Loading...
PC 08-11-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 11, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Chairperson Harris Roberts Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin dung, Associate Planner; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the duly 28, 1997 regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the July 28, 1997 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 3-0-1 WRITTEN COMI~IUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted a letter from Community Development Director Robert Cowan relative to the August 20th Economic Development Committee meeting, at which time the Sedway report will be reviewed; and letter from the American Planning Association. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 10-EXC-97 and 22-EA-97 Phillipe and Anne Dor Stevens Canyon Road/Balboa Hillside Exception to construct a new 4,547 sq. ft. residence on a 2.456 acre on a legal, substandard lot, prominent ridgeline, slopes greater than 30% and to exceed 2,500 cu. yds. of grading, in conformance with Chapter 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO AUG. 26, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Commission Minutes 2 August I 1, 1997 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 1-DA-97, 3-Z-97 AND 5-EA-97 Tandem Computers, Incorporated Bounded by Stevens Creek Blvd., Tantau Ave., 1-280 and Wolfe Road APN#: 316-20-074, 316-20-075,316-20-076, 316-20-077, 316-20-077, 316-20-078, 316-20-079 Development Agreement to commit the City and applicant to a long-term agreement to permit the applicant to construct buildings and develop a master site plan based upon current General Plan Policy. Zoning to rezone 3 parcels from Planned Industrial to Planning Office, Industrial and Residential. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 8, 1997 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO AUG. 26, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Item 4 to the September 22, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, and Item 5 to the September 8, 1997 Planning Comlnission meeting. Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: 18-U-96 Chalet Woods l 187 Gardenside Lane Use Permit Modification to remove protected trees. Director's referral in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Chair Harris requested that Application No. 18-U-96 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site and grading plan and presented a brief history of the item relative to the replacement of trees. She explained that staff's recommendation was to replant two oak trees replacing two removed walnut trees, and tbat an arborist perform a crown restoration or selective restructuring of growth emerging on the eucalyptus trees. Mr. Kip Du Puis, Kip's Kustoms, presented photos of the eucalyptus trees, and described the large amount of debris and trash on the property prior to FERMA's demolition and discussed the topping Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 11, 1907 of the trees and the removal of the trees. Mr. Du Puls recommended planting walnut trees instead of oak trees because of their rate of growth. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Frederic Deboes, 20693 Garden Manor Court, expressed concern about the eucalyptus trees, and pointed out that the crown of one of the eucalyptus trees was leaning over the roof of his house. He said he was concerned that in the future the trees would fall on his property and endauger his children. He said that in the two years he has lived in his home, one tree fell on the house which has since been demolished and another fell on his neighbor's property. Chair Harris referred to Page 1-7 of the staff report, and asked staff to comment on the arborist's recommendations. Ms. Wordell said that the report also addresses the tree protection fences around the trees, which protect the root zone. She said that additional conditions could be added to the conditions of approval to address further concerns. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris summarized the issues as the bonding term and two tree replacement of oaks. Coms. Mahoney and Doyle concurred with staff recommendation. Com. Austin said she felt eucalyptus trees were not native trees and did not warrant preservation. She said that because eucalyptus trees were considered a hazard, she would prefer to have them replaced with coastal redwoods. For tree replacement, she said she felt that oak was not appropriate and that coastal redwood trees were hardier. Chair Harris concurred, and said that to require two $5,000 oak trees to replace two walnut trees was excessive. She said that the residents in the back had large trees to block the view and she felt the replacement trees in the back should be 36 inch box evergreen trees, either cedar, or pine, but not poplar trees. Chair Harris suggested that the recommendations of the arborist after the damage, be incorporated as part of the conditions. Discussion continued regarding the removal of the trees and the bond requirement. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 18-U-96 with replacement with pine trees in lieu of oak trees; planting of 36 inch box trees. Chair Harris Com. Roberts Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Failed 2-2-0 Discussion continued regarding suitable tree replacement. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 18-U-96 and 6-TM-96 with 48 inch box tree replacement using oak trees Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Com. Austin Passed 3-l-0 Planning Commission Minutes 4 August An amended motion was made to include the access portion of the arborist's recommendation. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 18-U-96 and 6-TM-96 with 48 inch box tree replacement using oak trees, to include the arborist's recommendation relative to access Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Com. Austin Passed 3-1-0 Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 11-U-96 (Mod.) Symantec CC5 Building Symantec Cupertino City Center, Apt. 11 So. DeAnza Blvd., approximately 400 ft. from the intersection of Rodrigues Requesting approval of a minor modification to an approved use permit for an architectural and site plan and an addition ora cafeteria. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEAR1NG DATE: August 18, 1997 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 28, 1997 Staff presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, reviewed the proposal for minor amendments to the Symantec building as outlined in the attached staff report. Proposed amendments include the lengthening of the first one story offset and second two story offset on the DeAnza Blvd. frontage by one bay and to fill in two 4th level balcony recesses; minor change to the parapets on the DeAnza Blvd. frontage; and addition of the cafeteria. Mr. John Sorci, Director of North American Facilities for Symantec Corp., said that the construction project is under way. He said that they were endeavoring to incorporate the cafeteria as an optional improvement. Ms. Lynn Filer, HOK Architects, presented a study model of the Symantec building with the added elements representing the additions to the building. Referring to the drawings of the outdoor cafeteria area, she illustrated the 1,800 sq. ft. proposed change; stating that the building materials would be predominantly precast, in a light warm gray; glass similar to the blue green color in the remaining building; and the octagonal portion of the dining pavilion would have a metal roof in a medium warm gray color with a skylight in the center. She said that no mechanical equipment will be located on the roof in the neighbors' vision; and that they retained as much as possible the large trees landscaping around the cafe to additionally shield the view from the apartmeots to the dining area. She said other proposed modifications are the increased 10 linear feet to the north of each of the one and two story steps on DeAnza; the building has not been moved further away from DeAnza; the face of the building remains in the same relationship to the property line that it was last fall. She continued her presentation, reviewing the minor architectural changes and answered questions. She then referred to the landscape plan, and illustrated the placement of plants and trees. Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 11, 1997 In response to Com. Doyle's question, Ms. Filer stated that the original building proposal was shell and core, and did not include a program for a cafeteria. She said that there were no cafeteria facilities in the existing buildings. Chair Harris summarized that the issues were the DeAnza frontage portion; the two 4th story enclosure portions; and the cafeteria. Com. Doyle said that the street side wall plane was appropriate; however, he was opposed to tile south elevation closing of the patio, and he said he felt that as much relief as possible should be kept on the end (4th story). He pointed out that in the initial drawings the entire end had a walkway and it had been turned into a vertical plane. He said that the east elevation should not be filled iu; the 1,800 square foot cafeteria was appropriate; however, he did not like the metal roof and suggested something warmer with a different feel to it. Com. Austin said that the DeAnza frontage was an improvement; the streetside wall plaue was appropriate; the two 4th story enclosures were appropriate; the cafeteria was appropriate, however, she also did not like the metal roof. She said that she was in favor of staff's recommendation, and that the roof could be made of metal or other materials. Com. Doyle commented that relative to the west elevation, it appeared that there were now steps into the facility, and questioned if the plane could be changed. Ms. Filer said that at the time of the original presentation they had not done a site survey and didn't realize that there was 4-1/2 ft. of falloff from one side of the site to the other; aud wheu they pushed the building 25 feet farther from DeAnza to step the two planes on the west side, it pushed the entry farther away from DeAnza and therefore they were required to add steps in order to access the front entry porch. , Referring to the site plan, she indicated the slope of the site. She reported that the steps would be cast in place concrete with color in the concrete. The Iow platforms separating them are the same precast as the building in the darker color for the accent to the base. She said that for the cafeteria roof, the metal roof would be a light color painted metal, not too bright to look down on, because there are apartment buildings and offices that will see that roof. A significant portion of the octagonal roof will be taken up with a large skylight in the center which will spill light down into the dining pavilion area and will relieve the look of the roof from above. Chair Harris said that another item to be discussed will be the articulation changes which are enhancements and they can be separately discussed. Mr. Cowan said that the facade had been broken up into several smaller elements, and that the reveals also warranted discussion. He referred to the west elevation, and pointed out that the architect had explained the reason for the changes and they were minor. He said the scorelines help the building quite a bit, and that the reveal wrapped around the circular element of the building; Ms. Filer referred to the overhead of the west elevation and explained that the reveal being discussed was a cornice or parapet cap. She noted that in the original proposal it was continuous from the south end of the building wrapping around on the parapet for the third level and continuous for each of the steps at the first and second level. Ms. Filer said that it was continuous around the corner at the third level parapet, with the exception of the last 12 feet and then breaking to keep a solid end of the parapet at each of the steps to diminish the amount of contiuuous linear facade that was in the same pattern. She continued explaining the design changes, noting that they Planning Commission Minutes 6 August I 1, 1997 broke the building up more; diminished the length of continuous facade in the same articulation, and stated that she felt it helped the appearance of the DeAnza street facade. In response to Com. Doyle's question, she illustrated the changes made to the awnings, noting that the awning was removed from the entry door. Com. Austin said that the articulations were an improvement and were appropriate. She said she liked the cafeteria wall plane enhancements. Com. Doyle said he had difficulty ascertaining if they were the same offsets or not, and felt the original was more appropriate. Ms. Filer explained that the 2 foot recesses were the same in the revised and the approved version. She pointed out that because of a change in the code requirement for OSHA for window washing and parapets, they were obligated to fill those in, and they were still recessed 2 feet from the major wall plane. Com. Doyle said that the reveals were appropriate; articulations appropriate; however, he was still concerned. Chair Harris asked if there were any other changes to be highlighted so that there would be no surprises later. Ms. Filer said that she and Mr. Cowan had discussed all the changes. Com. Mahoney said that DeAnza Blvd. is appropriate; cafeteria is appropriate; 4th story enclosures should be left as is. He said that he concurred with Com. Doyle, and that the cafeteria roof was appropriate. Chair Harris said she was opposed to the DeAnza Street side, stating that the building is already too massive and to take away another 10 feet of landscaping by 12 feet will make it moreso along DeAnza. She said that she was opposed to the 4th story enclosures; the cafeteria takes away landscaping but adds an attractive architectural feature that would probably benefit the people in the apartment building and benefit the employees. She said she was in favor of the cafeteria and the articulation changes. She said however that she would vote against the proposal because she did not support it. Chair Harris summarized that there was support for the cafeteria, the articulation changes; uo support for the 4th story enclosures; and support for the DeAnza. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 1 I-U-96 in accordance with the model resolution with the exception of the fourth story enclosure Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle and Chair Harris Com. Roberts Failed 2-2-0 Chair Harris requested that the minutes reflect that she was in favor of the cafeteria and the articulation. In response to Com. Doyle's concern about addressing the column bases and the block areas relative to the steps, Ms. Filer referred to the west elevation and discussed the use of slate and precast concrete for the steps. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriate materials to be used~ wherein there was consensus that support would be given to the proposal to come back with modifications to the stairs. Ms. Filer referred to the original site plan and reiterated that from the Planning Commission Minutes 7 August I I, 1997 south approach on DeAnza, it is heavily planted and the entry would not be seen when driving by the building. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the staff recommendation with the exception of the enclosed fourth story enclosure and with the recommendation that the applicant return with upgraded stair entry treatment Com. Doyle Chair Harris Com. Roberts Passed 3-1-0 Mr. Cowan stated that the application would be presented to the City Council on August 18, 1997. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 7-ASA-97 lrvine Apartments 10750 No. Wolfe Road Approval of landscape plans, parking lot change and architectural changes for an approved 342 unit apartment complex. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reported that the architectural site approval would cover the areas of landscaping amenity spaces, driveway parking changes and arehitectural changes. Referring to the overhead of the site amenity areas, Mr. Jung illustrated the recreational areas, picnic areas, teen study center, par course, and other proposed amenity areas. Referring to the conceptual landscape plan, Mr. Jung pointed out the buffer of redwood trees along 1-280 which is in the Caltrans right of way. He pointed out that the applicant had filled in the landscaping gaps with additional redwood trees and he highlighted the areas where new trees would be planted. Referring to the site plan, Mr. Jung discussed the Pruneridge Avenue driveway change as outlined in the attached staff report. He said a condition has been added to the model resolution requiring the applicant to grant an ingress/egress easement on the driveway to the adjacent property owner for use by the HP employees. Mr. Jung discussed the architectural changes, which included the City Council's removal of a number of fourth story lofts, but allowing a remix of floor plans. Applicant has remixed the floor plans, eliminating some of the one bedroom units in favor of two bedroom units. He referred to the revised elevation buildings 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 and the City Council approved elevations and explained the proposed changes. Staff feels the changes are minor except for the end stair changes and feel the balance of elements is an aesthetic improvement. Mr. Jung explained the end stair changes to be made which are necessary for structural and seismic safety reasons. Mr. Jung illustrated on the site plan where the corridors had to be widened to develop additional clearances for the fire trucks around the buildings. In lieu of planting additional trees, a turf block was needed for access around the buildings. Staff recommends approval of the application with the conditions listed in the model resolution. Staff has added a condition to the model resolution requiring all new trees be a minimum of 14 gallons unless otherwise specified on the plans. He said that the teen study center was something Planning Commission M~nutes g August 1 I, 1907 the City Council requested, and will be in a quiet area in one of the common area buildiugs that will be linked into extra outlets and modems for computers, with study carrels, similar to those found in a library. Com. Austin questioned the enclosed staircases and what the city wants. She asked if it meant they would be required to be lighted at night because it was all enclosed. She said she felt it was an issue of safety and security. Mr. Jung said that the applicant would address the issue. Chair Harris asked staff to address the issue of architectural changes to the main entrance. Mr. Jung referred to the revised main entry elevation, and said that the applicant, early in the review process, had a conceptual preference for the common area features, and it was not until they submitted their plans for check that the design of the community facilities was finalized. He pointed out some similarities from the early review process and said that the architect would explain the changes. Mr. Bruce Dorfman, Project Manager, Irvine Apartment Communities, said that the project, known as The Hamptons, would become the hallmark of their projects in Silicon Valley. He said that no other project in the market being planned or under construction will offer the combination of quality architecture, open space, amenities, and unit features that this project will offer. To this end, considerable time, effort and expense has been invested to design a community that responds to City Council's issues, seismic and structural issues, and other like items. He said that what was before the Commission was an improved design, more relief, lower overall building heights, added roof planes, reduced overall mass and more articulation while maintaining architectural integrity and building character. In addition, the amenity areas have been increased. He said that he was the principle involved in negotiating the parcel 6 easement agreement, giving the additional parking over the Sobrato site and answered Chair Harris' question about the liability. He said that there was both cross indemnities on Sobrato's use of the driveway off Pruneridge as well as Irvine's ase of their parcel 6 parcel easement and access easement; and in addition, Irvine also had insurance policies in which the other parties are named, so that the apartment complex would be protected if an HP employee was injured. Mr. Alex Seidel, Seidel, Holzman, architects, referred to the overhead of the revised elevations and explained that the conceptual issue centered around refining the roof planes and adding some additional roof facets. He explained the architectural changes which included additional gables flanking the community center; improvements to the upper elevation; removal of the handicapped ramp and replacement with a lift behind the planter; and a trellis to replace the arehitectural overhang. He reviewed the upper elevation revision and illustrated changes including addition of more windows. He also reviewed the revised end stair drawings, noting the changes because of structural requirements, functional and security issues, and aesthetic issues. In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Seidel said that the openings on the sides were on both sides. Com. Doyle questioned the area of Wolfe and Pruneridge. Mr. Paul Lateri, Guzzardo and Associates, Inc., landscape architects, explained that they felt they could utilize the space in front of the building and integrate it into the play space. He referred to the colored landscape drawings and reviewed the changes made to the land for recreational purposes, including the picnic areas, park areas, basketball court and play areas. He also reviewed the tree planting areas, and pointed out that there was a continuous redwood planting along the back edge of 1-280, using maples, ehns, and other tree varieties. He noted that the pool area was larger and that the pool was increased in size also. Mr. Lateri said that a variety of play equipment would be utilized for different age Planning Commission Minutes 0 August 1 I, 1997 groups, with different themes. He noted that pictures of the play equipment were included in the staff report. In response to Chair Harris' questions, Mr. Dorfman said that the first buildings would be ready for occupancy in February or March, with completion in September. He said that the BMR units are incorporated into all the buildings, with the exception of the center two buildings. He said that the rentals ranges from $1200 to $1500 per month for the one bedroom units, and $1800 to $2100 for the 3 bedroom units. Chair Harris closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Chair Harris noted that the key issue requiring a major decision was the staircase design. The applicant has asked the Planning Commission to consider the revised end staircase with the two openings in the trellis above; staff is keeping with their original recommendation with the second staircase somewhat obscured; and a decision is needed on the other staircases. She noted that the three issues are landscape amenity areas, the driveway changes, including the redesign of the parking lot and the architectural changes, which include both entry areas and revised end staircases. Com. Austin said that the landscape amenities were varied and interesting, and she felt they were appropriate. She said the driveway change was appropriate because it provided 11 extra spaces. Com. Austin said she preferred the architect's revision for the staircases, and she felt strongly about the enclosed spaces for residents returning home at late hours and for security purposes. She said that the architectural changes and the front of the building changes were appropriate, and the lift provided for handicapped persons was an improvement over the ramp. She said that overall she was in favor of the application. Mr. Jung displayed the staff recommendation for the end stairs for comparison purposes. Com. Austin said that she preferred the architect's recommendation because of the sense of openness and sense of safety. Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Austin. Com. Doyle said that the landscape amenity space was appropriate; driveway changes were appropriate; he preferred the architect's recommendation for the end stairs; architectural changes were appropriate; entry way appropriate. He said that it was important that the view from Wolfe and Pruneridge remain green and vegetated, so that the view would not be looking at the wall. Chair Harris concurred. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 7-ASA-97 per the model resolution incorporating the revised stairwell as presented by the applicant Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Chair Harris declared a recess from 9:20 p.m. to 9:40 p.m. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 10-GPA-97, 6-Z-97 and 24-EA-97 City of Cupertino Adjacent to and westerly of Franco Court, approximately 140 feet south of the intersection of Franco Court and Homestead Road Planning Commission Minutes 10 August I I, 199'7 An application to change the land use designation for an existing water well site from Residential Medium High to Industrial/Residential Medium High to permit a private storage and/or residential activity. Zoning to rezone approximately .23 acres BA to P (ML/R3) to permit a light industrial storage and/or multiple family residential use activity. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended TENTATIVE CITY COLrNCIL HEARING DATE: September 2, 1997 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to change the land use designation for the existing city-owned well site, which is intended to be sold to developer John Vidovich, as outlined in the attached staffreport. Staffrecommends the rezoning which would lead to the sale of the water well site. Mr. Cowan referred to the aerial overview and illustrated the location of the subject property. He explained that the concept was to master plan the property for the added flexibility for industrial use and rezone to a planned development industrial/residential. He said that the staff report contained a list of appropriate uses for the property. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the Environmental Review Committee recommended the granting of a Negative Declaration and the staff recommends approval of the General Plan change to allow the industrial activity on the site and the planned development zoning. He said that the property is currently zoned BA, which is public buildings, and the General Plan is multiple family, and that consideration should be given to the most compatible use for the neighborhood. There was no one from the public who wished to speak on the topic. Com. Doyle said he felt the property should be used to benefit the future, but was concerned with industrial designation only; he said he was more supportive of residential designation. Com. Austin said that she was in favor of approval for mixed use, primarily residential with some light industrial to public storage, warehouses or commercial parking. Com. Mahoney said he would prefer residential designation. Chair Harris said that she preferred residential designation also. Mr. Cowan clarified that BA designation was for buildings and other uses on land owned or utilized by a federal, state, county or city government or authority, or by a special district created for public purposes of the law of the state of California. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Passed Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on 24-EA-97 Com. Austin Com. Roberts 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to change the zoning to add BA/RE designation in 10 to 20 range Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to deny Application 10-GPA-97 because of the inappropriateness for the residential neighborhood Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Plannlng Commission Minutes 11 August I I, 1997 OLD BUSINESS Report to Council Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 15-U-96 (Mod.), 8-TM-96 (Mod.), 6-Z-96 (Mod.) Sand Hill Properties (Tandem) 10741 No. Wolfe Road and 19590 Pruneridge Avenue Consideration of modifications to a use permit related to site design and development phasing, and to a tentative map and zoning related to development phasing. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 18, 1997 Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell reviewed the application for the site plan change for relocation of garage entry for the southerly apartment complex; elimination of the traffic rotary near the Marriott Courtyard; and consideration of an amendment to the approved condition regarding development phasing, as outlined in the staff report. Relative to the issue of the phasing condition which was part of the original approval, she said that the original conditions allowed some of the apartments to be built once construction of the foundation had been built on the hotel. Subsequently the City Council created a minute order specifying that if certain things were done, they would reconsider that condition that they might be able to go forward without the foundation being there. The conditions required of the applicant were an executed franchise application, submittal of approved plans for the hotel, and financing for the hotel. As noted in the staff report, much of the work has been done and documents submitted. However, staff recommendation is that the documentation still does not provide a guarantee and that the recommendation to City Council from the Plalming Commission be that perhaps something less than the foundation would be acceptable, but that evidence to date is not a strong enough guarantee to change the condition. Mr. John Millam, SNK Development Inc., said that he concurred with the staff report with the exception of the need for the stop sign to be a four way stop. He said that the traffic consultant felt that a three way stop would be sufficient in that area. Mr. Mike Anderson, Sandhill Properties, expressed concern about tying the development of the hotel to the development of the apartments. He said that the hotel was being loved to death by placing conditions on the hotel that were making the overall project virtually impossible to finance. He said that when the original conditions were being discussed at the Planning Commission level, he had indicated it would pose problems because there are two separate entities developing the property, Sandhill Property for the hotel site and SNK for the apartments. He said that two different developers, two different product types and two different lenders, and tying the two projects together makes it difficult to work out the nuances of the financing with respective lenders. Mr. Anderson said that the basic problem is that 70% of the site is apartments and park, and is the driving force in financing and acquisition costs. The deal with Tandem requires Sandhill to purchase all 10 acres at once, 70% of that has to be financed by a financier in partnership that is developing the apartments. There is concern that 3 of the buildings could possibly be tied up and not built if for any reason the hotel is delayed or doesn't go forward. In turn, the hotel financier does not want to give a third party, SNK, the right to come onto its property and start building a hotel foundation. He said that both lenders are concerned about this condition. Sandhill feels they have moved forward in good faith, actually expedited the process a great deal in order to bring the Planning Commission Minutes 12 August 11, 1997 plans to fruition with the city; have spent approximately $500,000 in architects' and engineers' fees, etc., and have submitted very extensive plans to the city. He said that Sandhill is not a large company and $500,000 is a great deal of money to the company; they have performed in the shopping center next door; and are moving forward with the hotel with the utmost haste. They have spent hundreds of hours of their own time including trips to Southern California to meet with Hilton and paid the consultants a premium to expedite the process, as well as large sums of money for deposits and fees. He said that in mid September the company has to close with Tandem on l0 acres and presently their hands are tied because of the condition. Mr. Anderson requested that the condition be lifted from the project so that they can move forward, purchase the land, build the hotel and the apartments which are part of the project. Mr. Anderson explained that the $500,000 mentioned does not include the cost of preparing tile final subdivision map which divides the property in a manner that works for the single family apartments and hotel. He said that the final map has been in the city for 2-3 weeks, awaiting plan check comments on the final map; then the final map will be recorded simultaneously with the close of escrow which breaks the property into the portions needed in order to complete the project. Bonds will have to be posted with the city in order to record the final map. Mr. Anderson went on to explain that the entire property is owned by Tandem and noted that tile main part of the apartment complex was the tennis complex, the Carlos Murphy restaurant, and parking lot. He explained that Tandem would not enter into two separate agreements for the hotel site portion and one for the apartment complex, because Tandem does not wish to sell the property in that manner, and the property is subject to one master plan development. Mr. Anderson explained the conditions placed by Hilton before they will enter into the license agreement; the main condition of purchasing the property has not yet been satisfied and Sandhill cannot enter into a franchise agreement until the property is purchased. He said that Hilton has worked very closely with them on the project, attending almost every meeting on the project. He said that Sandhill is financing the land acquisition through a portion of debt and equity, the land acquisition exceeding $10 million. Mr. Anderson said that he previously pursued the bond issue with the Planning Commission and City Council but neither governing body chose to pursue it although Sandhill indicated the condition would cause problems for the project in the future. He reported that Sandhill was willing to post a $350,000 bond with the city to assure that if the hotel foundation wasn't completed within 12 months, the city could start drawing on the $350,000; however, the city chose not to pursue it. Mr. Anderson requested that the Planning Commission become an active participant in tile process and make a recommendation to the City Council, taking into consideration all the things done by Sandhill and money spent, time put into the project, non-refundable money put into the project, and the fact that the plans are in the city waiting for city approval and lifting the condition. He said that because the Planning Commission originally put the condition on it, and given how far Sandhill has progressed since that time, it was his hope that the Planning Commission would have a high enough degree of confidence in the project and applicant, to recommend to the City Council that the condition be lifted and the project be allowed to proceed forward. Mr. Anderson clarified the reason the condition was creating a problem. When a lender looks at a transaction such as this, they will not lend on the land; the last thing the lender wants to do is to foreclose on the land, what they are looking at is the future income stream of the development, in the case of the hotel and the apartment. When they are proposing a project such as this, three of the buildings in the apartments are being held back, and a lender looks at it and sees that a huge PlannJng Commlss]on M~nutes 13 August Il, 1997 revenue stream is beyond their control; and feels that even if they foreclose on the property, they cannot control going in and building the three buildings which will help repay the loan because the source of repaying loans is the revenue stream generated from leasing out apartments. To them it is a precarious position to be in. He said that the hotel lender is willing to move forward; however, the apartment lender which is 70% of the project, will not move forward unless the hotel lender would somehow give the apartment lender the right to go in and complete the hotel. He said that the lender on the hotel would not want a third party to have rights on their security, their property, to have any rights to come in and build a hotel that they have loaned millions of dollars to build; it becomes the chicken and egg situation. It would occur even with the same lender; the problem is not that there are two lenders; the problem is that there are two discreet projects and two discreet borrowers and typically the kind of lenders that loan on hotel don't lend on apartments. The problem is that there are two different projects built by different companies with different credit situations, different asset situations, different capabilities. Mr. Anderson reiterated that he would not be before the Planning Commission if they would have been able to work it out with the lenders. Relative to the bond issue, Com. Doyle said that the city wants to make sure there is a hotel put on the site. If there is a failure to do that and there was a bond, the cost of putting that hotel could be partly subsidized by that payment money. In response to Com. Austin's question why a bond was not an effective tool, Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney, said she was not aware of Mr. Kilian's objections to a bond and therefore could not presently comment. Mr. Cowan clarified that a bond was usually to force the construction of improvements; in this case it was money to guarantee the revenue stream to the city, and it was unusual to have a bond to guarantee the construction of a private building; stating that bonds are usually for street improvements, public improvements, things of that nature. Mr. Anderson concurred that the posting of the bond was unusual, and he did not believe there was any retailer in the city being asked to post a bond that if they don't generate a certain amount of tax revenue to the city, that the city could call in the bond. He said he felt Sandhill was being singled out and held in a very unique situation that no other developer was being held to, and reiterated that they had moved forward in good faith and attempted to bring it forward as fast as possible. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment; as there was no one present who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Harris asked for comment on the minute order. She clarified the choices on paragraph two; first, that the Planning Commission would recommend that there is not a sufficient guarantee and recommends that they consider other means; secondly, the alternative that the Planning Commission request that the City Council deal with the issue separately; or lastly, the Planning Commission could recommend that they do not think the project should be phased, and should not be tied together. Mr. Raymond Chong, traffic engineer, recommended that there be an all-way stop because of the alignment of the street. He said that Bartman Aschman completed a study and did not find any queuing problems. Planning Commission Minutes 14 August I I, 1997 Com. Austin recommended that there be a three way stop with the ingress from Pruneridge stop sign being eliminated. She said that she felt the City Council should respond to the phasing issue. Com. Doyle said the garage entry move was appropriate, elimination of the traffic rotary appropriate; three way stop sign and stop bar are appropriate; as far as the hotel conditions are concerned, there needs to be some level of commitment linkage which needs to be retained. He said he felt there needed to be stronger guarantees and agreed with staff recommendation that what is in existence today was not strong enough. He said he preferred the language consider other means to provide other guarantees. Com. Mahoney said that he agreed with the three way stop, and agreed it was a City Council issue~ but not necessarily the current. He said that the wording was appropriate. Chair Harris summarized that there was agreement on the three way stop, excluding the ingress stop sign. She said she agreed with Com. Austin that they did not have to require linkage; she said that she felt they should buy the land in two pieces and deal with it that way, which is typically what would be done. Chair Harris said that she was making a formal referral to the City Council to respond to the phasing issue. Planning Commission Minutes 15 August 11, 1907 MOTION: tho phasing guarantees to SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 5-U-96, 6-Z-96, 8-TM-96 with the modification of the three signs with ingress being eliminated; all of the items per the model resolution, including the caveat that the City Council address option (eliminate language recommends that there are not s~[ficient date for the hotel to be built, and). Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Chair Harris discussed the letter pertaining to the Dor application which specifically details the findings made to date, and asked that when handling the approvals, the Planning Commission actually look at the exception list and tie responses to the individual items. She requested that the letter be kept with the Dor application Chair Harris noted a staff request that the various Diocese documents be turned in for reuse. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Cowan reported that a report on the Economic Development Committee was already given. There was a brief discussion regarding the procedures to follow to apply for Iow cost housing. Chair Harris requested that staff consider means to make the information more available to the public and that the Affordable Housing Committee publish a brief document available in public offices, giving the details, priority list, fees and who to contact. Ms. Wordell stated that the applicant, Sandhill Properties, said that they had a strong preference that the minute order be broken out so that the modification for the site plan which really can stop at the Planning Commission level, do so, and only the phasing go on to Council. Ms. Wordell said that it was workable with the process. She said that the site plan does not have to go to Council and if the Planning Commission is in agreement, staff would prepare a resolution for the site plan and a minute order for the phasing, and only the phasing be forwarded to City Council. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to recommend that the minute order be divided, having the use permit relate to the entry change, and the zoning and tentative map relate to the phasing which would go to City Council. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on August 25, 1997. RespectfuJIv Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary