Loading...
PC 09-25-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 STUDY SESSION: The study session was held at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms C and D. Councilmembers present were: Austin, Doyle, Harris, andMahoney. Councilmembers absent: Chair Roberts Staff members present were: Robert Cowan, Community Development Director; Michelle Bjunna~ Planner H, Colin Jung, Associate Planaer; Bert Viskovich, Public Works; Eilcen Murray, Deputy Counsel. Individuals who spoke regarding the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance: Pat Allen, Sharon Blaine, Father Michael Mitchell, George Monk, Gil Solley, Alan Stoeklmeir, Mike Ure, and Don Westwood. 1. Application No.: Historic Preservation Ordinance (4-EA-96) Study Session of the Planning Commission, interested parties and special interest groups regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance and report to the City Council on recommended ordinance. Mr. George Monk reported that a group of homeowners of historic properties met and are opposed to the proposed historical ordinance. He said that the homeowners would submit a proposed ordinance that they deemed more appropriate. Mr. Monk distributed a copy of the Summary of City Council Comments from the May 20th meeting and discussed the summary. He stated that the clear guidance was toward rehabilitation. He reviewed the Proposed Draft Ordinance (Item i) and Proposed Draft Ordinance (Item 2), noting that the homeowners were opposed to deed restrictions. Com. Austin expressed concern about the use of the word "encourage" (Encourage Non commercial privately owned property, not require- Item 2) Com. Harris asked if the group addressed the issue of deed restriction. Mr. Gil Solley responded that the group was not in favor of deed restrictions. Ms. Sharon Blaine said that it was something that has been brought to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission as well as the public needs time to think about it. She requested that the Planning Commission not take action at this evening's meeting. Mr. Monk distributed copies of the Code of Federal Regulations - Title 36. Planning Commission Minu 2 September 25, 1996 Father Mitchell stated that the Diocese of San Jose was concerned because the proposed ordinance and the proposal does not address the church's concerns. He pointed out that there was no criteria in the General Plan on how to list property. He said that it was inappropriate to apply the list in the General Plan unless a full hearing is held on whether or not the organizalioas should he listed. He said that anyone in the room could feasibly walk in and make an application to put a property on the list. He added that the' question is whether St. Joseph's Church is a historical site or not. He said he felt the listing was flawed. Com. Mahoney stated that a list would he developed. Ms. Bjurman explained that the list would he used as a starting point to begin notifying property owners that there would be a public hearing to designate historical properties. The issue of economic hardship was discussed. Father Mitchell stated that the issue of oconomic hardship needed to he addressed further. Concern was expressed that a property owner's property could be subjected to the process without his/ber consent. Mr. Mike Ure said he felt the proposed ordinance was an "eat your broccoli" type of ordinance, in that the people affected did not have significant input. He said an alternative ordinance as discussed by the group of homeowners could be developed. Com. Harris said that before an ordinance is written, public input will be solicited. She said that the notices notify the community, not the individuals. Com. Austin explained that 105 people provided input into the development of the proposed ordinance. They agreed that Cupertino needed to preserve what was leR because so much had been lost. She said she felt the ordinance was for the people. Com. Harris explained that City Council gave clear direction to satisfy all involved, and come up with a process. Further discussion ensued regarding ~ list of properties. Ms. Blaine said that in 1970 when thc issue was discussed there was nothing designated historically significant. Over the years the City asked the Cupertino Historical Society for put an which buildings might be considered important to the city; a list was compiled, information about the buildings was gathered and submitted to the city. The Cupertino Historical Society has the information stored in the archives; nothing has been done with the Com. Harris pointed out that the list had not been validated. Father Mitchell said that the homeowners should reevaluate the purpose of the ordinance. Mr. Don Westwood pointed out that the real meritorious properties are gone; and the issue of the past losses has no bearing on the present list. He expressed concern that there would exist only local standards relative to the properties, and if there was an ordinance it should not ignore graduated levels of regulations. He said if he had to hire an architect, the burden of going to the city did not seem so harsh. The city could have control over how high the homeowner could go with regard to his property. He suggested an incentive to thc homeowners; noting thai some agencies provided some relief. He said that the possibility of relief could be in the form of thc permit fee of $300. He said he did not feel comfortable with what might happen, and that it was not fair to pay for the historical artifacts, ff the city does not have a commitment of resourees to carry this out, bm said he did not want to get involved. Mr. Westwcod commented th~ he was concerned that there seems to be a historical approach to Planning Commission Minutes 3 Sgptember 15, 1996 preserving these properties to look good, and if he was adding something to his property, he would want it to add harmony and fit together as well. He said the original ordinance does not identify any of these issues. Mr. Westwood said he was in agreement with the chart so far. Mr. Westwoed discussed incentives, and expressed concern that he would have to hire an expert. He said if the city had someone that the homeowners could consult with, it would he helpful. He also suggested assistance in qualifying for aid on the property. Mr. Stocklmeir said he would suggest that encourage he changed to "facilitate". Father Mitchell pointed out that the incentives do not apply to religious organizations and that no help for remodeling was available for St. Joseph's Cathedral downtown because it was a religious Mr. Pat ARea, owner of the Wills Home, said that the homeowners would like to have input into the ordinance if they have to make changes to their oxisting homes. He said that none of the homeowners want to tear their homes down. He said resources for assistance would also he helpful. He said many homeowners would suffer a substantial loss if they have to comply with the proposed ordinance. Mr. Gil SoHey said his property has a house on it and it is situated such that in order to develop the property, the home would have to be tom down. He pointed out that it makes a difference of $1 million. Father Mitchell commented that the City of Cupertino would he the first to have to apply for a variance. Com. Hams noted that the issue would he discussed on October 14. She requested that Mr. Monk define the ideas, and where they differ fix~m the written ordinance. Com. Doyle said that he had hoped the study session would have been more productive, but that positions merely had been restated. Mr. Cowan said that the issue of control remained. Com. Mahooey said that the issue of ranking was still unclear. Com. Harris said that she felt the rating scale needed to ho dealt with. She said that the regional comparative issue should he discussed on October 14. She summarized that some of the church issues were good, and that hardship still had to he defined. She said that perhaps the services of an architect on a rotational basis could be discussed. She said that she favored the word "facilitate" in lieu of"eneourage". There was agreement that demolition should he controlled. Mr. Cowan said that the degree of control dealt with safety. Tho study session concluded at 7:00 p.m. to he followed by the regular meeting of the Planning Commission in the City Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Doyle, Hams, Mahoney, Chairman Roberts. Commissioners absent: Austin Planning Commission Minu~ 4 September 25, 1996 Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Communit~ Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Michetle Bjurman, Associate Planner; Ben Viskovich, Director of Public Works; Elaine Murray, Deputy Counsel APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the September 9, 1996 regular meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the September 9, 1996 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Doyle Chair Roberts Com. Austin Passed 3-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chaff Robert~ noted correspondence from Councilmember Bautista. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: 11-EXC-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 REMOVE FROM CALENDAR MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. DoylemovedwremoveI~m4 ffom~ecalendar. Com. Mahoney Com. Austin P~sed 4~ CONSENT CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 13-ASA-96 Vallco LLC Delaware Limited Co. Same 10123 No. Wolfe Road ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Pirating Commissi0a Minutes 9 S0p~ntmr 2§, 1996 Com. Harris said that she did not agree with the premise that if this user needs 60 feet, the next user coudln't use 50 or 40. Mr. Jung suggested that along those lives that it include the report that the applicant shall study the possibility of collocation to determine if lowering the height and a collocation of another career would be feasible. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 4-U-76 according to the model resolution with the addition oftbe second sentence to the collo~mion element stating that collocation be at market rates, and that staff investigate the potential of lowering the height, keeping in mind that collocation is a desire on the part of the Planning Commission. Com. Doyle Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Cowan noted that the action was final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy WordeH, City Planner, proposed that the public hearings on Items 6 and 7 be opened together, beginnin~ with the General Plan discussion as the general foundation for discussing the specific proposal. Com. Doyle expressed concern that the General Plan work be an independent decision and not related to the details of Item 6' Chair Roberts moved the agenda to Item 7. Appl~tlon No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: 4-GAP-96 and 23-EA-96 City of Cupertino Various Citywide General Plan Amendment to the land use and housing elements to redistribute residential potential among the planning districts and the undesignated classification. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: To be determined CONI'INUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1996. Stafforesen~ion: Ms. Wordell reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. Referring to Appendix C, she explained the status oftbe residential buildout. Following a brief discussion wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions, Ms. Wordell summarized that there was an absolute number of housing units that can be built in the City. She said that under the current General Plan there are several different categories that they exist in: the infill, the planning districts, and the undesignated categories. She said there was redistribution within those categories and that the cap always remains the same unless redistribution through use permits or a General Plan amendment occurs. In response to Com. Harris' question about the possibilities for additional space, Ms. Wordell stated that the potential is greater than what is allowed, therefore the City is obligated to, and is going to Planning Commission Minu~ s September ~5, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the Consent Calendar Com. Mahoney Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-ASA-96 Davidson Cbevrol~t Paul Weiss 20955 B Stevens Creek Boulevard Minor amendments of Davidsou Chevrolet of sign exception. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff oresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the sign modification for Davidson Chevrolet to install the new Plymouth logo sign, and relocation of thc Goo sign, as outlined in thc attached staff report. Thc Planning Commission's determination on thc application will become thc final decision, unless appealed within 14 calendar days. In response to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, explained that the bunting signs would remain for a period of six months after the initiation of thc usc permit. Mr. John Burney, General Sale~ Manager, Davidson Chevrolet, explained that thc ~ sign which was presently located at the end of thc lot would be relocated to the Stelling Road side. Mr. Cowan requested that flexibility of ten feet be included relative to thc location of the sign to be displayed in the middle of the showroom, in the event there was a utility line in thc near vicinity. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 9-ASA-96 according to the model resolution with the modification to include flexibility regarding tho relocation of thc sign Com. Doyle Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-U-76 (Mod.) Cellular One Rossell Bflinski 10655 friary Avenue Use Permit Modification to replace nine existing cellular panel antennas with nine larger panel antennas on an existing mast. Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 25, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1996. Staff orientation: Mr. Colin lung, Associate Planner, r, viewed the application for use permit modification to replace nine ~xisting antennas with nine larger antennas, as outlined in the atlached staff t~port. He said that changes in coverage aspects and technology necessitate the updating of the antenns-q from time to time. Mr. Jung explained that staff has placed two conditions on the antenna as a result of the antenna ordinance. Thc two conditions include the ahandoum~t provision of thc ordinance which states that if thc monopolc is not used for the intended purpose for a period of 18 months or longer, thc mast itself will be removed by the applicant or the property owner. Th: second condition requires th~ collocation of other antenn~ on the ma~t. Staff recommends approval of the application with the conditions listed. In response to Chair Roberts' question about Exhibit E, Mr. Jung explained that the letter was generated from Cellular One to Sprint Spectrum relative to working out an agreement for an equitable solution between the two companies, and not applying to any other carrier. Com. Doyle questioned if other proposals for antennas on thc site would be rejected unless the collocation was completed. Mr. Jung said that it would be the Planning Commission's decision. He pointed out that the wireless communications industry recognizes collocation but have problems doing it becaus~ they are competitors and it is not in their best interest to work together unless they are forced to. Ms. Elizabeth Peunington, Cellular One, explained that the antenn~ were being replaced to reduce the overall coverage of the site to contain service to the particular area and avoid overlap. She said that Cellular One was not opposed in principle to collocation, but had requested the additional wording on the collocation of antenn~x~ in order to work out the business terms with the different users. Ms. penningS, on stressed tbe importance of protecting the business terms with the diffemot companies they would be associated with. In r~ponse to Com. Doyle's questions, Ms. pennington said that the poles were blue/gray, and were sometimes painted to mateh the surroundings. She said that the RF studies indicated the height necessary- for the coverage area of the antennas. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. There was no one who wished to speak on the application. Com. Doyle questioned what the ordinance said relative to Cellular One being able to get other modification.n of other antennas in Cupertino in the next 12 months. Mr. Jtmg responded that the ordinance did not address modifications to the existing poles other than they would follow the design review that any new antenna application would be subject to. Mr..lung explained that staff hoped that the city would not be involved in a lease agreemem between the two parties relating to collocating of antennas, but that both parties would be able to work out terms agreeable to both of them. He said it should not preclude the Planning Commission considering the business terms or economic feasibility of collocating if it so chooses. Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 25, 1996 Com. Mahoney said that the Planning Commission should not be involved in the negotiations of payment amount; however it could be misunderstood that it could be done flee of charge. He said that it was an issue and verbage should indicate that tho Planning Commission not become involved; however it should be clarified that the wording "shall allow" does not mean flee. Ms. Eilecu Murray, Deputy Counsel, clarified that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened the field of telecommunications and deregulated it. She said they are anficipatin~ something akin to the gold rush in seeking sites for antennas, cables, etc. She said there were advantages and disadvantages to being first in the area. Thc advantage is cornering the manket; thc disadvantage is that thc Telecommunications Act is calling for eollo~_~tion on as many sites as possible and expecting that the providers are going to do that to open up the telecommunications field. She said that the counsel's office did not feel it was the city's place to get involved in the mediation of the commercial aspects of the arrangements ro~a~, pointing out that it may he f~ee of charge for the first company. In response to Com. Mahoney's question if there was any implication in the language that it is free, Ms. Murray stated that there was not. Com. Harris pointed out that it could work the reverse way; that the first person with the mast could grossly overcharge. Ms. Murray explained that the Telecommunications Act is encouraging everybody to get on the information highway and allow all the telecommunications providers to provide every service possible to the consumer; therefore it did not give much consideration to the competitive aspect of it. Discussion ensued relative to the Planning Commission's role. Chair Roberts said that he imagined the Planning Commission in a position of having to judge the commercial feasibility and that the economic issues were the mo~ difficult to come to grips with because the Planning Commission does not have access to the information. He said it was not foreseeable that the parties to negotiation would open their books to reveal the exact cost. Com. Doyle said that the reason the Planning Commission might be in that position is that another party would claim the company was charging too much and they wanted an antenna of their own. In response to Com. Harris' question about enforecment~ Mr. Cowan stated that it would eventually go to the Planning Commission to be arbitrated at staff level. Com. Hanis discussed the issue of tower amendment at the previous Planning Commission meeting, wherein the applicant indicat~ that they could go to Stage 3, the lowest height. She said she felt it had not been pursued in this case; staff indicated they did not look into the fact that the panels were being increased from three feet and the pole could be reduced. She said she would like the matter resolved before casting an affirmative vote. Chair Roberts pointed out that it was the second issue and is specific to this application and would be a precedent for other applications as well. Mr. Richard Wehner, Cellular One, said that he was familiar with the issue and had been working in California and Nevada for 7-1/2 years. He said that the Cellular One system in the area has been in existence for 10 years, and reductions in height have been taking place throughout the clee~e. He explained that the engineers found that 60 feet was as Iow as they could go in terms of the differential above the average terrain, as the earth tends to soak up radio signaling. He said he did not think it Pl~nn~n~ Conu~ds$ion ~nut~ s $~g~i~r 25,199{) realistic to go below the 60 foot height and would be misl~alng to hold out hope that it could be lowered more than 10 feet. If collocation were to occur, thc new occupant would have to be down 10 feet lower and Cellular One would then no longer have the ability to go down I0 feet. Mr. Wcimer said that Cellular One feels that ifa competitor is to have the advantage of using the same facility, it is only equitable they should share in that investment because Cellular One's ability tx) utilize thc towcr differently, more efficiently, possibly in a manner that suits the city more, would be taken up by another user. He said that Cellular One is not opposed in principlc to collocation, provided there is consideration given to thc fact that thc initial invesUnent has already been madc. Com. Mahoney said that Mr. Weimer's point was well taken. He said that the Planning Commission did not object to including language that disputes could be settled by arbitration and that collocations could be charged at mmket rate. Equitable language is acceptable provided it is not done without controls. Com. Harris stated that Mr. Weimer made two statements; one that it was possible the tower could be lowered to 50 feet, and that it has been done elsewhere; and that previously the towers were much higher and with time and technology they have been able to be reduced. She said that it was her ,preference that if the height of the panels is increased, a lower configuration be used. Com. Doyle suggested that it would be appropriate to state that staff should work with the applicant to try to reduce the height and provide notification oftbe decision, and reasons. Com. Harris concurred. Com. Harris said that the market will set the rates for collocation and that she was in favor of including a statement in No. 2 stating that collocation arrangements will be at the market rate. Mr. Jung suggested including language that the new service provider and the mast owner are responsible for negotiating their own business terms agreeable to both parties. Following discussion, there was consensus to add a sentence to Condition 2, Section III to read: "Collocation arrangements shall be agreed upon be at a reasonable market rate". Mr. Cowan said be felt there would be an attempt to work out the issue before making an application; that the providers would not want to bring the issue to the Planning Commission. Com. Mahonoy said he felt the height should remain at 60 feet because of the collocation issue· He said that if it was moved down to 50 feet, it automatically precludes collocation because the nex~ person would have to be down to 40 feet. Leaving it at 60 feet, two antennas could be put up there; one at 60 feet and one at :50 feet, thus reaching the city's goal. Com. Hams disagreed, stating that it is not known if another kind of communication service provider could not function at 40 feet. She said it was possible as one was presented last month at 24 feet. In response to Com. Doyle's suggestion that staff handle the wording relative to the height of the antenna being reviewed by staff, and report back to the Planning Commission on thc result why it was either 60 feet or 50 feet; Mr. Cowan noted that the Planning Commission did not have staff engineers who were familiar With radio frequencies, therefore they would have to depend on the engineering report. P~asming Co~ssb~ M'mut~s lO Scp~mb~r 25, 1996 allow 2500 housing units, but thc possibilities of the number of different kinds of things that could come in are greater in number. She pointed out that tbere were 3300 units that could be developed, not 2500. Com. Harris questioned what happens to the land onec the 2584 is built out. Ms. Wordell explained that a number of potentialn exist in R3 apartmeflts that are ~ing d~vclopmcnts. It states in the General Plan that if they redevcloped, the zoning allows them to develop at a higher density; therefore theoretically they could be tom down and redoveloped to allow greater units. If the General Plan was already built out, they would not be able to do that unless the General Plan was changed. Discussion followed wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. Discussion ensued wherein Ms. Wordetl referred to an overhead of the Need for Additional Housing Un/ts in Vallco Park, and a Chart Listing the Sand Hill and Thompson Densities. Ms. Wordell explained that when Tandem Computers approached the City during the General Plan process, their proposal was for 300 housing units on what is now the Thompson proposal, and 200 on the Sand Hill proposal; therefore 500 units were included on the basis that the number of units was hypothetically possible. Mr. Cowan pointed out that some early master plans had some housing units on Stevens Creek. Chair Roberts questioned what assurance, if any, was there that a landowner wouldn't come forth and decide the land which was dedicated for some other purpose is better suited for housing. Mr. Cowan pointed out that there was no assurance, and noted that in the General Plan text and General Plan map, in almost every instance where land is master planned for retail or industrial, housing is allowed as an option. He said that iftbere was a very large land holding, it would be theoretically possible for that owner to submit a plan for residential that would tip the scales. Ms. Wordell discussed the options outlined in the staff report. In response to Com. Doyle's questions, staff stated that the new General Plan will be in effect in the year 2003. Mr. Cowan said ti~ traditionally staff has looked at the idea of having major goals committoe efforts and updates every 10 years and most recently discussion at ~aff level about having a gradual increment of review rather than the major review every 10 years. He suggested that the General Plan review be completed every year, and that the City should have a general 20 year plan on the hotizon with certain housing clcmcnts. Com. Doyle questioned whether the 2584 number was a goal or a requh~ment, and the possible impact if it was not met. Ms. Wordell explained that it was ac~ally adequate sites. She said it does not state that 2584 has to be built; but that you have to provide adequate sites and there could not be government constraints preventing it from being built. Mr. Cowan stated that if the City went below the 2584 number, the General Plan would have to be changed with thc housing element and forwarded to the State Department of Hoasing and Community Development, who has the ability to review that document. Chair Roberts asked the Planning Commissioners if they were amenable to considering a General Plan amendment, and if so, what kind of information would be needed to make the decision, particularly with respect to the three categories of schools, parks, and traffic. Plann~g Commission Minutes t I September 25, 1996 Mr. John I-Ialey, Tandem Computers, discussed the issue of the 500 units in the Vallco Park area. He said he was a participant in the General Planning process, particularly in the residential land use issues pertaining to Vallen Park. He expressed concern that in v~d[ng the General Plan it did not indicate that a dwelling unit cap needed to be established in the various districts that were assigned the generic numbers. He said be felt it was not clear if a G-e~ral Plan amendment would be required to give the Planning Commission and City Council flexibility to move some dwelling units around within the districts for more flexibility to place density where it is the most usable and advantageous. He suggested the Planning Commission use whatever tools they have and flexibility within the existing General Plan to give the flexibility to approve good projects in areas well suited to receive those projects. Pertaining to the Valleo Park area, the 500 units Ms. Wordell mentioned was a hypothetical theoretical proposal at the time Tandem was asked by tbe City to give its projections on what it perceived the area to be developing over the next 20 years, and Tandem saw a value proposing housing as a mix of uses on all Tandem-owned lands. Mr. I-Ialey said that Tandem still saw the value, and after the General Plan was approved acted on the issues adopted in the General Plan and the recommendations of the General Plan by entertaining proposals fxom developers to develop housing on specifically the two sites. He said that the 500 number was hypothetical and he felt that a higher number would stand on its own merits and the area could handle the number. Mr. Haley pointed out that the Vallco area was unique because of its relationship to neighborhood retail, regional retail, employment centers and transit. He encouraged the Planning Commission and City Council to evaluate the projects on their own merit and assign an appropriate number based on that. Mr. Michael Anderson, Sand Hill Properties, said that be echoed some of Mr. Haley's comments. He said his company has been involved in the shopping center adjacent to the proposed property, and that be felt the 500 number is a target and not a hard cap that requires a General Plan amendment in order to be exceeded. He urged the Planning Commission to consider transferring the units from the undesignated pool to this area. He reported that the site is a unique site, well situated off the Highway 280 ramp, with adequate traffic patterns in the area. He requested that each project be considered on its own merit, and that no action be taken that would restrict the ability for them to come before the Planning Commission with the planned project. Mr. Stewart Onmdell, S&K Multi Family, co4eveloper with Sand Hill Properties, outlined the opportunity to develop the site and its compatibility with the Thompson development. He repomxt that the density is 21 units per acre, and not only meets the tests and ideal goals outlined relative to proximity to imYastmcture, transportation and shopping opportunities, but will provide a mix of various housing types for sale and for rent with low density and higher density components that will total 21 units per a~re. It would also meet ousite park recreation, and park dedication ordinance completely on site. The proposal would also have a significant park element. He said he looked forward to discussing the m~n~r further at the October 28 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Roberts dosed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Hanis said the 500 units in the Vallco area may not be an issue until the applications are submitted and discussion commences. She said that she felt it was appropriate that staff brought this forward bee~,,se of the conflict existing. She ~_&treesed some of the suggestions about Bubb Road and North DeAnza Boulevard, noting that if they were taken out of the 2584, they would have to be put in the undesignated to remain at 2584. Com. Harris said she was opposed to changing them. She said she was aware of the interest in the industrial community to keep Bubb Road industrial, but as expressed before, she felt that a long range future 20 year plan and redevelopment plan should include Planning Commission Minutes la September 25, 1996 residential there. She said that thc North DeP. nTa Boulevard area h~ industrial alr~ay and to create the balance in the community, it is appropriate to have some lower height residential properties there as well. She said she was not interested in C~h~n~in~ this, as they Were good ideas; there are still 101 items in the undesignated pool and all the infill properties, and there is a number of to-yet-be*developed undesignated properties. Com. Mahoncy said if necessary he was open to exploring one or more of the options to increase the capacity in Vallco if needed. He said he did not belicvc it should he capped at 500; thcrcfore forcing the devclopments to fit in som~ way. He said he felt they should be judged on their own merits, and that they were close enough to the 500 to do that, and through the normal process they my decrease. ff it tums out they are more, 520 or 560, thcu staff will address the issue then. As stated earher, he said he would like to consider that decision in conjunction with simultaneous evaluation of both of the proposals. Com. Harris said that discussion should continue at the October 28 meeting and resolved then. Com. Doyle agreed with Com. Mahoney's position in the context of specifics of applications. He expressed concern about the bum rate of development in the last year and questioned whether or not there were enough units available in the last half of the General Plan cycle to allow substantial growth and progress. He said that he would like that to be part of the equation before approving a significant portion of the 2584 number. He said as part of the annual review, he would like to more clearly understand the schools, the parks and the traffic. Com. Doyle pointed out that projections were made 6 or 7 years ago and there was another school year ahead, and he would like to see the reality of the entire picture. He said he would also like to know what has been approved, what has been built, and what is still to be built, with the distribution on the map. He said he would like a review before a decision is made on the General Plan amendment and the actual proposals. Mr. Cowan said the school district will be present at thc Oct. 28 meeting. In response to Com. Doyle's request, Mr. Cowun said that thc map used in 1993 could be used to show the various categories discussed. Chair Roberts said that he was open to the idea of relaxing the 500 unit cap on the Vallco area. In looking at the options of where these units might come fi.om, some of the earlier arguments suggest that the undesignated reserve should not he diminshed. He said it was relatively small considering the fact that. there arc some areas zoned residential, which could he developed at higher rates. He said he felt it should be protected to avoid conflicts. In view of the difficulty of expanding the 2584 cap, it entails looking at one of those other areas, and he said he would not want to do that arbitrarily. Some of the argumxnts presented by Com. Harris regarding Bubb Road might suggest that at least part of it might he better served in a residential designation. Chair Roberts said that Bubb Road and North DeAnTa Boulevard would have to be closely studied relative to land use and potential conflicts. He suggested adding the land use considerations to the items listed, and recommended consideration of the two projects coneurrenfly and not to preclude options. Com. Harris questioned if the 50 units were shifted fi.om the North DeAnza Boulevard category to the Vallco Park category, would the land on DeAnza Boulevard have to be redefined that is designated for residential and could it be done with the density shift. Mr. Cowan responded affirmatively. Planning Commission Minutes la September 25, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Application No.(s) 4-GPA-96 and 23-EA-96 to the October 28, 1996 Planning Commission meetin~ Com. Doyle Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 Chair Roberts declared a recess at 9:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Chair Roberts moved the agenda back to Item 6. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Lo~ation: 14-U-96, 5-Z-96 and 21-EA-96 Thompson Residential Company Tandem Computers 10750 Wolfe Road Use Permit to construct 348 apartment units on 14 acres and rezone the property from Planned Industrial Zone P (iMP) to Planned Residential P (RES). ENVIRONMENTAL DETER.MINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended 'I'~NTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 21, 1996 CONTRqUED FROM PL/uNNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1996. Staff oresentafion: Mr. Jung explained that the application was for a rezoning proposal and use pen'nit proposal to allow approximately 342 apaaUuent units on a 12.5 net acre site at the southeast comer of Wolfe Road and Pnmeridge Avenue. He stated for the record that there was some confusion between staff and the consultant in terms of calculating the gross acres of the lot. The consultant indicated 14; based on the ordinance lang~,ng¢ it is 3.39 gross acres, which changes the density from 24.4 units per gross acre to 25.5 units per gross acre. Mr. Jung explained that them were displays of the site plan, landscape plan, floor plans, renderings, aerial photographs, photo montage, project elevations and site photos. The video presentation reviewed the application to construct a 342 unit apartment complex on 12.5 net acres, consisting of 10 buildings, owned by Tandem Computers; request for rezomng of the parcel; as outlined .in the ~-~hed staff report. Staff will report on the application components in detail. The following lists the general fuvlin? for a 342 unit apartment complex with a maximum building height of 55 feet: (1) That the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and with odgr General Plan policies; (2) That the project can comply with the State interior noise standard and General Plan noise standard; (3) That the site does not contain any contaminated soil or groundwater; and (4) That traffic levels will be of a service D or better. Staffwill also report on how the project will likely impact parks and recreational space and facilities, law enforcement and schools, and conunent on the landscaping, parking, architecture, building heights and overall site design proposed for the project. Staff recommends approval of the project with certain conditions, and of the rezoning request that is for a chaagenver to a planned residential designation. Referring to an overhead of the Land Use/Community Character, Mr. Jung reviewed the General Plan _ consistency as outlined in the attached staff report. Planning Commission Minutes t4 September 25, 1996 Mr. lung explained that the General Plan stat~ that the Planning Commission should work with the school district to assure that the schools are not overloaded in terms of new students. He discussed a proposal for the Santa Clara Unified School District to service thc entire apartment project, noting that the final approval of the boundary adjustment between the school districts is the responsibility of the school boards. Mr. Jung discussed the parks and recreational space and facilities issue. He reviewed General Plan Policy No. 4-35 which deals with residential development in non-residential areas. He said that the Parks and Recreation Department determined that a project on this particular site as well as the proposed Sand Hill project would serve the residents of the two housing developments; the other residential developments were in Sunnyvale and would be serviced by Sunnyvale park~. The Pa-rk~ and Recreation Commission concluded that residents oftbese areas would probably be the only ones using the recreational facilities and would be best served as private rather than public. Mr. Bert Viskovich, Public Works Director, said that based on the decision made earlier to look at both projects simultaneously, he suggested that the topic be disc~issed this evening and commission a report that would combine the two projects for a matrix as to what it means having them treated as a whole and then look at it as being treated individually to reach a decision. Com. Harris agreed, with the stipulation that they also be looked at separately. Mr. lung referred to the ovetbead of the Tandem site and discussed traffic circulation, noting the access points to the residential project. Staff feels the secondary access should be mail,rained as a full access rather than an emergency access because of the difficulty for residents exiting the complex during commute hours. Com. Harris requested that the overlay be extended for presentation at the next meeting indicating the streets, adjacent building, and impact on the adjacent property. Mr. Jung explained that the noise report prepared by the applicant indieated that the highest noise levels generated on the project site were from traffic, particularly on Pnmeridge and Woffe Roads. He noted that tho outdoor areas, particularly the balconies did not meet the City's General Plan noise standards and it was recommended, and staff concurs, that protection be provided by the use of a shield mounted on the balconies. Referring.to an overhead of tho conceptual landscape plan, Mr. lung said that there were relatively few trees on the property, with the highest concentration of trees being along the perimeter of the property along Pnmefidge and Wolfe Road. He illustrated the applicant's usc of pedestrian pathways through the project, to link thc parking lots to the building itseff and the open space, but also to provide exterior connections to thc sidewalks and signal lights at Pruneridge and Wolfe Rds. Mr. Jung reviewed the arborist's report which indicated the notable trees on the property. He said that most of the onsite trees within thc property interior are proposed for removal and staff concurs in that most of them are agricultural trees or small specimen sized oaks. Mr. Jung illustrated a photo of the ash trees and redwood trees along Wolfe Road. Staff is proposing that the site plan be modified to preserve thc trees even if it means a slight reduction in thc parking. Staff is not opposed to having the trees thinned out to maintain the health of the trees. Referring to slides, Mr. Jnng illustrated thc landscape screen from Highway 280 and indic_areal the location of the proposed carports. Staff is requesting that a more detailed landscape plan be prepared Commission Minutes is September 25, 1996 by the applicant and that it be approved at a future architecture and site approval so that issues such as the screeninE of the vehicles and the landscaping can be discussed. Mr. Jung reviewed the parking requi~ments for 2 parking spaces per dwelling as outlined in the atlached staff report. He noted that the City has the flexibility to approve a different parkln~ ratio alld has dolle so for past developments. Referring to the overheads of the bu[Iclin~ elevations, Mr. Jnng discussed the variations in building height as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Jung summarized that staff recommended approval of the proposal. In response to Com. Harris' question about references to budding height, Mr. Jung explained that th~ information on the 45 foot and 55 foot height was from the applicant's drawings. The 3 story elements have a maximum height of 45 feet, and the 4 story elements have a maximum height of 55 feet which is buildings 1 and 2. In the staff report, staff looked at the maximum heights for each of the buildings measured to the peak of the roof. He clarified that the indusUial FAR was transferred off the site to intensify some additional sites at Vallco Park. As a result of the density transfer, at one point there was a proposed hotel on the site. Discussion ensued wherein ~aff answered Commissioners' questions about FARs, traffic access, school ~__n_endance areas, and building setbacks. Mr. Will Thompson, Thompson Residential Company, said that the proposed site is the most ideal site for multi-family development he has been associated with in the last 12 years, because of its large site, proximity to shopping, jobs and services, and excellent freeway access. He said he felt it would be the premier apasi~nent community in the general South Bay area. Mr. Alex Seidel, architect, referred to an overhead map, and reviewed the proposed project. Mr. Bmec Dorfinan, Thompson Residential Company, addressed the issue of the proposed project originally serving both the Cupertino Union School District and Santa Clara Unified School District. He repotted that the Cupertino Union School District recommended that the project be annexed into the Santa Clara Unified School District to handle the elementary through high school students. Santa Clara Unified has the capacity to handle the new students and the inclination to annex the project, and direction has been received from the Cupertino district that it would not contest the annexation. Both school boards will be meeting to acton the issue of annexation. In response to Com. Doyle's question about impact on citywide park ratio, Mr. J'ung said that aecording to the ordinance, the development of 342 units would generate a park need of 1.8 acres. If applicants were to receive the in lieu of park fee credit based on their private open space amenities, and they are enrrenfly negofi~fi-g with staff on that, if they were to get the full 50% credit. The private amenities calculate to be about 1.4 acres. Com. Doyle asked that staff define what counts in the 1.4 such as sidewalks and walkways for the nex~ meeting. Com. Doyle questioned why the park fees associated with the apartment were $4,238 each and the single family home is typically $17,000. He also asked tithe units would be converted into individual ownership units. _ Mr. Cowan responded that it pertained to property values and household size. He said that the Public Works Depamnent uwlat~s the land values and household size using a formula in the City ordinance. Plannint Commission Minutes 16 September 25, 1996 Mr. Cowan stated that the units would be converted by the condominium conversion ordinance, with a trigger of 5% vacancy. Com. Doyle asked staff to report back on the density of the Sand Hill Apartments, located off Sand Hill Road. Com. Harris said that she would like to hear from the Fremont Union High School District regarding their feelings on the school boundary issue. Com. Harris reported that the Environmental Review Committee met twice regarding the project, and thc approval was not unanimous. She said it was unclear what the issues were. Mr. Cowan indicated that the minutes of the meeting were available for interested individuals. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 5-Z-96, 14-U-96 and 21-EA-96 to the October 28, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Harris Com. Austin Passed 4-0-0 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Cowan reported that Councilmemher Bautista appealed the decision on the proposed gas station at the comer of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A discussion ensued regarding the October 28 agenda, and the possible need for an extra meeting. Following a lengthy discussion, there was consensus to schedule a special Planning Commission meeting for Novemher 12, from 7 to 9 p.m. Com. ks presented a request to atXend a Housing Solutions workshop on October 23. Mr. Cowan said he would process the necessary papenvork for those wishing to aUend. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. to the regular October 14 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully,~Submitted,~ ~- Recording Secretary Approved as Amended: October 14, 1996