Loading...
PC 09-09-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Harris Roberts Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Dcvelopmcnt; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Mich¢lle BjuITnan; Associate Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Tom Wiles, Planning Intern; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Robert Kilian, Attorney; Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel. Vice Chair Harris chaired the meeting in Chairman Roberts' absence. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the August 14, 1996 regular meeting Minutes of the August 26, 1996 regular meeting MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve the minutes of the August 14, 1996 meeting as presented. SECOND: Com. Austin ABSTAIN: Com. Mahoney ABSENT: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 3-0-1 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of the August 26, 1996 meeting as presented. Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:. Chair Harris noted written communication relative to Item No. 4. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 2-EXC-96 The Plumbing Bank Robert Allario 10297 So. DeAnza Blvd. Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 9, 1996 Sign Exemption to permit mom than one wall sign in accordance with Chapmr 17.24.050 of the Cupertino Municipal Code ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED APPLICATION WITHDRAWN. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 11-EXE-93 (Mod.) and 3-TM-92 (Mod.) Mark Sandoval Joseph and Xenia Czish 11845 Upland Way Tentative Map and Hillside Exception Modification to decrease driveway slope and increase retaining wall height on a residential hillside lot. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPT. 23, 1996. 10. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 14-U-96, 5-Z-96 and 21-EA-96 Thompson Residential Company Tandem Computer 10750 Wolfe Road Use Permit to construct 348 apartment units on 14 acres and rezone the property from Planned Industrial Zone P (MP) to Planned Residential P (RES). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE C1TY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 21, 1996 REQUEST CONrlNUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPT. 23, 1996 11. Application No.(s): Applicant: property Owner: 15-U-96, 6-Z-96 and 22-EA-96 Sandhill Properties Tandem Computers 10741 No. Wolfe Road and 19590 Pnmeridge Avenue Use Permit to construct 190 apartment units and 28 single family detached units on ten acres. Zoning to change the zoning on a 10 acre parcel from Planned (Commercial, Office, Recreation) to Planned (Residential) or other appropriate zone. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 7, 1996 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPT. 23, 1996. 12. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-GPA-96 and 23-EA-96 City of Cupertino Various Citywide Planning Commission Minutes ~ September 9, 1996 General Plan Amendment to the land usc and housing clcmcnts to redistribute residential potential among thc planning districts and the undesignated classification. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 21, 1996 REQUEST CONI1NUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPT. 23, 1996. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Items 8, 10 and 12 to the September 23, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, and Item 11 to the October 14, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-ASA-95 (Mod.) Cupertino Village I Cupertino Village Associates Wolfe Road and Homestead Road Architectural approval to modify approved exterior elevations at an existing shopping enter. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Com. Doyle requested that Item 2 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He expressed concern that the item was being agendized continually for discussion of separate items, and asked if requests could be consolidated for presentation to the Planning Commission. He suggested that the number of changes for the next year be restricted or consolidated for presentation. Mr. Rol~ert Cowan, Community Development Coordinator, explained that approval for individual needs of the tenants is needed. The applicant was not present. Mr. Cowan said he would pass on to the applicant the concern of the Planning Commission to see a master plan for aH changes. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 9-ASA-95 (Mod.) Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 9, 1996 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 12-ASA-96 Nextel Forge-Vidovich 10889 No. DeAnza Blvd. Architectural review to construct an enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR) antenna facility on a developed site (Cupertino Inn). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED A discussion ensued relative to the consolidation of issues relative to antennas before presentation to the Planning Commission. ~: Mr. Colm Jung, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the attached staff repoa. He distributed photos of existing site conditions and various antenna configurations. He noted the uniqueness of the application in that the applicant was attempting to anticipate their capacity needs and therefore was requesting approval of three different configurations in Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3. In response to Chair Harris' question about parking, Mr. Jung explained that staff is recommending a portion of the parking lot be restriped with compact parking stalls added to compensate for the equipment building. He noted that the compact stalls account for 35% of the center total. Com. Doyle asked if Nextel would be submitting applications for the next year, and requested clarification on the use of the Apple Computer site. Ms. Kfistin Leek, Nextel Communications, 475 14th Street, Oakland, explained that Nextel anticipated one additional site for Cupertino in the next five years. She said that there were adjacent sites in Los Altos and neighboring communities which would not require additional sites other than one in the Cupertino community. She explained that the Apple site was researched and the Cupe3'tino Inn is the preferred location because of its location adjacent to the freeway and its ability to provide coverage in the recessed freeway area. She noted that the location would eliminate the need for an additional site because of the coverage the site provided. Ms. Leek explained that the siting requirements and the coverage provided is similar to cellular; however, the technology is different because they provide the ESMR which is the enhanced specialized mobile radio. She said that their consumer base caters to service providers such as Federal Express, construction companies, and the mobile work force. She said that it had to be line of sight; and the technology works similar to Cellular One and GTE. Referring to the site elevation overheads, Mr. Jung and Ms. Leek answered questions. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 9, 1996 Mr. Zafir Naqvi, RF Design Engineer, Nextel Conununieations, explained that a number of sites were tested and the proposed site provided the best coverage for the targeted area near Highway 280 and the residential area of the San Jose site. He said that the Apple Computer site was not acceptable as it did not provide the coverage needed. Com. Doyle said that he did not like the idea of putting the towers on the hotel next to the highway as there were already antennas up and he felt that if an antenna could be hidden on the Apple Computer site it would be a better alternative. He said he was not supportive of proceeding with an already unfavorable situation. Com. Austin said she did not agree, stating that staff recommended approval in accordance with the resolution. She stated that staff completed a study and decided where the best sound is and are consolidating in a sense they are taking away fxom the Apple site. She said she supported the application. Staff feels comfortable with Phase 3 and it is set back enough. Mr. Jung said that if the Planning Commissioners were concerned about the height of the whip antennas, applicant said they would be willing to go to the third configuration, bypassing one and two. Com. Mahoney said that if it is line of sight for radio, it is line of sight for vision and said he was supportive of all three phases. Chair I-lan'is said that her preference was to start with Phase 3. She said she was not in favor of restriping the parking lot to 35% compact spaces when there is no issue about parking at the center, and that she would like to see less in the way of compact spaces rather than more. Com. Austin concurred. Chair Harris said she would be willing to go with the less obtrusive format. Ms. Leek said they would prefer to go through Phases 1, 2 and 3; however if it would benefit the project, would be willing to go to Phase 3. She explained that for optimum capacity issue and for coverage the omni whips do provide the better coverage. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 12-ASA-96, without the restriping and with Phase 3 only. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 3-1-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-U-96 Hossain E. Kh~iri Same 10002 DeAnza Blvd. Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 9, 1996 Use permit to demolish an abandoned service station and construct a 1,500 sq. Pc. service station and car wash. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 22, 1996 Staff~resentation: The vidco presentation reviewed the background of the application to demolish the abandoned gas station and construct a new gas station and ear wash, ns outlined in the attached staff report. The Planning Commission previously reviewed the application on July 22, 1996 and continued the application to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project. The Commission's direction at that time was to produce a more significant and monumental building to address the importance of the street intersection as the crossroads of the community. Staff recommends denial of the application as applicant chose not to redesign the building and therefore it does not meet the fundamental objective to create a landmark building that would address the importance of the intersection. Staff feels the lot size would be better suited for a small commercial building which would better meet the City's Heart of the City Specific Design Plan. Chair Har~s no~ ~4tt~ comm~cation from the applicant dated August 26, 1996, detailing the items that differ in their proposal. Mr. Michael Khaziri, applicant, explained that the landscape design was reviewed with the architect and updated with the use of a waterfall, arbors and natural stones and attractive landscaping to create a park-like appearance. He said redesigning the building would have created problems for traffic patterns for the gas station and car wash. It was decided to update the landscaping with a unique sign in the front with columns and the pond with circulating waters at the comer of the station. He said that stamped concrete was proposed for the driveway which would create a brick-like driveway to respond to the concern about the use of too much euncrete and asphalt. He said it was impossible to bring the building in the front. He passed around an architectural drawing of the proposed facility and referred to an overhead of the artist's rendering of the waterfall. He noted that the waterfall would have a pond at the base with lights in the pond which would illuminate the water at night. In response to Com. Mahoney's question about signage, Mr. Khaziri stated that he did not feel it necessary:~ have signs on the canopy, there would be a price sign on the front as well as the Bay Area Quality required price signs. A brief discussion ensued regarding signage, wherein Mr. Jung explained the state requirements for signage. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Ms. Ann Anger, resident, said that she was opposed to the proposed gas station and car wash. She stated that the comer was the main intersection of Cupertino and she felt it was disgraceful that after so much time spent beautif3~ing Cupertino that a gas station and ear wash be considered for that prominent comer. She said that she was a strong supporter of private property fights but not for people who owned property that didn't live in Cupertino and exploited the eommtmity. She reiterated that she was against the proposal; there was already a gas station located across the street. She said that she has been fighting hard to upgrade Monta Vista and at on~ time there were five gas stations in less than one block and they are now down to only one. She asked that the Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 9, 1996 Planning Commission reconsider and approve something more attractive for the corner, otherwise she felt her time spent on the upgrading of Monta Vista was wasted. Mr. John Sta~on, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said that the Board has also discussed the issue and were aware there were a number of community members that desired an alternative for that corner. He repor~w,d that it was the consensus of the Board that the corner has been the site of a gas station for a number of years, is zoned for a gas station, and the applicant has conformed the gas station to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Master Plan. He noted that the gas stations lc~ted in Cupertino, particularly the one located across from the proposed site, is one of the top 40 sales tax generators in the community. He said that the sales tax is vi~al to Cupertino. He said the City has the power to motivate a development on the corner that differs fi.om the proposal, but absent the inecnfive in terms of density it is a very difficult thing for the applicant to provide. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the project ns the applicant met the requirements of the City. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Com. Austin said that it was a unique property and that the Heart of the City Specific Plan specified the location should be a signature mark, such as a street monument, a public work of art, a special landscaping or special pavement effect. She said she liked the stamped pavement effect, the sign and the arbors, and she felt the applicant created an interesting facility which would be an Com. Mahoney said that the two fundamental questions were (1) Is it appropriate to have a gas station at the location? and (2) If so, what should it look like? He pointed out that without alternate uses to justify denial of the application, the location is small and consolidation has not oocurred. He said the location was well designed for a gas station and he was supportive of the curreat design. He noted that he still had concerns about the signage. Com. Doyle said that he was opposed to the gas station proposal. He said he felt the use of the site should not be limited but that the proposal was not a significant improvement over the last submittal and the design was not appropriate. He pointed out that the City has invested a lot in the ~ oftbe City concept, received a lot of input fi.om the community and incorporated it into the General Plan, and the site is a significant site as part of that entire proposal and should be upgraded and not just replicate what is on the other corner. Com. Doyle said that as a public policy issue th~ community indicated that the intersection should reflect the history and tradition of Cupertino and the present proposal did not embody that. Chair Harris said that she was in favor of the revised proposal. She said there are high rise buildings on two corners and a service station on the opposite corner, and she was not in favor of having a high rise office building on the proposed site because it would appear imbalaneed. She said she felt the applicant had created a striking, attractive and tasteful service station and had complied with the requirements of the Heart of the Specific Plan. She said her first preference would be to have the City buy the intersection and develop a park with a fountain; however she felt the City did not have the resources at this time to acquire the property and develop it as a park. She said that the applicant has designed a tasteful center, with attractive landscaping, special pavement effects, and the fountain area could be viewed as an artwork. She expressed concern about approving the waterfall and the sign without knowing what it would look like, and suggested that the specific concerns be returned for further review. Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 9, 1996 Com. Austin commented that th~ memorandum in Exhibit A from Freeman, Tung & Bottomley, recommended that the gas station sign complement the building architecturally relative to shape, paint, color, em. Chair Nards recommended that the condition specify that the property owner maintain the site to include street monuments, public art and landscaping as approved for the site by the Planning Commission to acknowledge the importance of the site in the Heart of the City's Specific Plan area. She said it would provide the opportunity for a future Planning Commission to approve a different monument if appropriate. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 6oU-96 with the conditions that the foantain~ and signage be reviewed by consultants, Freeman, Tung & Bottomley and brought to staff for review and Planning Commission for site and architecture approval. Com. Austin Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 3-1-0 Chair Harris stated that the item was final, unless appealed. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 5-TM-96 Aster 2 Ann McElroy 1358 So. Stelling Road Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 1 acre parcel into 2 parcels and one remainder parcel. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the application to subdivide a one acre parcel into two parcels and one remainder lot, as outlined in the attached staff report. The property owner will continue to reside on the property and two single family residences will be built facing Aster Lane. Four eucalyptus and one almond tree will be removed for a roadway and sidewalk. Staffreenmmends approval of the application. To address neighborhood concerns about possible traffic increases, staff recommends that the City allow Aster and Normandy Way to remain dead-ended. Mr. Dick Childress, President, Debcor Corporation, explained that the application was for a single family residential lot development. He said that the owner, Mrs. McEIroy, planned to remain on the property and develop two single family lots, which is consistent with R1-6000 zoning. He said the possibility of Aster Lane going through was discussed; however when it was developed in the County some time ago the two streets were misaligned significantly making it difficult to go through. A survey was conduetexl of the neighborhood, stating the owners intent to develop and asking for their opinion on Aster Lane; 54 of the 71 neighborhood responses were opposed to 9 September 9, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes Aster Lane going through because of noise and traffic impacts. Mr. Childress noted that the present configuration has Ix~n existence since 1960 and thc majority responding said they would like to leave things as is. He explained that a connection to the sidewalk has been created so that Aster Lane provides pedestrian access ail the way through and the sidewalk configuration and eoraer has been changed to be consistent with city standards. He summarized that he felt it was an appropriate development for the property and said he and Mrs. MeElroy agreed to the conditions stated in the resolution. Mr. Childress explained that there is a walknsay that goes through and will be maintained and connected to the Aster Lane sidewalk. Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, stated that staff recommended that Aster Lane not go through, and that the method of blecking it offwhen the property is subdivided would be decided as either a cul de sac or dead end. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Bob Hopkins, 7586 Normandy Way, requested that Aster Lane not go through to Rainbow as he was concerned for the safety of his young children. Ms. Sam Arzeno, 7665 Normandy Way, said that she spoke with 7 families about the survey and none of them were aware that Aster Lane was the end of Normandy Way. She said she was grateful to have input about Aster Lane, but did not understand the implications of having homes and driveways put at the end of what was known as Normandy Way. With that in mind, she read some concerns: Developing lots, moving trees, paving sidewalks and putting driveways at the end of Normandy Way. She said that the neighbors felt it would change the atmosphere of the neighborhood. The homeowners purchased homes in the area specifically because of the quiet, rural atmosphere of what was called the horse farm at the end of the street. She said that the towering Eucalyptus trees, the birds and wildlife that gather there lend a unique and peaceful country feeling to the neighborhood. She said that the children and families won't benefit from it. She said she understood that the homes needed to be built, and asked the developer to consider developing the sites as flag lots with the driveways going out to South Stelling rather than Aster. She noted that there were precedents in Cupertino where this has been done, and rather than destroying a quiet neighborhood, put them out on Stelling which is aiready busy. Ms. Arzcoo expressed concern for the children's safety as they currently play in the area. She also expressed concern about the increased traffic in the area, the noise and disruption from the construction. She said she would like the oppemmity to view the finali?~d plan to know what has been decided upon. Ms. Arzeno said she felt the drawings did not address the issues when the driveways are proposed. Chair Harris closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Com. Doyle said that he understood that what was presented was a subdivision, and if one of the units needed an exception the Planning Commission would see it again, but as is, the proposal conforms to the current zoning and requirements with the right setbacks. Mr. Cowan clarified that the Planning Commission has the discretion of locating dhveway approaches as part of the subdivision design, but not the house design itself. Com. Doyle said he was not opposed to the subdivision and leaving the street closed off'. He said that it was appropriate to take a one acre lot and subdivide it into the appropriate zoning consistent Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 9, 1996 with the area. He said the input on the driveway is important and attempts to minimize the impact to the street should be made. He said he supported the proposal with review required on the driveway issue. Com. Austin said she was in favor of the subdivision and in favor of keeping Aster closed as recommended by staff. She said that she felt the driveways should be put in the best possible location to allow for easy access to the property. Mr. Cowan explained that the applicant would present a house design plan and garage location further in the process and that from the staffpoint of view there was no critical location. Chair Harris pointed out that a condition of approval that the driveways be designed to minimize impact to Aster could be included. Mr. Childress clarified that relative to the driveways, because the proposal is an outside comer, there is not a significant problem because the visibility is far better than if it were on an inside comer. He said the location of the driveway whether on the lek or fight side of lot No. 1 is not a significant factor in terms of safety. He said that on lot No. 1 the preference was for the driveway be on the lek side because it would minimize the amount of driveway work that goes in the area of the sidewalk and give some separation and better yard space. He said they were willing to relocate it as appropriate, but said there is no criteria indicating one is safer than the other. Com. Mahoney said he supported the application, and as it involved only two houses, he felt the driveways could be located where desired. He said he did not feel the application needed to be reviewed again relative to the driveway location. Chair Harris said she was in favor of the proposal, but because of the community input, would like to see a condition stating the driveways should be designed to minimize impact to Aster and Normandy and that the approval be by staff. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 5-TM-96 with a condition that the driveways be designed to minimize impacts to Aster and Normandy Lanes and approval be by staff. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Cowan noted that the decision by the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 13-U-96 and 25-EA-96 Gumbas Restaurant Michael Pierce 21678 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit to locate a 1,130 sq. ft. restaurant in an existing retail building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Planning Commission Minutes ]J September 9, 1996 StaffDresentat/on: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to relocate the Gumhas restaurant to the Solmar Building, as outl/ned in thc attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application concluding that parking is sufficient and thc restaurant will not adversely impact thc nearby residential area. Mr. Cowan said that staff recommended approval, noting the restaurant would add vitality to the Monta Vista area and said that because of the scale of the project, would not likely have a detrimental effect 6n the neighborhood. Mr. Michael Rockhold, architect, said that he has worked with staff on the project and is in conformance with all conditions. He ~ported that the property owners have entered into an agreement to post bonds to assure that the improvements along Imperial are carried out to allow the work on the interior improvements in the restaurant space to continue. He noted that the restaurant would be put in place first and then subsequently the curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements made along Imperial. He said that the applicant would be retoming with the sign criteria and noted that he was currently working with the owners on a new sign program for the building to assure conformance with the remainder of the buildings. Chair Harris requested that signage and other architectural features be presented at one time. Mr. Rockhold added that the hours of operation were fxom 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days per week. He noted that Sunday hours may be revised, opening later at 12 noon and closing at 9 p.m. depending on customer traffic. He clarified that the restaurant would be serving beer and wine with meals; however, it is primarily a family restaurant and the serving of beer and wine was merely a supplement to some meals and should not be viewed as a bar-like atmosphere. Mr. Reel&old said that there have been discussions with the owners about possible center renovations. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. John Statton, Chamber of Commerce, said that the Chamber was supportive of the project. Gumbas was an asset to the Cupertino Village Shopping Center location and it will now serve a need for a place to eat in that part of town. Ms. Ann Anger, resident, said she was in favor of the project and would like to see more restaurants in Moata Vista to make it a gathering place similar to SaraWga and Los G-atos. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. In response to Com. Doyle's question about a previous concern relative to a restaurant exhaust fan and odors, Mr. Cowan explained that the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board is obligated to inspect restaurants and does so. He noted that the application was presented because it is located within 100 feet from residential; the home is in a mixed commercial/retail PD zone. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration on 25-EA-96 Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes z2 September 9, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 13-U-96 Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-04) Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 12-u-as (Mod.) Pizzeria Uno Stephen Gazzera, Jr. 19930 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit Modification to extend weekday hours bom 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and from 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff oresentation: The viden presentation reviewed the background of the request to extend the hours of operation of the Pizzeria Uno restaurant, as presented in the aUached staff report. Staff feels that the extended hours will not adversely effect the residential neighborhood and recommends approval of the application. Mr. Steve Bmska, partner, Gunther Restaurant Group, explained that the reason for extending the hours of operation of the restaurant was to remain more competitive in the neighborhood. He said that the restaurant had p~viously been closing an hour earlier than most competitors. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Vic Detvin, 10109 Mello Place, explained that his residence was located directly south of the pizzeria. He noted a correction to the wording of the staff report, pointing out that the word "south" in the 3rd last line should read "west". Mr. Den, in expressed concern about noise problems at the business location since 1989, emanating from car doors slamming, car alarms, motorcycles, squealing tires in the parking lot, tour buses at times left running, and restaurant deliveries in early morning hours. He said that the business receives its deliveries on Tuesday mornings at which time the delivery trucks are left idling for lengthy periods. He reported that he discusse6the mater with the code enforcement personnel previously and the problem was handled temporarily. He also pointed out that in July the parking lot was repaved and the work began as early as 6 a.m. On August 20 a pressure washer was used to clean equipment in the parking lot at 7 a.m. Mr. Dervin said that the parking lot does not quiet down until after 2 a.m. when the employees leave the premises. He expressed frustration with the disturbances to his household created by the late operating hours and said that the extension of hours will only make matters worse as the patrons will not leave the m~anrant until 1:30 a.m., and the employees at 2 a.m. Mr. Dervin said that the comment about remaining competitive with other restaurants in the area was unwarranted in that the competition in the area closes much earlier at 10 p.m. and 8 p.m. on Sundays. He said that it is one of the few pi2Ta restaurants that maintains a full service bar and advertises a full service bar and grill. He commented that customers patronizing the establishment between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. during the week would not typically be a family, but other crowds, which would add to the noise level. Mr. Dervin asked that the Planning Commission provide some relief for his concerns. Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 9, 1996 Mr. John Statton, Chamber of Commerce, reported that 15 months ago when Pizzeria Uno was anticipating making the change they invited neighbors to provide input and six people attended. He said the feeling was that it was a valuable asset to the community. Mr. Statton pointed out that there are very few establishments that provide service late in the evening in Cupertino and urged the Planning Commission to approve the application. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. In response to Chair Harris' question about distance between the restaurant and Mr. Dervin's residence, Mr. Tom Wiles, Planning Intern, reported that there was a 20 foot buffer from the end of the parking lot to the property line, and 200 to 250 feet from the rear of the restaurant to Mr. De,fin's property line. He said that an 8 foot masonry wall was provided on the south and west boundary. He said he was not aware of any cede enforcement violations relative to the washing and cleanup activity in the parking lot as mentioned by Mr. Dervin. Com. Austin said that she empathized with Mr. Dervin's concerns. She said she was in favor of extending the hours of the establishment as it was very difficult to find an eatery open late hours in Cupertino. In response to Com. Austin's concern about restricting trucks and busses on thc property and early morning activity in response to Mr. Dervin's eoncems, Chair Harris cited conditions in effect relative to trash removal, evening hour cleanup activities and future corrective measures. She pointed out that the existing conditions provided for resolution measures. Com. Austin suggested that if neighbors had futura concerns relative to the establishment in question, they contact the City staff. Com. Doyle said that he supported the change in hours for Pizzeria Uno, but that restrictions on the amount of time that patrons remain in the establishment following closure of the restaurant be enforced. He suggested that the hours be extended, but not the time opened for patrons, as patrons tend to linger following closure of the restaurant. A brief discussion ensued regarding the closing hours of establishments wherein Mr. Cowan answered Commissioner's questions. Com. Maboney said he was supportive of extending the hours of operation for one hour, and that the language relative to patrons exiting the restaurant be modified to read 12:00 a.m. Monday through Thursday, l:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday; and 1 l:00 p.m. Sunday. Chair Harris concurred with Com. Mahoney. She said that there are presently no eateries other than fast food open late in the evening in Cupertino and that such an establishment would be a welcome addition for Cupertino. She said she was in favor of the new hours of operation; but that it was reasonable to expect the patrons to leave the establishment one hour a~er closing and the doors be closed. Com. Doyle noted that there were restrictions in the resolution to limit the noise and hopefully mitigations would alleviate the severe impact on the surrounding community. 14 September 9, 1996 Planning Commission IVlinutes Com. Harris said she would caution the owner to be a remain a "good neighbor" to avoid negative community input. She said that the restaurant is an asset to the community and it should be entitled to have the same operating hours as other restaurants. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 12-U-88 {Mod.) with the hour changes noted. Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Cowan noted that the action was final unless appealed to City Council within 14 calendar days. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-U-96, 3-EXC-96 and 16-EA-96 Unocal Service Station {Robert Lee & Assoc.) Stephen T. Carlson, Stevens Creek Cupertino Associates 20755 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit to ~plece aa existing service station with a new station and car wash. ENVIRO~AL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONIINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 1996. Staff ~resentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the application to replace the existing service station with a new service station and car wash, and operation of a 24 hour food mart inside the service station, as outlined in the attached staff report. Consultants Freeman, Tung & Bottonfley have reviewed and approved the plans with the exception of the proposed orange and blue illuminated tubes which staff believes are too bright for Stevens Creek Boulevard. Staff recommends approval; the application is acceptable and will have no adverse affects relating to noise, parking, security and signage. The Planning Commission's determination to approve or deny will be final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to an overhead listing the security issues idemified in the staff.report. She recommended deletion of Item 6-1 referring to the pass-through payment window because the clerk/servien area will not be closed off. Referring to the colored photos showing the signage, Ms. Wordell said that ~aff was recommending that the orange tubes not be illuminated. The Planning Commissioners studied the color board passed around by Ms. Wordell. Mr. Tom DeLuca, Unocal 76 project manager, introduced members of the Unocal design team. Mr. DeLuca explained that Unocal leased the site from the Watkins-Carlson Parmership, owners oftbe Target property. He outlined the review process followed by Unocal. As a result of leasing the site, Unocal worked closely together with the parmership on the master plan for the center so that there would be a consistent landscaping, architectural, circulation and parking plan between its proposal and the future proposal to ensure consistency in the project. He reported that the Unocal design team has met with the consultants, Freeman, Tung & Bottomley for their review and consideration. APter incorporating some minor architectural and landscaping changes, the Plaanin$ Commission Minutes 15 September 9, 1996 consultants have supported the plan. Staffhas also reviewed thc plan and approved the plan. Mr. DeLuca repor~l that there is one outstanding design issue between Unocal and staff, which pertains to the glow tubes. He noted that the glow tubes are the last and final architectural element lef~ of the corporate image of the project. All other architectural elements of Unocal's standard corporate design have been substantially e 'hminated or modified to customize the project for the Target lecation. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the illuminated tubes as they were not in a residential area, and they are part of a recognizable corporate image and they would not present a negative impact on the area. Mr. DeLuca addressed the noise study issue. He reported that Mr. Woska, the Noise Control Officer posted notices to surrounding businesses and has not received any opposition to the noise fi.om the car wash and granted the exemption request. He noted that the noise dBA at the sidewalk is 66 dBA and the noise ordinance allows for 65 dBA, which is only a single dBA over the noise ordinance allowance, which is relatively insi~nificant. He pointed out that the dBA fi.om the busses in the area measured between 83 and 85 dBA. Mr. DeLuca summarized the benefits of the plan. He pointed out that there are no funds allocated to implement the Heart of the City's Specific Plan. The Heart of the City's Specific Plan is implemented by private developers as they submit development projects along Stevens Creek Boulevard. He reported that he met with the City design consultant, secured their support and will be implementing the portion of the Heart oftbe City's Specific Plan along the portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said there will be a total of 20 feet of landscaping along Stevens Creek Boulevard and that they have customized the project for this particular location with a unique design that ties into the Heart oftha City Specific Plan as well as a future expansion oft_he Target center. Relative to the car wash, Mr. DeLuca explained that the station reclaims 85% of the water that is used at the location; the net result is it only takes about 10 gallons of flesh water to wash a car, whereas studies indicate that a private party uses between 60 to 75 gallons of flesh water to wash one ear. He euneluded by stating that Unocal has worked with the City staff and adjoining shopping center owner to tie the project together and worked diligently with the City design consultant and complied with all issues other than the glow tube. Mr. DeLuca responded to concerns raised in Ms. George's letter in opposition to the car wash. He noted that the project is not for a fast food restaurant on the site, but merely a snack shop. He explained that the car wash was not a robotic type car wash, but an express-type ear wash where the customer remains in the ear while going through the ear wash. He said that studies have indicated that between 90-95% oftbe people who use the food mart and ear wash are the existing customers of the gas station. He noted that the proposed ear wash operation differed from the Rain Tree operation, and would hopefully alleviate some concern expressed in the letter of opposition. Mr. Barry Watkins, landlord for Unocal, 17251 17th Street, Tnstin, California, said that the company owned the center for 10 years. He said that in answer to a plea to generate more sales tax revenue for the city they tried to mastermind a plan to inerense the volume and amenities to the center and upgrade the center. He said it was their plan to generate one of the highest volume Target's in northern California and to use a first class, first quality project. Part of the master plan is to expand Target and renovate the Unocal facility which is estimated to generate $5.5 million per year of which a substantial portion of taxes would be generated for the city. He said it was the in~nfion of Unocal to maximize the total for the entire site by being able to do this type of development and asked for approval to proceed as outlined. He said they were willing to address Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 any outstanding concerns to arrive at something which would benefit the entire community with a high quality development. In response to Chair Harris' question about further development on the site, Mr. Watldns said that it was dependent on whether or not the property to the west of Saich Way is acquired to be able to combine the properties together. Under the present configuration, the 10.1 acres is what Unocal has. He added that a restaurant on the property would utilize a large portion of the parking at the Target stores, and it was felt the proposal was a compromise was the best for the entire project. Chair Harris opened the hearing for public comment. Ms. Joan George, owner of the self-service car wash located at 10115 Salch Way, said that her place of business was not listed on the map in the agenda packet, but indicated as "miscellaneous retail." She noted that there were also two other car washes in a one mile radius of the proposed car wash; one at Stevens Creek and Stelling and another at DeAnza and Alves; as well as many other liquor selling establishments within the area, and questioned the need for another. Ms. George pointed out the naffic, noise and pollution impacts from the cars utilizing the ear wash, as well as the noise level from the car wash facility on a busy Saturday. She said an exception will also have to be made for signage to accommodate the need for different signs for the facility. She said that in the past 15 years the siguage exceptions have been limited to keep the city unique. Ms. George questioned the need for the many exceptions which would need to be granted for a business that she felt is not really needed in Cupertino. She said that community growth is necessary but should be geared to the needs of thc community and requested that the Planning Commission deny the application. She thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to provide input in the process. Mr. Grover Steele, president of Moonlight Car Wash, Inc., explained that the company maintained a lease agreement with the George family trust and operator Joan George. He stated his opposition to the proposed ear wash facility, based on the fact that in addition to the operation on Saich Way, there already exists two ear washes with convenience stores within a one mile radius, as well as the Shell Station with a car wash and a fourth proposed at Saich and Stevens Creek and the fifth proposed facility at Stevens Creek and DeAnza. He noted that the future anticipates a 30% decrease in business when competition in the form of additional car washes are moved in to close proximity, and said that a 30% decrease in business is catastrophic in today's business environment. Mr. Steele reported that recently his company entered into a sublease agreement with Mr. Harold Willis who is an established hand car wash operator to use an unused portion of the Saich Way ear wash for the operation of a custom hand wash ear wash. The sublease was conditional with Mr. Willis that he obtain a business license from the City of Cupertino and the appropriate liability insurance. In the last week of August, the City of Cupertino rejected Mr. Willis' application for a business license with no reason for the rejection given. He said that the operation at 1011 Saich Way conforms to the use permit for that property. As a result of his failure to obtain a business license the Moonlight Car Wash operation has been forced to terminate its sublease with Mr. Willis and refund his security deposit. Mr. Steele repotted that he viewed the rejection of Mr. Willis' business application pending approval of competitive car washes by the City of Cupertino as a discriminatory action which has caused significant financial damage to the Moonlight Car Wash Corporation, and said that the matter has been brought to the attention of his attorney. Planning Commission Minutes 17 September 9, 1996 Ms. WordeH clarified that the request for a hand car wash was presented to her and she needed to verify how they would interpret somebody doing that in a facility that had a use permit for self service. She said that today closure was brought to the issue and a business license was isued to Mr. Willis on the condition that Mr. Willis would be personally bringing each car to the car wash and driving it off and would not be stacking cars similar to a detailer. She said that it was his business plan to bring the cars to the car wash. Mr. Steele said he felt the action was discouraging, in that Mr. Willis presented a business plan with documents showing the type of operation; he explained it to the city and the matter went on for three weeks. He said Mr. Willis notified him on Saturday morning that his application had been rejected. He added that it wns peculiar that his application for a license was granted aRer Mr. Steele discussed the matter with his attorney. Chair Harris closed thc public input portion of the public hearing. Chair Harris declared a recess at 9:10 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The same staff and commissioners were present following the recess. Mr. Andrew Pawlowski, Robert Lee & Associates, architects, explained that the sign depicted in the document and staff report was the actual sign proposed for the installation. He said that the sign design is referred to as a channel letter arrangement, and the color differentiation is a result of the photocopying process; the tree color is illustrated by the color chip on the color board. A brief discussion ensued regarding the signage colors wherein Mr. Pawlowski answered questions. Chair Harris discussed the solid walls, not depicted in the rendering, noting that there did not seem to be any mitigation of the wall surface. Mr. Pawiowski said that it was a concern expressed by Freeman, Tung & Bottomley in response to the first submittal. He said that the initial proposal was an austere unarticulated rear elevation oft he building, stucco fi.om the base, with no overhang on the rear. The initial response fi.om Union 76 was to design a facia and the mansard roof around all four sides of the building and at that time it was given to Freeman, Tung & Bottomley for review. As a result of their review, a tile wainscot was added to the base as in the City's Heart of the City Specific Plan. He briefly discussed the proposed landscape plan. He explained that the west elevation of the car wash was a masonry pamper wall which had the same form but no artienlation; a banded set of alternating textures of masonry block extended the entire way with no slope to the roof form. He discussed further modifications. He said that the conditions suggest that the roof mounted sign be moved back down to the facia and it will be done in accordance with that condition. The roof sign would be no taller than the facia that it is mounted on. Mr. Pawlowski addressed previously discussed architcetaral issues. He explained that the extent of the vicinity map was clearly depicted by staff as to the extent they wanted it to show. The direction given was to show the first building encountered in every direction, mostly so that understanding the vicinity could be established. He said that the labeling of the miscellaneous retail area was not intended to label the car wash as miscellaneous retail, but that it contained some retail stores. The sign issues are as noted in the staff report that there are two distinct businesses to operate on one parcel and therefore requested an exemption to have two signs. A mention was made of the public safety issues noted in the staff report. He said they were issues that arise in couneetion with any business operating with such hours and Unocal is committed to complying any of those pertaining to public safety. He explained that they include types of things where you have locked doors; the ability to close the doors and operate only through the drawers. Planning Commission Minutes ~s September 9, 1996 In response to Com. Doyle's question about the need for a kiosk in the vicinity of the car wash, Mr. Pawlowski said that the kiosk houses the attendant serving the car wash customers. Mr. Michael Shea, Unocal, Corp., explained that the Unocal car washes are exterior car washes where the customer remains in the ear and the car goes through the wash on a conveyor. There are attendants located at the entrance and exit oftbe tunnel. The attendant placed at the entrance to the tunnel guides the customer onto the conveyor and accepts payment for the car wash. In response to a que~ian from Chair Harris, Mr. Shea estimated that the number of customers at the existing facilities in the late hours were between 35 and 50. He said that when the car wash is closed there is a single attendant in the store to handle transactions. A discussion ensued regarding the siguage wherein Mr. Shea explained that a sign would indicate the Pro Wash or Fast Break but not both. He indi¢~g~ that the panel below the 76 ball would identify the primary format on the project which is the pro wash, because the fast break is only a 400 square foot retail space store. Mr. Pawlowski explained that Unocal is limited by ordinance on the sign size. Mr. Shca stated that before the remodeling of the stations, through an extensive survey of customers to determine what businesses should be combined with the service stations, Unocal determined that the number one desire of customers was an exterior car vosh; the second preference was the fast break cenvenience store. Service stations throughout Caiifomia and Hawaii that are being remodeled are now including the fast break convenience stores and the exterior car washes. There was a brief discussion about the spacing of street trees, wherein Ms. Wordell said that the Heart of the City Specific Plan specifies planting the trees 25 feet apart. Ms. Wordell commented on the noise issue, stating that the 66 dBA is only one dBA above the standard and because of the ambient noise in the area, staff felt that it did not present a problem. She explained that the noise exception was created by the blowers from the car wash, and would be intermittent depending on the number of cars serviced. Chair Harris discussed the response to the Environmental Review Committee. She said the issue was noise and the concept of the Heart of the City, and the proposed car wash may not be the best use to encourage pedestrian environment, because of the noise. It was not enough of an issue to deny the environmental impact, but was a comment related to the character of the area and how we might want to see it developed. Com. Austin said that relative to the Heart of the City, the design was a standard Union 76 station design and was not particularly exciting, but rather ordinary, and not of real interest with the Whole Foods Market across the street, and Fontanas and Target in the area. She said that staff felt that the noise issue was not a problem as the blowers were operating from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Com. Austin said that she felt if they were trying to make the area pedestrian friendly, the car wash noise would not be appropriate. She said the parking area was appropriate; the materials used in the design were inexpensive materials, very practical. She said she did not want the sign illuminated. She expressed concern about security, stating that if it was a 24 hour facility, it should remain locked. She said she was not in favor of a 24 hour operation and was opposed to September 9, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes liquor sales after a certain hour. Com. Austin said that overall, she was not in favor of the proposed facility. Com. Doyle said that relative to the Heart of the City, he was in favor of the 25 foot vs. 20 foot spacing of trees. He said the existing business is probably a good example of what happens when the parking requirements are changed to let infill development occur in the front of the parking lot. He said he would like the noise level of 66 dBA mitigated, but it might be difficult to do. He said parking was appropriate. Com. Doyle said that he felt there was no character to the gas station other than just a standard gas statinn design. He said he would like to see something more in line with the previous gas station reviewed. He felt that the kiosk should be minimized instead of sticking out by itself; try to eliminate it or move it into the facility. He said he did not approve of thc 48 foot wall monolith even with thc texturing. He recommended climinating the lights in thc color bars, or climinating the color bars if possible. Hc said that thc signs should meet the sign ordinance; was not in favor of a 24 hour facility, perhaps closing timc of 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. Overall be said he was not in favor of the proposal unless it had significant modifications. Com. Maboney said that he felt it fit in with the Heart of City. He said he was not cuncemed with the noise impacts or parking. He said that he felt the design was appropriate, although other people think it needs more work, he felt it was consistent with other buildings. He said that he agreed with stai~s recommendation relative to signs. He said he was not opposed to the station operating 24 hours, but not the mart. He said that he would support it with some modifications. Chair Ha_his said she did not like the particular usc in the Heart of the City; it is a very special part of the Heart of the City; it is a redevelopment project and it would be appropriate to see it redeveloped into something other than a service station in thc middle of a block. She said she felt noise was an issue and would deter people from wanting to walk around the area. She said she felt the design was garish and draws attention to itself. Chair Harris said she did not feel the design was tasteful. She said that she did not like the metal space age canopy support or the orange laminate features. She said she was opposed to a use with 66 dBA most of the day. She said she concurred with Com. Doyle that thc signs should be under the ordinance. She said that she felt the service station could operate 24 hours a day but that the mart should not be open past 11 p.m., mainly because of the safety issue. She said that she was not opposed to alcohol sales in the mart during the hours the mart is open. She said that she would be more amenable to the use if it was thc fast break and serviee station and not the car wash, noting that there were already too many car washes and no need for more. Com. Harris said that the large blank wall with plantings was acceptable; and the base created and roof line difference was appropriate. The large wall without mitigation is not acceptable and needs some type of mitigation especially as it faces the center. Mr. DeLuca said that he was aware the hearing was closed and would not try to address the issues raised. He said that the applicant has demonstrated that they could work cooperatively with the lessor, has worked with staff and the design consultant and believes they could address the concerns that the Commission has raised. He said the concerns discussed were noted and requested a 30 day cuntinuanee to work with staff in order to address those concerns. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Applications 10-U-96, 3-EXC-96 and 16-EA-96 to the October 14, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 20 September 9, 1996 Planninl~ Commission Minutes OLD BUSINESS 13. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 9-U-94 Forge Homestead Aparanents 20691 Home~_e~el Road Report to City Council regarding perimeter sound wall. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 16, 1996 Staff nresentation: Ms. Wordell reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff mgort. The Planning Commission has been asked to make a report to the City Council on the perimeter sound wall. It is ~aff's recommendation that a masonry wall would provide greater long term noise and safety protection than wood. Mr. John Vidovich, developer, displayed a sample of the proposed wood fence for examination. He said that he spoke at the City Council meeting and the City Council requested the Planning Commission present their findings and recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Vidovich said he felt the proposed wood fence is above standard and is something that an area such as Los Altos would require. He described the composition of the fence, noting its durability. He said the concrete wall cracks as it ages, has movement, and the wood fence would age better and provide the residential to residential atmosphere that they are trying to achieve at the Forge Homestead apartment. He said felt very strongly about the wood fence and preferred it for his property; that it was not a cost saving measure; and it was consistent with the type of clientele wanted to attract. The planning Commission examined the fence sample. Mr. Vidovich concluded that in most communities there are certain standards for residential to residential and usually the standard is wood. He said concrete was not mentioned and it was his intent to build a project consistent with what is next door. He said the type of wood proposed is superior to the normal small wood fence; it meets the criteria of being solid; meets the noise attenuation; and yet provides the aesthetic quality of wood. Chair Ha~is questioned whether Mr. Vidovich had considered putting up a masonry wall with the wood fence inside the masomy wall. Mr. Vidovich responded that the original proposal was to put masonry along the Sunnyvale property line where the older fourplexes were; however the City Council indicated they would like to see consistent material throughout the entire project. He said he had not considered putting the two different fences up. Responding to Com. Doyle, Mr. Vidovich said he felt that as a property owner he believed the wood fence would enhance the value of his property as well as rite neighborhood. He said he felt the wood fence provides a certain character similar to what is found in Saratoga. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Lynore Slaten, 20552 Shady Oak Lane, President, Cupertino Countrywood Board of Directors, said she represented the owners of 106 townhomes in Cupertino. She said they understood from the beginning of thc project that there would be a masonry sound wall on the west, 21 September 9, 1996 Planing Commission Minutes north and east perimeter of the property. In October 1994, the Planning Commission directed that they meet with the Forge developer to hear about the project; hence they invited the developer to attend the Cupertino Countrywood's annual meeting on November 14, 1994 to present the project. Mr. Jim Sisk made the presentation and told them the developer would provide "as tall a masonry wall as the City will allow us to build around the perimeter of our property line." She referred to an overhead of notes she had taken at the meeting. Sl~e said there were 100 people at the meeting who heard the same thing and would testify to it. She said from then on they believed that the wall surrounding the property would be masonry, never believing otherwise; if they believed otherwise, they would have fought for the masonry wall long ago. She said at the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1995, the site plan was marked up to indicate an 8 foot sound wall and condition No. 14 was added to Resolution No. 4584 of Application 4-U-94, concerning perimeter fencing. Because of this act of the Planning Commission, the words "8 foot sound wall" were added to the site plan. She said it was used throughout the City Council meeting many times on February 21, 1995; it was referred to and seen extensively in the videotape fi'om the meeting. During the straw vote as well as the final approval vote, the 8 foot wall was explicitly included as a condition of approval. The words "8 foot wall" were specified by Bautista, Dean and Mr. Cowan during that meeting. She pointed out that the minutes of the meeting were incorrectly transcribed and were referred to in the handouts also. The videotape confirms that an 8 foot wall and only the word "wall" was used to refer to that barrier in the tape; It was not "perimeter fencing". Ms. Slaten referred to an overhead illustrating a fax from Ciddy Wordell confimfing that the use permit used the words "wall" and not the word "fence". The summary of the July 15 meeting in the handout states that only "wall" was used. The ~sult was that Exhibit E, approved site plan, shows three sides of the perimeter in a dark line with the words "8 foot sound wall". Ms. Slaten said that they had the word of Jim Sisk promising masonry and because of his original promise they never again questioned the material of thc wall. She said they are objecting to it now as soon as they understood that a wood fence was intended. She said that Jim Sisk told the City Council on July 15 that he "may have offered masonry to them at that meeting to get our support, but he only did it in an attempt to get their support." Ms. Slaten said they understood that a wall is constructed of masonry, and a sound wall is also a masonry wall, similar to that found next to freeways throughout California. Barbara Koppell, a former councilmember, reassured them that her understanding and intention during the City Council approval discussions and voting was also that the 8 foot wall was to be masonry. At the July 15 City Council meeting Mayor Burnett stated he also understood that the wall was to be masonry when he voted his approval for the project. Ms. Slat~ stated that a masom~ sound wall was needed for safety, security and privacy. There is only 10 feet between that wall and the residents' kitchens and family rooms. Mr. Vidovich asserted before the July 15 "the reason for a masonry wall on the Sunnyvale west side was just physical protection, actual physical protection. It would stop a bullet if it went through." She said that the residents also needed that protection, times are such that people are less predictable than before; they express anger and fi-astration differently than before. She said that her townhome backs up to Homestead with an 8 foot masonry wall behind the patio. A few years ago, a Countrywood neighbor had a car come around the comer all the way through the wall on Home.~_~,t and stop in her sliding glass door. Without the masonry wall to lessen the impact, her neighbor would have been killed in her own home. She said that such a threat to the people on the west side was inexcusable; they must be safely protected by a masonry wall. The residents believed all along that a solid 8 foot masonry wall was intended all along by the City Council. She said that the masonry wall was safer and more secure. Planning Commission Minutes 22 September 9, 1996 Mr. Naren Kaita, 586 La Conner Drive, Sunnyvale, said that a more honest comparison would have been to have a masonry wall sample to compare it to the wood fence sample. He said that there could be a very effective masonry wall with a very long life. He commented that tithe Great Wall of China was wood, it would not be in existence today. Mr. Kaita said he attended the first meeting and recalled the words spoken by Mr. Sisk, as well as other meetings where the word "wall" was used again and again and the word "fence" was not mentioned. He questioned why there was so much concern from the west side. He said the residents of the single family homes have the same needs and concerns for safety. He said that if it was perceived that a masonry wail was inferior, why consideration was not given to a good brick or solid stone wall which would be more attractive than a wood fence. He said it should be consistent aiong the three sides with the same protection provided, as safety is a major concern of ail residents. The families are concerned about the possibility of projectiles endangering their safety. Ms. Janet Wang, 590 LaCouner Drive, Sunnyvale, said she wanted to stress the safety factor. A few weeks ago her wooden fence was damaged during construction which is an indication of poor safety factor. She said she aiso understood that the wall would be a masonry wall all around and conform with all the neighborhood. Mr. Ronald Cook, 20598 Homestead Road, representing the Independent Order of Oddfellows, Cupertino Lodge No. 70, which is a neighboring property to the east, said they appreciate the fact they have masomy walls on two sides of the property, as it prevents children from wandering onto the property because it is open onto the street. He said there was a letter in the agenda packets stating their desire to have a masonry wall on all three sides. He said they were concerned with safety and maintenance issues aiso. Mr. Cook expressed concern that the footings of the ~taining wall be strong enough to withstand the pressure from the dirt which is two feet higher than the property. Homestead Road goes downhill from the Forge property toward DeAnza Boulevard which results in the Oddfellows property being two feet lower. He said that another concern is that it is marginally safe to exit the property because of the traffic on Homestead Road. He said it is hoped that the landscaping plan and the wall plan being proposed does not block the view so that egress than be safely made from the property. Chair Harris asked that it be confirmed that the landscaping plan will not create a safety issue. Mr. David Kiel, 11107 Flowering Pear Drive, said that the proposed wall must provide at least three pfimmS' barriers; that of safety, privacy and sound. He pointed out that these concerns have been articulated numerous times before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He expressed concern about the possibility of antes coming through the fences, as well as the mention of bullets. He said that with a significant maintenance schedule and plan the wood fence could provide for barriers for sound and privacy, but that the wood fence would not provide the safety barrier needed. With regard to aesthetics, the developer mentioned that they were the types of wood fences built in Los Altos, Los Gates, and Saratoga; however, Cupertino is not Los Gates or Los Altos as those communities do not have the high density apartment projects such as the Forge one which should be considered. Mr. Sui-hing Leung, 20674 Maple Tree Place, said he has been a resident of Countrywood for more than ten years and was opposed to the proposed wood fence. He said he lived on the Homestead side of Countrywood behind the Oddfellows property and pointed out that there was a 4 foot thick, 6 foot tall masonry wall separating his property from the Oddfellows property. He said from experience that the wail is definitely working in cutting down the traffic noise and offering a Planning Commission Minutes 23 September 9, 1996 sense of security and privacy; for more than ten years it haan't broken down. He said he does not worry about the safety factor because of the fence. He reported that the issue of masonry walls was definitely raised early in the meetings with the developer. He said he was present at the meeting when Mr. Sisk made the statement about the masonry wall and if the wood fence or wood wail ever been raised, he would have definitely opposed it and he would not have agreed to the perimeter parking because of the potentlai safety and security issues. Mr. Leung said he enneurred with Mr. Kalra's and Ms. Slaten's concerns about safety. He said he felt the proposed wood fence would not be an effective sound barrier. Mr. Leung referred to an overhead of aa August I letter to Jim Sisk, from an acoustic consultant on behalf of the developer, "the wall should be constructed so as to insure that there are no openings or cracks even after the affect of weathering", meaning to be effective, the barrier must be airtight everywhere from the ground to the top. He said that often times, the important requirement of air-tightness is overlooked. He summarized that the barrier is marginal when new and becomes ineffective in a matter of years. The important criteria that should be used over time is whether this barrier is effective as a sound barrier. Mr. Vidovich explained that the reason masonry was proposed on the Sunnyvale side was because the units next door have asphalt againnt the proposed fence and as a practicai consideration the autos have possibility of contact in the fence. Because wood could not withstand such an impact, it was proposed only in the areas where it was likely a car would approach the fence to solve the problems with the use of metal bollards, which are metal pipes filled with concrete. He reiterated that it is typical to have wood fencing in residential to residential areas. Wood gives more of a neighborhood atmosphere opposed to erecting a concrete wall from one type of residential to another type of residentiai. He said it was regrettable that the neighbors felt differently, but he was very much in favor of a wood fence. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Vidovich stated that in certain communities such as Sea Ranch he would be required to install a redwood fence. He said that for most apamnent complexes, most people would prefer stucco because it is lower maintenance but does not provide the same aanosphere. He said the proposed fence is a redwood fence and he felt it would be detrimental to his property and those who live there to be forced to live with a concrete fence. Chaii- Harris closed the public hearing. Com. Doyle said that he undersWod both sides of the equation. The wood fence provides a sorer look; however for the safety factor, walls do not stop a lot. He said he fundamentally felt that the public wishes are what is si?ificant and the Planning Commission's mission is to reflect the public input. He said he supported the mason~ wall, but that the wall should be high quaiity, rich in detail, and with a positive impact in that development. Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Doyle. He said it was clear that the neighbors understood it would be a masonry wall. Arguments have been presented about the wood fence but the neighbors remain unconvinced and their choice is for a masonry wall. He said he agreed that a masronry wall was more suitable. Com. Austin said that the definition of a wall does not include the materials from which it is constructed. She said that she disliked the Highway 85 concrete walls and considered them very unattractive. However, she noted that the neighbors want the masonry wall and she supported the neighbors' choice. Planning Commission Minutes 24 September 9, 1996 Chair Harris said that there were two neighborhoods, the people who already live there and the people who will live there. She said that as a resident she would prefer the wood fence as it is more attraetfive, classy and suburban looking. Unfortunately the future residents are not there yet and they wll move in afar what is constructed and accept it. She said that she understood how the existing community thought the wall was going to be masonry and that she supported the concept of masonry. She suggested that the report specify that it should be an aesthetic masonry wall as opposed to a series of gray concrete blocks spaced together. She commented that she felt in the end the wood is more attractive but in this particular case there are other issues inolved and she supports those issues. Following a brief disenssion, there was consensus that the reasons for choosing the masonry wail included the perception of the adjacent community that the masonry wall would be more secure, safer, and premier parking being an issue; sound-wise there is no strong difference; safety does not have a measurable impact. The primary distinction is the public input and the Planning Commission is attempting to reflect the requirements. Mr. Kilian cautioned the members of the Planning Commission that their job is not to simply decide what the neighbors want, there has to be a decision based upon some objective issues that you make a determination of independent of what the neighbors want. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved that the Planning Commission report to the City Council that there was consensus that an aesthetically pleasing masonry wall would provide greater long term noise and safety protection than the wood fence. Public input was significant in the findings. Com. Doyle Com. Roberls Com. Austin Passed 3-1-0 14. Application No.: Historic Preservation Ordinance (4-EA-96) Consideration of a study session setting for the September 23, 1996 continued meeting on the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan explained that the purpose of the item was to obtain Planning Commission concurrence that a study session be scheduled as part of the next Planning Commission meeting. It was suggested that the study session begin at 5:30, 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. followed by the regular Plmming Commission meeting. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. George Monk, 19985 Price Avenue, said he owned one of the historically listed properties. He requested that at least two hours be devoted to discussion and that the proposed deadline be deferred. Following a brief discussion, there was eoasensus to changc thc meeting date to Wednesday, September 25 because of religious holidays. There was consensus to begin the meeting at 6 p.m., with a study session for 1 hour, from 6 to 7 p.m., with regular meeting beginning at 7:15 p.m. The Planning Commission Minutes 2S September 9, 1996 study session will take place in the downstairs conference room and regular meeting in Council Chambers. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue the September 23, 1996 Planning Commission meeting to September 25, 1996 Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to the September 25 Planning Commission meeting, study session beginning at 6:00 p.m., to be followed by the regular Planning Commission meeting. Resp~tfully Submitted, Recording Secretary