feet size, he would approve the exception. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to deny Application 11-EXC-98 Com. Stevens Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 3-TM-98 Deblin I 10840 Bubb Road Tentative map to subdivide a .73 acre parcel into 3 parcels Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to subdivide a .73 acre parcel into 3 parcels. It was noted that although the application involved a routine infill subdivision, staff was concerned with the drainage on the site in case of a 100 year flood event. Staff recommends approval provided the applicant can install an additional drainage system. Staff also supports the applicant's plans to remove 13 of the 27 trees on the property, inlcuding a large pine tree, which would present problems for a conventional house design if retained. If a decision is reached on the application, it will be considered final and not forwarded to City Council, unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Cowan referred to the site plan and reviewed the application, noting the area of concern relative to the potential drainage problem. Mr. Dick Childress, President of Debcor, said that plans were to construct three single-family homes on the parcels in the future. He pointed out that when designing the homes, they would attempt to work around some of the trees on the property. In response to Chair Austin's question, Mr. Childress said that he would work with staff relative to the drainage problems. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Leslie Burnell, 21466 Holly Oak Drive, said that there should be no concern about a 100 year flood because last winter the water from Bubb Road came around the corner and was 4 feet deep at the end of the street. He said that much of the water on the property sinks into the ground, and if the extra water is dumped onto Bubb Road, it would go around the corner and impact the houses at the end of the street. He questioned when the house size and design of the homes would be determined. Chair Austin responded that the current FAI~ were .45, therefore if the lot was 10,000 sq. ft. the maximum size house would be 4,500 sq. ft. Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 9, 1998 Ms. Lisa Giefer, 21561 Regnart Road, said she felt subdividing the .73 acre parcel into 3 parcels was too unreasonable. She expressed concern about the potential flooding conditions on Shannon and Holly Oak once construction begins. She also expresseffconcem about flooding on Bubb Road; noted the inconvenience to residents not being able to access the bike lanes during peak traffic times; and noted that it took almost 15 to 20 minutes to cross McClellan Road at peak times. She said that there were no two story homes on the east side of Bubb Road between McClellan and Terrace; yet on Terrace on the left hand side of Bubb toward Rainbow, there were two story houses. She noted that in the future, if homes were built to code, most likely they will be two story houses which potentially would invade the neighbors' privacy and they would look out of place. Additionally, if three homes are put on the parcel, there will be substandard fence lines between the Pumpkin Court neighbor and what is currently in the subdivision. She concluded that two houses might be better suited than three, as three was excessive and reduces the quality of life of the neighborhood. Mr. James Casciani, 7985 Pumpkin Court, said that going from one to three houses on the parcel would have a significant impact on the neighborhood. Relative to the 100 year flood, he said they experienced heavy rain as it is fairly flat and is in the area where it is clay and the soil does eventually take absorption. He said that building a large lot would have a dramatic impact on the effect of runoff for that area. He said that in the last five years he experienced not being able to get his car out of the driveway because the water was over the doorsill, which was a result of the sewage/drainage in the area. He said he was concerned with access to his home when others are pumping out their garages and houses which is a major concern for the general area. He illustrated the area where the water would drain into, noting where there was a fissure flow. He expressed concern about the impact to the geology of the area due to the drainage or the structures going onto another property relative to the mass in the area. He questioned the potential destruction of the trees, especially the monterey pine which would have a significant impact on the acoustic emissions from Highway 85. He noted also that any construction would have an impact on the view of the hills. He concluded by stating that he felt there were seismic areas that were not discussed, drainage areas which were not fully understood, a lack of control relative to what will be constructed, and impacts on the view. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Doyle questioned what the restriction was on building on an active fault. Mr. Cowan explained that there is no active fault; the Shannon fault (Monta Vista fault) may be reclassified sometime in the future, but is presently classified as a potentially active fault (every 11,000 years); it is not part of the Alquist/Parillo Act and not considered an active fault. He reported that there was a geologic report prepared for this development which did not indicate any active faults near the property. Relative to the drainage on Holly Oak, Com. Doyle asked when those types of considerations were reviewed. Mr. Cowan said that Public Works would have to identify flooding areas, and once identified, people have to purchase flood insurance. He noted that FEMA requested the staff identify areas of frequent flooding, and he explained the process followed in identifying areas of flooding. He clarified that presently only areas next to major creeks have been identified. Chair Austin expressed concern about the drainage problem in the area. Mr. Cowan said that the drainage from the new houses would shift out toward Bubb, but the problem would exist if Bubb's system overflows. A brief discussion ensued regarding the potential drainage problems in Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 9, 1998 the area. Mr. Childress clarified that currently all the water on the property collects on the property and if there is an excess it runs off to the rear of the property and most likely ends up on Pumpkin or the drainage in that direction. He reported that the_storm system was being installed as a condition, and will be put into a pipe and carried'to Bubb Road and into a storm drain which flows north toward McClellan. Therefore, except for emergency release, the water will be improved. Com. Stevens clarified that Public Works was concerned with drainage in the area, and said that as stated in the staff report, Mr. Viskovich was prepared to exercise right of eminent domain to ensure proper drainage. Com. Doyle said he felt drainage was a problem, but questioned how to halt construction on three units without halting construction in the entire part of town. He said the whole picture needed to be addressed, and that micromanaging was not ~he solution. He questioned what long term plan could be put into place to address the concerns. Mr. Cowan clarified the relationship of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Water District and how stormwater is handled; how the city develops its master storm drain system and how that relates to the regional system, namely the creeks and the major channels. He said the city has responsibility for its own system in terms of stormdrain system and the water district has control over the creeks. Mr. Cowan said that residents should contact Public Works with problems. Com. Mahoney said that' it was not clear that the problem the residents are experiencing were related to the pipe. He said that if they were addressing the underground system, the normal system for carrying 1,000+ homes would not be impacted by two more homes. He pointed out that two story homes would actually be less than single story homes. He said that is was evident that the people do not want infill development to occur; however, the lots were adequate and the proper safeguards are in place. Com. Stevens said that he was reading it as a subdivision with more information to follow, and he felt the public heating would get directly to Public Works, and the residents should follow up and contact them. Com. Doyle said that relative to infill occurring, staff wofild look at the R1 situation and try to mitigate the impacts, and attempt to meet the community's requirements. He said it was important to make certain the flooding issue was addressed, that there be a policy in place, or that the people at least have an understanding of the relationship, because of the potential development in the community. Chair Austin said she was not in favor of the application, because she felt it was necessary to make a statement to Public Works. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 3-TM-98 according to the model resolution Com. Stevens Chair Austin Com. Harris Passed 3-1-0 Planning Commission Minutes g November 9, 1998 It was clarified that if there was a desire to have the application reviewed by City Council and make it more of a policy decision, there were 14 calendar daysto do so. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-98, 14-U-98, 31-EA-98 PMG Properties (Lake Biltmore) 10159 South Blaney Rezone an existing apartment complex from R-3 to P(RES); Use Permit to re-landscape and construct new garages and 24 new apartments Tentative City Council Hearing Date: December 7, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for rezoning of the Lake Biltmore apartment complex from an R-3 zone' to a P-Res zone, including a Use Permit to re- landscape the property, construct new garages, and build 24 new apartments, housed in 3 clustem. It was noted that the applicant plans to fill over the existing manmade ponds with lawn, shrubs, vines and ground cover. Twenty seven trees, 7 of which are specimen trees, are planned for removal, with plans to replant 38 trees, including 14 24-inch box trees to replace the 7 specimen trees. Staff feels the minimum parking requirements will be met. Staff recommends the rezoning of the pamel to Planned Development Residential to give the applicant more flexibility by allowing staff to make minor modifications. A recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council on December 7 for a final decision. Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, referred to the site plan and illustrated the location of the proposed new apartment buildings. She also referred to the landscape plans and illustrated the location of the existing waterways and the proposed landscape changes, including elimination of all the waterways. Mr. John Moss, representing the applicant, thanked the staff for their cooperation and efforts in working on the proposal. He explained the five proposed improvements including upgrade of the interior finishes on the clubhouse; replacement of exterior siding on some of the buildings; repainting of the exterior buildings; replacing existing 155 carports with 155 garages and addition of 24 new garages for the proposed 24 new apartments. He noted that overhead storage would be provided in the garages. Mr. Moss said that where possible, they would include lattices on the sides of garages and plant flowering vines to improve the aesthetic look of the garages. He reported another improvement was the addition of 24 one bedroom apartments, and pointed out that the intent of the one bedroom unit was to mitigate the issue of any traffic increase and the demand on the schools, with the idea that there would be fewer cars and fewer school-aged children associated with one bedroom units. Relative to the proposed landscaping changes, he explained that they considered the existing lakes a safety issue relative to the number of toddlers on site, as well as a waste of water resources and a need to create more usable open space for the project. Mr. Moss said that the lakes were also considered a dated amenity, which required high maintenance. He said that at a recent neighborhood meeting, of 25 residents present, 50% were opposed to the existing lake portion of the project, and there did not appear to be resistance to the planned structures for the site. He noted that approximately 25 residents called the property management office to inquire about the proposed plans and the reaction was favorable to neutral relative to the buildings; and they expressed an interest in occupying the one bedroom proposed units. He addressed parking and density issues, stating that a recent survey indicated that the amount of vacant parking on site ranged from 40% to 55%, and they are now at 95% occupancy Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 9, 1998 for the development, therefore they do not anticipate parking being an issue. Relative to density, presently they are at 14.2 units per acre and are proposing going to 16.2 per acre. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment: Mr. Bill Truex, 20080 Rodrigues Avenue, #1, said that the announcement about the neighborhood meeting did not indicate the changes discussed by Mr. Ross, but merely that there would be some improvements, which may have been the cause of the low attendance because the residents were not aware of the extent of the plans. He pointed out that the nature of the apartment complex would change, visually as well as usage-wise. He said that compact parking spaces were planned to achieve the adequate number of spaces, and the parallel parking would narrow the entrance down considerably, which may create a bottleneck. The visual aspect will change, with no open visual arena. He said the residents like the present walkways and the lakes which provide an interrupt between the apartment complexes, and ~hey also like the fountains which help buffer the conversations from balcony to balcony. He questioned what the long term plan for the complex was and the reason for the change in zoning. He said the present parking spaces are assigned to apartment units with visitor parking; and he felt that the addition of the garages and the reduction of the spaces to compact would create a problem in the traffic flow. Ms. Barbara Langworthy, 20030 Rodrigues Avenue, said that she was disturbed that the lakes were going to be eliminated as it was one of the main reasons she had lived in the complex for so long. She expressed concern about the parking situation and said in a two car family, it was difficult to find parking for one car. She questioned how removing spaces and adding garages would solve the parking problem. She said she felt she would probably choose not to live in the complex once the changes were incorporated. Mr. Hans Jensen, 20100 Rodriguas Avenue, #1, referred to the site plan and expressed concern about the traffic loading through one particular area and noted the traffic flow once the new units were constructed, resulting in an impact to Rodriques, and questioned how it would be mitigated. He also expressed concern about the parallel parking, which would ultimately affect the traffic flow onto Rodriques also. Mr. George Monk, 19985 Price Avenue, expressed concern about the proposed apartments all being one bedroom units, stating that he felt it would attract a more transient clientele than the 2 or 3 bedroom units. He said he would like to preserve the ~urrent mix of apartment sizes to avoid the complex becoming a short stay complex or a 'party' complex. He pointed out that the proposed expansion reduces the ratio of parking spaces from 2.2 to 2 as previously stated, and said that if it results in more residents using Price Avenue as a long term parking lot, as in the past, he would return with a request for more relief. Relative to the lakes, he said he did not see any compelling reason to remove them, other than tidiness, and would recommend retaining them to keep the nature of the apartments in tact, as they provided variety to the ecology to the area. He said the apartments have worked in the past, and the less change the better. Mr. Lonnie Montemayhor, 10159 So. Blaney, said that he was the new onsite property manager for the Biltmore Apartments. He explained that the lakes were very dirty, and the first floor apartments were rodent ridden because of the lakes, and alleviating the lakes would eliminate the problem. He said that the lakes were also very costly to maintain, costing approximately $8,000 per year, and they still remained dirty. Mr. Montemayhor said there would be a name change if the lakes were removed. He addressed the concern mentioned relative to one bedroom Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 9, 1998 apartments attracting a transient clientele. He said that the company presently manages Cupertino City Center and Cupertino Park Center, which have many one bedroom units and have one of the strictest qualification measures that the residents must meet. He pointed out that most of the interest for the proposed apartments are from cuh'ent residents of the Biltmore apartment complex. He said that all apartment units would come with garages. He said he was excited about the renovations and felt the neighborhood would benefit from them. Ms. Bjurman indicated that it was possible to open up the other entrance as it met the full width requirements of an entrance driveway, but would need additional study relative to turning movements and exiting requirements. Ms. Elizabeth Senger, 20060 Rodrigues Avenue, expressed concern about safety for emergency access for fire engines and ambulances and the change in character of the complex. She said she was also concerned for the safety of the young c,hildren presently residing in the complex, relatix;e to construction. Ms Carolyn Truex, 20080 Rodrigues Avenue, gl, said that one of the drawing points in living at Lake Biltmore peaceful atmosphere of the lakes and trees, noting that visitors commented on the tranquility of the complex because of the ponds and lakes. She commented that there had been many changes recently and she felt the complex was headed in the wrong direction. She said they have the opportunity to be known as a special complex, but felt that the changes would result in a loss of something positive. Discussion ensued wherein staff answered questions relative to parking, building setbacks, landscaping and building 'height. Com. Doyle summarized the issues: retention or non-retention of the trees; whether the (R3) and (P) residential change is appropriate; proposed change of carports to garages and their distribution and location; restrictions for covered garages not becoming storage units; modification of traffic entrance; concern about having only one bedroom units vs. multiple bedroom units; offsite parking; construction limits; retention of fountains and lakes. Com. Doyle said that relative to tree retention, he proposed keeping the specimen trees. He questioned the advantages of (R3) zoning to (P) residential; Mr. Cowan responded that it provided more control and flexibility. Com. Doyle said that he was not opposed to the rezoning. He suggested locating the garages on the periphery, the net effect being more buildings on the site. He recommended that a restriction be included regarding not using the garages as storage units. He said that the opening entrance may need modifications but it should be opened up for better traffic flow. He said he did not feel that the one bedroom units would attract a more transient clientele than multiple bedroom units, especially in the proposed price range. Relative to offsite parking, he said he did not recall what was used before for restrictions for giving the residents more flexibility. Construction hours should be limited to standard hours and restrict weekend construction if possible, with possibly more restrictions because of the close proximity to present residents and the safety concerns mentioned. Com. Doyle said he felt the water features should be retained to keep the ambiance of the lakes. He pointed out that the development has been in existence a long time, with mature vegetation, and it does not resemble the typical developments in existence. He said that he felt the tradeoff for added density should be to maintain the present ambiance of the development, and if it cannot be done, perhaps the extra units should not be added. Planning Commission Minutes 11 November 9, 1998 Com. Mahoney said that the 2 to 1 tree replacement along with the other existing trees was suitable; garage location was appropriate, with restrictions about storage in garages; rezoning was appropriate. He suggested that another entrance be opened up;_number of bedrooms in a unit was not an issue; no comment on offsite parking. Com. Mahoney said that he was in favor of keeping the fountain features to retain the ambiance, and preservation of the white noise without the ponds. Com. Stevens said that staff's recommendation relative to tree retention was appropriate. He said that relative to rezoning, he did not see the advantage of one over the other, and therefore no reason to change; he agreed that the garage location should be against the property line to give the wall feature rather than on the inside; the parking, turning and storage, relative to traffic flow, he felt that with the size of the apartment complex, and potential enlargement, should have at least two entrances. He said that number of bedroo,ms per unit was not an issue; he felt that offsite parking could be controlled; agreed with construction limits and hours because it is a concentrated area. Com. Stevens said he was opposed to removal of the lakes, and pointed out that the semi-wildlife atmosphere with the ducks and mallards provided enjoyment to the residents, and should be maintained. Chair Austin said that she agreed with the 2 to 1 tree replacement; was not concerned about the rezorfing, provided it fell under the same regulation; preferred some garages located in the middle of the development, with a restriction relative to storage; recommended at least 2 entrance openings; and number of bedrooms not an issue. She said she felt offsite parking was a separate issue and should be addressed at another time; construction hours should be limited. She said that relative to the water features} she was concerned about the rodent problem. She suggested a compromise with white noise. Ms. Bjurman clarified the offsite parking restrictions on surrounding streets. Com. Doyle summarized the remaining concerns: maintain the current ambiance and environment, potentially approve development, with applicant to return with a modified proposal; and construction constraints. The applicant was directed to attempt to build consensus within the current community; maximize retention of the water and lakes; maximize retention of the specimen trees; mitigate impacts of the garages, making either a walled off area or lines of site within the compiex; mitigate traffic flow with the one exception; MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application I 1-Z-98, 14-U-98 and 31-EA-98 to the December 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Mahoney Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None