Loading...
PC 10-28-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 28, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL C ollllnisfflon~r5 present: Commissioners absent: Austin, Hams, Chamman Roberts. Doyle, Mahoney StaR' present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Worde[I, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Associate Planner; Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel APPROVAL OF M1NUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting October 14, 1996. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the October 14, 1996, Planning Commission mmutes as presented. Com. Austin Coms. Doyle, Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 WRITTEN CO1VEVIUNICATIONS: Chair Roberts noted several written communications and an item relative to Item 4 of the agenda. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: Property Owner: 4-EXC-96 LLM Investments (Larry Miller) Lot 2 - Upland Way Same Hillside Exception to conslxuct a residence on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 19.40.050J of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOV. 25, 1996. Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 28, 1996 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Property Owner: 5-EXC-96 LLM Investments (Lany Miller) Lot 3- Upland Way Same Hillside Exception to construct a residence on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 19.40.050J of the Cupertino Municipal Code. EN V IRON MENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOV. 25, 1996. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: Property Owner: 17-U-96 and 27-EA-90 Chester M. ltow 10123 North Wolfe Road vallco LLC Use Permit to locate a restaurant]bar, billiard tables and arcade in Vallco Fashion Center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 4, 1996 APPLICATION WITHDRAWN Application No.: Applicant: Location: Property Owner: 81,152 AND 3 l-LA-96 City of Cupertino Properties bounded by Stevens Creek Blvd., Torre Avenue, Roddgues Avenue and South DeAnza Blvd. Various AMENDMENT TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN BY ORDINANCE to define future office, hotel and commercial sites, their future development intensities and to make a deletion or modification to the medium density residential overlay in the area commonly known as City Center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 6, 1997 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOV. 25, 1996. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: Property Owner: 2-Z-83 (Mod.) and 32-EA-96 City of Cupertino Properties bounded by Stevens Creek Blvd., Torte Aenue, Rodrigues Avenue and South DeAnza Boulevard Various MODIFICATION TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING to define future land use types, development intensities and building forms in the area commonly known as City Center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 6, 1997 REQUEST CONTINUANCE 370 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOV. 25, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes 3 Octobe~ 28, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to postpone Items 5 through 9 to the November 25, 1996 planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 CONSENT CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 12-U-73 (Mod.) Marianist Novitiate Same 22622 Mariauist Way Review of parking plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the Consent Calendar Item 1 Com. Austin Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 14-ASA-96 Whalen & Company, Inc. Forge-Vidovich 10889 No. DeAnza Blvd. Architectural review to locate an unmanned radio telecommunications facility consisting of 9 antennas and transmitter equipment at an existing building (Cupertino Inn). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to install 6 antennas and transmitting equipment on the Cupertino lan site. The original proposal was for 9 panel antennas and was reduced to alleviate some of the visual concerns. Also the location originally proposed for the antennas was moved toward the back of the hotel roof at the request of staff to further reduce the visual impacts. Staffis recommending denial of the application as it feels that 12 foot high antennas would still be visible from certain angles~ due to the architecture of the building. The planning comnUssion decision will be final unless an appeal is filed. Mr. Colin .lung, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report. He referred to the comparison table and discussed the Nextel and Sprint aerial facilities on C uperfino Inn. Planning Conunission Minutes 4 October 2g, 1996 Mr. Jung pointed out that stuff has worked closely with the applicant in an attempt to modify the proposal and suggest alternate locations; however, the applicant has not investigated the alternate locations and had elected to proceed with the application. Mr. Jung said that staff recommends denial of the application as it is contrary, to the purpose of the antenna ordinance and staff feels that the applicant could improve on their application. Ms. Party. Mejia, Whalen Company, representing Sprint Spectrum, 4695 Chabot Drive, Pleasanton, stated she felt the applicant was in compliance with the current zoning ordinance for antennas and that the Nextal antennas had already been approved tbr this location, and that the addition of the proposed 3 poles would not be much more obtrusive than what has already been approved. She said that Sprint had investigated the Apple and Net Ma.,mge sites and were not able to come to negotiations with the property owners for antennas on those locations. Mr. Don Pearce, Sprint PCS, answered questions about the placement of the antennas. He explained that technology requires the use of antennas at most sites which are 5 feet tall and that the antennas need to clear the parapet on the building by a certain amount, so that power is not lost. He pointed out that Nextel is located further back. without a lot of parapet clearance; however, they are using an older more mature technology and have more power available to them. Com. Harris questioned if any attempt was made to look at the PG&E power poles along the southern edge of the highway as a location. Ms. Mejia said that they had been working with PG&E to explore the possibility of using the poles. PG&E had not given authority to do so at this point and they are not sure about mounting the antennas on that type of pole. The main issue is the location tbr the equipment because they are placed at such an awkward position between the freeway and the water canal. She said that as to the visibility oftbe antennas, it would be a brief glimpse, and by allowing collocation, it avoids having to add additional sites on other buildings at greater heights as well. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. As there was none, the public input portion of the meeting was closed. Com. Hams said that she agreed with stuff that if there were other alternatives they should be pursued. If the other company can have lower, fewer, less visible, more set back antennas, Sprint should attempt to do the same. She said that she would be willing tO grant a continuance as opposed to a denial if the applicant felt they wanted it. Com. Austin said she also agreed with staff recommendation for denial of the application because staff had attempted to work with the applicant and it appears no effort was made on their part. Because of the unatWactiveness of the site with the antennas, she was not in favor of approval. Chair Roberts said he understood the supplier had been assigned a frequency which precludes the old approaches and if sited there they do not have the latitude to revert to the other design. He said that it was a prominent building and palm trees, and it would not effectively mask the antennas; therefore he concurred that there be a search for alternatives. He expressed concern for the safety factor, stating that he could not approve the placement of antennas in a location where the people who service them would be in danger. He said he was in favor of a contipnance on the condition that the applicant pursue an alternate site. Ms. Majias said that applicant would request a continuance to seek an alternative site. Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 2%, 1996 Mr. Cowan cautioned that if they went too tar Ikom the site, the plaanmg cormmssion would have to renotice a new group of people. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to continue the application to a date yet to be determined to allow applicant to investigate an alternative location for the antennas. Com. Austin Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3 -0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 15-ASA-96 Whalen & Company, Inc. James Forsythe 10218 Imperial Avenue Architectural review to local an unmanned radio telecommumcation facility consisting of 6 antennas and transmitter equipment at an existing bu/ldmg. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Mr. Jung reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the attached staff report. He stated that the application differed fi.om the previous proposals in that the antenna would be mounted on a single roof-monnted mast as opposed to panel antennas mounted on three to six masts located on different areas of a building roof. Staff' disapproves of the particular location because applicant has attempted to mitigate the visual impacts by using cross polarized antenna. Staff's mare objection to the antenna is that it is quite tall, and disproportionate in size and height to the size of the building itself; and is over 50% of the height of the building. Staff feels there is a better choice of location available either on the DeAnza College campus or on the numerous buildings on the east side of Bubb Road facing the f~eeway. Mr. Jung stated that the applicant had chosen to move tbrth with the application willie pursuing other options. Staff recommends denial of the application. Ms. Patay Mejia, Sprint Spectrum stated that they were sensitive to the visual impact of the antennas and would attempt to look for sites where they would not be oblrusive or imposing on the neighborhood. She said that the applicant researched and contacted several landlords before deciding on the least oblrasive location. Ms. Mejia said that the antenna would not be visible from directly in from of the building, only partially visible when heading north on Imperial. The building itself is not visible from the residential neighborhoods because of the surrounding buildings and the surrounding vegetation. She requested approval of the architectural review. In response to Com. Hams' question, Ms. Mejia said that the previous consulting firm made contact with TCI Cable and they were not receptive to Sprint locating on the DeAnza tower because it was already fully loaded and were not sure it could hold the equipment. She said that UCSC Extension and Christ Church were not interested in leasing space to Sprint. Ms. Mejia said that the same comments about the technology and frequency applied to this application. She pointed out that it was not a visible location. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Planning CorrmUssion Minutes 6 October 28, 1996 Com. Harris said she felt that presenting the application to the planmng Commassion while staff was still recommending seeking alternate sites, was premature, and she would recommend demal of the application unless a continuance was requested. Com. Austin concurred, and stated that it involved the character of the neighborhood. She said she agreed with staff's recommendation. Chair Roberts questioned if the applicant had exhausted other alternatives. Mr. Jang responded that he did not feel they had. He said that the communications carriers were trying to get their systems up as quickly as possible and negotiating leases took time. He said that there were still alternatives not yet explored. Ms. Mejia requested a continuance of the item to explore further alternate locations. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to continue Application No. 15-ASA-96 to a date yet to be determmed. Com. Anslin Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3 -0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 16-ASA-96 Citation Homes PSS Ventures, LLC/Citation Homes Corner DeAnza Blvd. and Homestead Road Architectural review for fi-eestanding garages, carports, trash enclosures, root-top garden and revised parking plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION F1NAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner IL explained that the application was for architectural and site approval, and included the review of structural aspects of the application including the fteestanding garages, the carports, and the rooftop, which was a combination garage and exercise cluster on the second story. The second part of the review is a revised parking plan, and the third, a specific trash enclosure. The video presentation explained that the Planning Commissioners will review the revised parking plan, rooftop area. carports, trash enclosures, and freestanding garages for a new 140 unit apartment complex under construction. Staff will report on each of the project details and recommend that a decision on the rooftop common area design be continued. Overall approval is recommended and a decision if reached, will be considered a final decision unless appealed. Ms. Bjurman said that staff was not concerned about the design on the freestanding garage, carports or landscaping around the trash enclosure or the revised parking plan. She said that a focus of concern is related to the proposed design of the parking garage with the rooftop exercise equipment. Refernng to the architectural drawings, she noted the concern that the structure would be visible from the intersection of Homestead Road and DeAnza Boulevard, and being considered the gateway to the community, any architectural design seen at that point would be the first impression that people would Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 28, i996 see in the cily of Cupertino. Staff is concerned that the building lacks architectural detail and does not meet the standard tbr visibili .ty fi.om the intersection. Ms. Bjurman recommended that the remainder of the application be approved with the conditions as outlined, but that this particular aspect of the application be continued to allow the architect to return with some other design alternatives. Ms. Bjurman noted that the issue regarding landscaping had been discussed between Portofino Homeowners Association (HOA) and Citation Homes and the issue was resolved. She said if the project is approved on the conditions of approval on Page 4-5, Plan L1 would be deleted t~om the condition, which is acceptable to Citation and Portoftno HOAs. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed area atop the garage. Ms. Bjurman summarized the areas available for recreational use. She explained that the majority of lot 13 was dedicated to the Corfflca HOA~ a remainder portion for the use of the aparmaent complex; all of 9 which includes a recreation building, pool, half court basketball lawn area and a spa dedicated to the apartment complex. The third use was the rooftop area. Mr. Jim Sullivan, Citation Homes, commended staff on the comprehenff~ve review of the project. He stated his objection to the continuance of the rooftop garden. Refernng to the overhead of the artist's perspective, he pointed out that on the earlier elevation, the front elevation shown is not the elevation facing DeAnza Boulevard, but in reality was the rear elevation. He said that the initial proposal for the rooftop garden area did not include exercise equipment. He discussed the proposed par station course on the rooftop and the landscape plan for the rooftop area. He expressed concern about seeking alternatives for the rooftop garden that was a one story, slructure with no place to incorporate windows. He said that there were other areas for recreational use, such as the swina pool spa, half court basketball interior recreation room with 2,000 square feet of equipment. He said the primary reason for creation of the rooftop garden was to mitigate the amount of recreation area that was lost when converting from the 195 unit complex to the 140 umt project, and to address the concerns of the Portofino HOA. Staff is reque~ng more architectural features that would more closely resemble the features in the apartment units which have been approved. A lengthy discus~aon ensued regarding the rooftop recreational area wh~fin Mr. Sullivan answered questions. He pointed out that there would be a plastic lexon wall surrounding the rooftop. Mr. lay lsaacson, lendscape architect, explained the landscape de/tgn for the rooftop area. He said that fragrant vines would be used as well as potted plants. Chair Rolietts opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Tim Robertson. 29395 Via Valente, Porfofmo HO& clarified that sheet L1 and L2 were not part of the approval and wanted assurance that those docmnents were not included as part of the approval. Chaff Roberts noted that the documents were referred to as sources of information on other points not under contention. Chaff Robeas closed the public input pottion of the meeting. Com. Hams said that she supported staffs recommendations on the other items. She said she felt the rooftop garden should not be an active area, but a passive area for adults over 18 years, p(mtmg out that it should not be an area where young children or teenagers could be at risk. She said that vines planted on the lrellises in addition to the trumpet vine as suggested by the landscape architect were appropriate. She said that she felt the recreational area would be an asset and that she liked the fact planmng Commission Minutes ~ October 28, 1996 that the par station was set back and not visible. Relative to it being active, she said it was fine the way it was. Relating to the architectural, she said she would favor continuing the item for staff to work with the applicant on the architectural features to see if they could come to more agreement. Com. Austin said she concurred except for the coming back; she liked the trellises and would like to see wisteria and bougainvillea; the plantings recommended would be appropriate. Com. Harris said they did not want a two story, look. Staff said if she had an oppommi .ty to work with the applicant, perhaps they could mcorp_orate some other architectural features to the one story.. Ms. Bjurman said she was looking for heavier elements, more strength to the bottom of the building. Chair Roberts said that he liked the fact that it wo~ld not be visible fi.om the street, commenting it was difficult to come up with something really attractive for what is essentially a garage. He said he was in agreement with the uncontested issues of the parking plan, carport and trash enclosures. He said that because it was visible fi.om one of the major arterials and prominent entrances to the city, special attention should be paid to it and more attention to the architectural detail. If the rooftop area was protected from wind end noise, and was amactive, he said he praferred the passive style rather than rmXed active and passive, and it would l~e a pleasant refuse for residents. He suggested that the design detail be addressed to look for a concept that was more in line with the remainder of the development. Com. Harris said she felt there were mixed messages ~om staff. She said she liked the rooftop trellis and if that was the main issue, she was willing to ap. prove it now because she was not opposed to it being there. She requested that the condition state that vines be planted to grow up along the treLLis. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austn moved to approve Application 16-ASA-96, including the trellises, landscaping, approved exhibits, building materials, and to include plantings, with a condition that the rooftop garden be for adults only. Com. Hams Chair Roberts Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 2-1-0 Com. Hams summarized that Condition 3, L1 be deleted; under "Landscaping" add "and vines to grow up along the rooftop trellis"; Condition 4: Rooftop gardens shall be restricted to adults over lB years of age. Com. Hams clarified for the applicant that the plan was approved as is with the par course in its location. 10. Application No.: 4-GPA-96 Applicant: City. of Cupertino Location: Citywide General Plan Amendment to the land use and housing elements to redistribute residential potential among the planning districts and the undesignated classification. Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. Referring to the table illustrating the Sand Hill and Thompson densities, she pointed out that the Thompson and Sand Hill projects combined would exceed the 500 units shown in the General Plan tbr the Vallco area. Ms. Wordell discussed the need for additional housing units in Vallco Park Phnning Comnnssioa Minutes 9 Octob~ ~g, ~996 planning disu-ict and the options listed in the staff report. The options included maintaining the existing maximum of 500 units or transferring additional units in from the undesignated category. If units were to be transferred in from the undesignated category, it is staffs opinion that no General Plan Amendment would be needed for that because the undesignated category could float and could be added to the 500 units. Ms. Wordell said that staff feels it is appropriate to eliminate the Bubb Road site as a future housing site and to transfer the 150 umts to the undesignated category. She explained the factors in favor of increasing the numbers of units allowed in the dislrict, and the factors in opposition to increasing the number ofumts. Ms. Wordell referred to the housing disttint map which illustrated the 500 units that are allowed lbr the Vallco area and the other plannmg areas in the city, and the undesignated category discussed previously that allows umts to be transferred to no specific location. Ms. Wordell discussed the inlbrmafion on residential bulldout which was set forth in the table in the staff report. She also referred to the housing district map. Staff concluded that even if 500 umts were approved out of the planning district map area, there would still be 1000 units not committed. The concern raised before was that staff wanted to be sure that the general residential development had ample oppommity to build out and would not be superseded by some of the other large developments. Staff feels that general buildout could be achieved. Mr. Chuck Core, Director of Business Services, Cupernno Union School District, addressed the elt~cts of residential development within the district, stating it would be mitigated through the utilization of developer fees. Currently, the disnict is reviewing that position for two major reasons: Firstly, apartment construction has consistently produced new students at the rate of .073 per unit, while single family dwellings have produced new students at the rate of .605. Changing demographics within the school boundaries have brought these two figures into question. As a result, the school district has commissioned a new demographic study which is scheduled for completion in November. He said that the second and more immediate reason is that California has enacted legislation which provides some additional funding for school districts that reduce class sizes to 20 students in certain primary grades. He said in his district such reductions could require an additional 40 to 120 classrooms, and that the administration has been studying the implications of both developments. Mr. Core reported that on September 10, the Board of Education held a study session to examine the class size proposal and to seek input into the planning process. On October 2, the Board of Education directed that Class size reduction in first grade only be implemented for the current school year utili:ving existing facilities within the district. This resulted in the need to provide teaching stations fur approximately 40 additional teachers between now and February 16, 1997 when the program must be implemented. Some additional modular classrooms have been ordered to help ease the demand for classrooms next year. As new students enroll in the district, they will be assigned to their neighborhood schools, if space is available. In the event that space is not available, the new students will be bussed to another school within the district. Each school is annually reviewed as to its ability to house additional students, and where appropriate and financially feasible, modulars may be added. In the case of schools that are akeady large, the district may need to modify the attendance area as all school attendance areas within the boundaries of the district are subject to change based on Board approval. Increased development and/or significantly higher student yields fi.om existing residences could also result in the need for the district to reopen a closed school at a cost of $5 million to $6 million to the general fund in order to meet current district standards. He said this was money the Planning Commission Minutes to October 28, 1996 district did not have and for which there is no state funding. He said that he hoped the mformati~n as to the impact of the enrollment growth and class size reduction on the ability of the district to house new students and provide classrooms for those students was useful to the Planning Comnmssion. In response to Commissioner's questions, Mr. Core said that the study would be completed by the 4th Tuesday of November. He said that the Thompson property is bisected by district lines, halfm Santa Clara Unified School District and half in Cupertino Umon School District and Fremont Union High School District. He said that the dis~icts met and determined it was in the best interest of the overall area, that the developer petition the entire properly to go to Santa Clara Unified. A/1 three districts are in agreement to make that recommendation to their Boards. Mr. Core clarified the boundaries of the school districts. Ms. Wordell said thai the school capacity and transfer question could be left open to see if it was needed and if the Commission felt it wanted to give some indication on the Bubb Road transfer, it could be done now or later. Chair Roberts opened the meeting tbr public input. There was no one present who wished to speak on the item. Com. Hauls said that it was related to the staff recommendation for transfer of the Bubb Road 150, and stated that she would like to go on record that for that particular area she felt the General ?lan was sound. She said that although the Bubb area had industrial buildings, it was totally surrounded by schools, and with the UC campus across the street, and the remainder of the area being residential, she felt in the long term the area should be residential. She said she learned at a recent housing solutions conference that many communities were shifting industrial space to residential. She said that if it remains industrial, it will continue to exacerbate the jobs housing imbalance that now exists in Cupertino. She said that this particular area for safety reasons and continuity for the rest of the neighborhood should remain residential. Com. Austin concurred that she would like to go on record also for the same issue. She said she worked on the goals committee and General Plan and it was definitely earmarked for housing, and at one point it was proposed to put Bubb adjacent to the freeway 85 and have the housing on the other side. She said she would still like to see that considered and not taken oft Chair Roberts said that he would like to keep the housing option open in that general area and it would be premature before the General Plan review later this year. Chair Roberts declared a recess at 8:40 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:00 p.m. the same Commissioners and staff were present. 11. Application No.: Applicant: Location: Property Owner: 5-Z-96, 14-U-96, 2 l-LA-96 Thompson Residential Company 10750 Wolfe Road, southeast comer of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue Tandem Computers Rezoning from Planned industrial Zone P (MP) to Planned Residential P (RES) and a USE PERMIT to allow the construction of a 342-unit apartment complex on 12.5 net acres at the southeast comer of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes It Octobe~ 2g, 1996 Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a 342 unit apartment complex consisting of 10 buildings, to be constructed at the southeast comer of Wolfe Road and Praneridge Avenue. The application also requests rezoning of the parcel fi.om a planned indusaial to a planned residential designation. The application was heard by the Planning Commission on September 25, 1996 and applicant was directed to address the issues listed in the staff report and remm to the planmng Commission. Discussion items will include the Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union High School District boundary maps, floor area ratio comparisons of recently approved apartment projects in Cupertino, a survey of surrounding building heights, impact of the development on the need for a community park, and possible traffic impacts. Staff recommends conditional approval of the project as well as approval of the planned residential zoning. A determination of the Planning ComnUssion will be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision on November 18. Mr..lung reviewed the issues of concern expressed by the Planning Commission at the September 25 meeting, including schools; open space and park lands; development characteristics: setbacks, floor area ratio; building heights and density; traffic and access; and other issues such as landscaping, trees, etc. He said that a late parking study was received fi.om the applicant that may address parking questions. In response to Com. Austin's question about the access to the back road, Mr. Jung said that the road was already a legal access, partially improved and partially Ummproved. The applicant is suggeStmg its use for emergency access only; however staff is recommending use for full access to the pmpetty as it provides controlled access through a signal fight which the main entrance does not do. Com. Harris questioned if planned residential would allow for a small commercial section in the complex. Mr..lung said that it would not, and that the General Plan designation is very specific as either industrial or residential. He said that there would be restaurants located in the Vallco Village Center. Com. Hams reported that she recently visited the River Oaks development which was built in an industrial area and the complex housed a small strip center for the convenience of the residents. Mr. Cowan explained there were zones where the General Plan allowed a mixture of retail and industrial office. He said that a small retail center designed to meet the needs of the residents was possible but not if it was oriented to the general public. Mr. Bert Viskovich, Public Works Direcior, briefly reviewed the traffic analysis as outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. William Thompson, Thompson Residential Co., stated that he began working on the proposal with Tandem Computers in December 1995. He met with Planning Department staff in February 1996 to discuss the various site constraints for the site, and in May 1996 to review an initial proposal for 366 units. In response to staff comments, a proposal for 348 units was submitted in June 1996 and to the ERC in August 1996, resulting in a submission of 342 units, including a half-acre park and additional setbacks of building 6 fi'om Wolfe Road. Mr. Thompson commented on the grading and site plans which were questioned during the recent site visits. He assured the Planning Comrmssion that the buildings would be placed outside of the Wolfe and Praneridge tree drip lines and behind the berms at the minimum grade practical ibr drainage. He stated that the perimeter trees were highly valued as a community and property resource and would be preserved except those in conflict with the drive, and those that need to be removed for health reasons. He noted that 41% of the site was landscaped open space which does not include buildings, drives, or parking. Mr. Thompson clarified that the height of the buildings was three stories, two of the ten buildings located in the center of the site are over semi-subterranean parking. All of the buildings are designed to include a loft feature in several of the top floor units; all of the buildings have peaked roofs; the maXamum building height is 28 feet at the eaves, 42 at the ridge, and 47 feet at the peak of the donners, which constitute less than 20% of the roof area. The maxtmum building height penmtted on the site is 60 feet. Mr. Thompson said that density and total number of units have been raised as issues. He said the property as proposed was not the largest nor the highest density property in Cupertino, but was undoubtedly the best site for both high density and high unit count. He compared other projects in the surrounding area with the proposal. He said that his proposed project and the others under construction or planning are responding to both a dirth of conslructiun during the five year recession recently experienced and the explosion of high tech job growth in the last eighteen months. He said that the Planning Commission had the opportunity to respond to the needs of the commumty and approve a project that does not burden the local schools, parks or traffic, and supports the local retailers with approximately $25 million in annual income fi.om the approximate 600 new residents in this property; a property that supports the homing needs of employees of local businesses; a property that generates approximately $1.5 million in fees and annual property tax payments of approximately $.5 million. Mr. Thompson requested approval of the proposal. Com. AuStin asked for clarification on the building height and square footage of the apartments. In response to Chair Roberts' question about the height of the buildings, Mr. Thompson replied that the buildings were three stories; some of the units on the top floor were townhouse loft units which creates the condition of the fourth story window, which are donners. Com. Harris said that the donners should be differentiated fi.om the stories. Mr. Alex Seidel, SeideFHolzman, Architects, referred to the overhead of the site plan and reviewed the landscape plan for the development, lie illustrated the location of the commklnity park area, the pedestrian walkways and pedestrian connection to the retail areas. He reviewed the L shaped design of the buildings, which creates a major landscape residential court that faces into the project that would bring people in fi.om the parking areas. Mr. Seidel presented a model of the project for the Planning Commissioners to consider. He said that the character of the residential buildings was illustrated wood siding, with awnings and trellises, and was articulated to present themselves m the street as a series of smaller residential units similar to to~ahoases. He pointed out the illustration of multiple colors on the thcade which would accent the massing of the building and articulate it as a series of smaller units. Referring to the architectural rendering, Mr. Seidel illustrated the character of the residential entx-y drive ~om Pmneridge, which was designed to resemble a small residential stxeet or lane with pedestrian sidewalks on either side. Mr. Seidel clarified that relative to the issue of three stories, they used the configuration of two flats with intermittent townhouses on top, which technically by the building code could be a three story building with a mezzanine. He noted that the discrepancy of the 55 foot height fi.om an earlier stalY report related to the pofdon of the project located in the center of the project. That pofdon is on a podium; the first floor of the project is about five feet above the ground in that case. Originally it was at about 55 feet but with the lowering of some of the angles of the roofs, it is probably going to be less than that. He said that particular height would come in at about 52 feet on the inner podium buildings, but 47 feet was the absolute ridgeline of the buildings that are on the perimeter seen from the slxeet. In response to Com. Hams' question, Mr. Seidel explained that in some locations in the buildings, there are three flats, and m others there are two flats with a townhouse, the townhouse having a loft or mezzanine. Planning Commission Minutes 13 Octobe~ 2g, 1996 Referring to the overhead of the site plan, Com. Harris expressed concern about the elaborate entry gardens on the in.f~de fronts of the buildings. She said that acres of driveways with line spaces and individual garages and carports could be seen from what was the most prominent view from the inside of the complex. Mr. Seidel said that different levels of density of project typically sort themselves into different prototypes of how the site design was done. He said in terms of the projects from the Bay area, it was a relatively lower density project which falls into the 25 to 30 unit per acre designation, and those types of projects typically have a significant amount of ongrade parking. He pointed out that the subject project had more than is typical because of the podium building located in the center. Mr. Seidel said that care was taken in the design of the parking lots so that when driving m from Pruneridge there was a welcoming entry area, and the parking areas were broken up to mitigate the irapact of the parking lots. Com. Harris expressed concern about the setback of the side of the building along Pnmeridgn Avenue. She said that buildings 3, 4, and 5 on Pruneridge and building 6 on Wolfe seemed to have narrow setbacks for 45 to 55 foot high buildings. Mr. Seidel explained that the type of setbacks were not dissim/lar to the setbacks along Rodrigues, and in that regard they did not consider it unusual or out of bounds, within the context of Cupertino. He said that because there were mjor industrial uses on adjacent streets, it seemed like a comfortable proportion. In response to Com. Austin's question about the secondary road, Mr. Seidel said that the applicant would work with staff to satisfy the conditions relative to the road. He said he felt the formal entrance was important to the project, but that utility and speed also had to be conffMered. Chair Roberts expressed concern about the repetition of the building design. Referring to the color board, Mr. Seidel clarified that two distinct color schemes were developed and used on the buildings to highlight different forms, which would break away from the repetitiveness of the building design. Discussion continued whereto Mr. Seidel answered questions. Mr. Paul Lettieri, G,,7?ardo & Associates, Landscape Architects, discussed the overall landscape concept for the project. He explained that attempts were made to create an ideal community, utilizing the txees on the site. He said that as a result of the site being developed, the trees will flourish because of the inigation, which will add to the scale and the relationship of the site to the stxeet. He said that the gaps between the redwood trees would be filled in, creating a solid band of trees. He said that there would be a layered landscape along the perimeter of the site, which is in keeping with Cupertino'J xeroscape landscape ordinance. There w/il be layers of ground cover, shrub planting that work their way up as you get to the building, creating a layered landscape look which is similar to Park Place in Mountain View. He pointed out that the comer green plaza was considered a signature mark with strength and attractiveness for the site and was good landmark location. He noted that there was a lot of area where the buildings were fronting on landscape spaces as well as parking. He discussed the half-acre field of open space which was a unique feature for informal recreation. He illustrated the children's play areas and community garden areas. Mr. Lettieri explained that each enlxy court was a unique design, some with picnic areas, and others with seating areas. Referring to the site plan, he discussed the location of the swun pool and exercise room, and its relationship to the open space. In response to Chair Roberts' question about the 41% landscape space, Mr. Lerdefi comSnned that it .-- was landscape space and not parking lot space. He clarified that it included the parking lot areas and Planning Comn~ssioa Minutes I~ Octobe~ 2~, 1996 the green space. He said it did not include the area on top of the structure which would be perceived as landscape space because of planters m the area, and considered as outdoor usable space. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Ernest Piccone, Tandem Computers, said that he would speak for both Thompson Residential and Sand Hill Properties applications. He said that as a result of the last General Plan review, it was apparent that the City encouraged housing in the Vallco Park area, and Tandem concluded that the Cupertino Village site and the 12 acre site now controlled by Thompson Residential were the two sites to best accommodate the honsing. Following a screening process of residential developers, Sand Hill was selected for the Cupertino Village site and Thompson for the 12 acre site. Mr. Piccone asked for the Planning Commission's support of both applications. Mr. Mike Anderson, Sand Hill Properties, asked for clarification on the proceedings. He said it was his understanding that the public hearing would be kept open on the f~rst item and asked if action would be taken on Item 11 before returning to Item 10. Chair Roberts clarified that Item 11 would be kept open through consideration of the last item and consideration then be given to ail three items. Chair Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Hams referred to Exhibit D, floor area ratio, and commented that the City Center apartments should be discounted because they are a podium development and were intended to be extremely dense, with parking underneath, resembling an inner-city. She compared the project with the Forge- Homestead and Corsica/Citation. She said she felt the floor area ratio in the proposed development was too high. She also addressed the issue of roof heights and expressed concern about the 45 and 55 foot heights only 20 to 30 feet from the curb. Com. Harris expressed concern about the driveway and garage apace which she felt was excessive. She suggested changes in the height, floor area ratio and moving the development in more from the street frontage on Pnmeridge and building 6 on Wolfe Road, and having more podium parking, which would allow more landscape area and reduce the asphalt and concrete area. She reiterated that she would like to see more landscaping area and underground parking area. Com. Hams disaibuted an exhibit from August 1995 and expressed concern with the parking ratios. Mr. Jung clarified that when the floor area ratio is calculated, the parking podium is included m the floor area ratio calculation. Com. Harris discussed the August 1995 exhibit of the summary of other municipalities' parking ratios for townhouses and apartment rentals. She expressed concern about the parking ratio for the project. She said that she was in favor of changing the designation to Planned Residential to meet the housing needs. She said she was not concerned about the architecture as there was ample variety in the building forms through the colors, balconies, stairs to make the project attractive. Com. Austin said she felt the height should be clarified, relative to definition of dormers, and whether it was three or four stories, and whCtber the height was 47 or 55 feet. She said that she was in favor of the project and would like to know the correct FAR. She said she felt the design was boring and repetitive. She expressed concern about the parking ratio. Com. Austin said that the 41% open landscape area feature was positive. She said she felt the density was appropriate and reiterated her disuppomtment in the architecture. Chair Roberts also expressed concern about the density and the height of the buildings. He said that Com. Harris' focus on the summary was well taken. He pointed out that the larger the project, the Planning Commission Minutes ts October 28, 1996 higher the density seemed to point toward an impressive crowding of the project and to a living environment that was not conducive to Cupertino's standards. Referring to the Forge-Homestead development, he said that the comparison was apt and he recalled the planning Commission's recommendation and the City Council's support of a solution in which the buildings on the periphe~ were two story and higher buildings within were allowed. He pointed out that the proposed development was similar and he would argue for a solution of compromise of the same kind with two or three story elements on the periphery. He said that he felt the vast expanses of parking were not appropriate and he would prefer to see more underground parking. He said if the buildings were to remain as high as proposed, the setbacks would require substantial redesign. He noted that there was no on-street parking and because they are major arterials, and overflow should not be permitted onto the street, and overflow to the adjacent commercial areas should not be encouraged. He said that he was concerned with the color scheme. Chair Roberts pointed out that overall, he was not satisfied with the project and there was the feeling of two Commissioners for substantial change in several Chaix Roberts summarized that the majority of the Commissioners present did not recommend approval of the application as presented, and that two Commissioners were strongly in favor of reducing the density. Mr. Gary Black, Bart & Ashman Associates, referred to the parking occupancy survey results, and explained that the parking was addressed in two different areas: in terms of parking spaces per unit and also parking spaces per bedroom. He reported that relative to parking spaces per unit, a survey was conducted of other completed apartment complexes relative to parking spaces being utilized. He reported that the highest number of parked cars found was a ratio of 1.47. He said that there was a slightly lfigher ratio of 3 bedrooms to 2 bedroom to 1 bedroom in the proposed development and it was addressed. He said that an important finding was that the parking always peaks at apartment buildings between midnight and 5 a.m., a time with very little visitor demand. He said as long as there was no distinction between the visitor spaces vs. the reaidants' spaces, it was found that no visitors' spaces were needed, if the spaces were available to everyone. He discussed the issue of parking spaces per bedroom and answered questions. He pointed out that a 3 bedroom unit would not need more parking space than the 2 bedroom unit. Chair Roberts commented that the street parking at the Park Place complex in Mountain View illustrated the need for more parking within the complex. Mr. Brace Dorfman, Project Manager, Thompson Residential Co., pointed out that Bella Vista, Kensington Place and Trellis Square were comparable complexes. He said that rental rates related to covered parking offered to tenants. He said that of the 4,000 units developed, only one covered parking space was assigned per unit. includiag 3 bedroom units. Chair Roberts said that he recognized there was an economic tradeoff and because density plays a role questioned if it was the Commission's guidance toward underground parking, would it make a difference and what would the cost differential be to put one of the two spaces underground as opposed to surface level parking? Mr. Dorfman explaiaed that the cost of underground parking was significant because of the impact on all aspects of the site design as well as the building design. He estimated the cost to elevate one of the buildings over a podium to be between $500,000 and $700,000. Chair Roberts summarized that the intent was to leave both Items 10 and 11 open and proceed to discussion of Item 12, Planning Commission Minutes I~ October 2g, 1996 12. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 15-U-96, 6-Z-96, 8-TM-96 and 22-EA-96 Sand Hill Properties Tandem Computers 10741 N. Wolfe Road and 19590 Pruneridge Aenue Use Permit to construct 190 apartment units and 28 single fanuly 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. Tentative Map to subdivide 10.02 acres into 33 lots to allow 28 single family residences, 190 apartments on 2 lots, private driveways and a community park. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 18, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 1996. Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct 190 apartment units and 28 single family homes on a 10.4 gross acre site located across Wolfe Road from the Thompson development project. The specific design concepts for the single family homes and the 2 apartment buildings was discussed as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff will present issues which will require modifications prior to project approval. Because of the complexity of the project, staff recommends that the heating be continued for the necessary time needed to make the modifications. Referring to the overview of the site plan, Ms. Wordell presented an overview of the project as outlined in the attached staff report. She discussed the interior parking concept for the apartment building and the design of the single family homes in the project. Ms. Wordell discussed the eleven issues listed on Page 9 of the staff report and answered questions. She explained that staff felt a continuance was in order so that the applicant would also have the input from the Planning Commission in order to address the issues. Com. Harris explained that the two issues the Environmental Review Committee grappled with were that it would be a different environmental review if it was commercial on the t~ont or multi family; and the second one was that staff did not like the lower density small lots subdivision adjacent to the center. Chair Roberts clarified that a decision would not be made tonight, that the discussion was for informational purposes. Chair Roberts opened the meeUng tbr public input. Mr. Mike Anderson, Sand Hill Properties, stated that Sand Hill Properties was also redeveloping the Cupertino Village Shopping Center. He said that the company is primarily a retail developer and that his background was in single family housing. Sand Hill was jointly developing the property with SNK Realty which is an apartment builder. Referring to the overhead of the site plan, he said that the General Plan that was adopted in 1993 addressed a strong need for housing. He reviewed the configuration of the site. He said that the goal was to create a first class residential neighborhood. He said that early in the process they had met with the neighbors on a regular basis to work on issues of concern fi:om the applicant and the neighbors. One of the goals was to comply with the General Plan recommendation to come in at 20 units per acre of density, and a mix of densities within the project Planning ComnUssion Minutes i7 October 2%, 1996 was done in order to come up with the 20 units per acre. He noted that existing facilities on the property had tailed, and the Cupertino Village Shopping Canter has not done very well itself. He said additional retail on the site would not work for various reasons. More importantly than what the market dictates, there are some real planning issues that are raised by creating another retail component to this project. He said the applicant was attempting to create a high quality neighborhood and felt interjecting more retail into the center would timber degrade the ability to accomplish a quality neighborhood. Mr. Anderson pointed out that they worked with the Marriott people with their easement that runs through their property. Relative to Mr. Cowan's previous comments that the street should read more like a public street, a 30 foot wide street is proposed, curb to curb with extensive landscaping on each side to resemble a boulevard. Relative to the 20 sin,gle family units, the quietest area of the property was chosen. The 8 umts were logically set up because of the existing single family that the Sunnyvale residents reside in. He said it was felt that the best transition there was to not go straight to the apathnent multi family concept, but to put in single family homes near the existing single family homes. In order to accommodate the need for a park area, it was felt that an area should be put in that could be used also by the Sunnyvale neighbors. There is a lot of mature landscaping with mature trees, redwood in back, deciduous out front, and about 55% of the proposed project is the landscaped area. Mr. Anderson discussed the issues of concern. He said that the first issue regarding the commercial use on Wolfe Road frontage was a planning issue, and has become a political issue within the city because of the downturn in Vallco sales tax revenue. Relative to the second issue of the 20 single family lots, it is an ideal location for the single family lots and bolsters the community feeling of the overall project by integrating a single family component in with the apluhuent project; it creates a nice mix of housing which accentuates the entire project. Mr. Anderson reported that when the single family neighbors in the Sunnyvale neighborhood first heard that apartments would be built, they were concerned about the quality of those apartments and the effect the apartments would have on their single family homes. When they saw that the applicant was willing to build 20 single family homes next to the apartments, they were more positive about the quality of the apartments planned. He said applicant would work with staff on the FAR and setbacks. He said he thought the setbacks on the 8 single family lots was about 50% greater than portrayed in the staff report, and that the FAR were not as high as portrayed in the stslT report. He said a landscape plan would be provided for the front yards. He said relative to articulation of all plains, they would work with staff on the particulars. He said that some banding, window trim and other breaks in the facade could be softened. Relative to the redesign of Lot 22 to insulate the rear yard from the freeway noise, preliminary discussions with the noise and sound consultant indicates that by juxtaposing the building on the lot differently, noise problems could likely be mitigated. More extensive studies will be conducted to determine if there are any problems. He added that there would be some fencing and soundwall treatments along the north and east property lines of the 20 single family units. Com. l-lards questioned how long the park maintenance would be paid for the private parks abutting the 8 homes. Mr. Anderson responded that it would be funded privately by the development, through either the apartment complex or the homeowners' association. Mr. Stuart Cn'uendi, SNK Multi Family, said that the goal was to integrate two housing types, and referred to River Oaks in North San Jose which is a mix of multiple housing types including for sale and for rent housing, with commercial components. He said that the block in question also has a mixed use commercial component with the Cupertino Village Shopping Center. He said that project Planning Commission Minutes 18 October 28, 1996 was successfully developed over a span of about four or five years for the absorption of the rental and the for sale housing. He said their goal was similar, the difference being that it is surrounded by industrial R&D area, and also taking into account that the surrounding residential uses here in addition to approxirnate infxastmcture and transportation. He said that the multi family use is a desired use for an infill site in a densely populated area because it is an efficient use of resources and it affects the associated municipal services the least. High quality housing next to jobs is a traffic mitigator. Mr. Gmendl showed a video which displayed the unique features of the apartment complex and internal parking concept. Ms. Delores McLaughlin, 1775 Lark Lane, Sunnyvale, stated her strong support for residential use of the property. She said that the present commercial use in the neighborhood was adequate and she did not feel that any additional noise or traffic incurred by more commercial use would incur. She expressed concern about the cut-through traffic that was once a problem in the neighborhood. She said there used to be access fi.om Linnet Lane that connected through fi.om Homestead Road to Wolfe Road and it was quite difficult to get it closed of£ She said that the City of Sunnyvale traffic deparmaent recommended that emergency vehicle access only would be allowed through the development that would connect through the portion where the gate is proposed for the 8 single family homes and the Minet family. They suggested a condition of use be attached to their use permit indicating that the gate needed to remain there. She said that her neighborhood would be looking for more than absolute guarantee, cutting access off completely so that access on Linnet Lane could only be by the 8 sin~e family homes and the Minet property and that emergency vehicle access be provided for this development so they do have additional access point for emergency vehicles. She said that the neighborhood was very impressed with Sand Hill's desire to work with the neighbors and that while there were some concerns with building height, that the major issues presented to them have been addressed in a cooperative manner. Com. Harris asked Ms. McLaughlln if she objected to the focus on apartments and single family abutting the Linnet neighborhood and the Wolfe Street property remaining commercial. Ms. McLaughlin said that she did not object to commercial strictly fi'onting Wolfe Road. She said that the reservations she had for commercial was pushing it further back toward her neighborhood. She said that she felt residential use was a win-win situation because rental units were needed in Cupertino. Mr. Steve Swenson, 1789 Lark Lane, Sunnyvale, said that he was in favor of the residential development as long as there was mitigation for the high density impact on the current single family residence communily. He said he was not in favor of commercial retention along Wolfe Road, because the shopping center has not been able to sustain viable businesses in the past and dedicating the land to' eommercial use in the future would not change it. He said there is a large portion of the land already dedicated to commercial use and utilizing it in a more useful method would be better. He said that Carlos Murphys and the athletic club were not successful and if any of the area were going to be retained for commercial use, the Thompson project area would be more conducive to commercial use because it does not abut up against any residential neighborhoods. He said he was in favor of keeping single family homes on the property, and said that it would have less impact along the residential use already adjacent to Linnet. He expressed concern about the 4 story height of the buildings. Relative to the gate issue, there was a fence built along the backside of the property and the residents were promised that there would be no commercial impact. However, at any event or function there were people driving across the dirt lot onto Linnet and using it to access Homestead Road. He said it was important for the gate to remain there or there be some means to limit access to this property for other than the residents of the 8 homes along the backside Mr. Sweuson expressed concern about the parking overflow on Linnet. Planning Commission Minutes 19 October 2g, 1996 Mr. Fred Jacques, 1713 Linnet Lane, Sunnywale, said that he lived in the community for 31 years and seen many changes. He said that the commercial properties addressed by the neighbors have not worked from the beginning, including grocery stores, clothing stores, ice cream stores, etc. He said he was in favor of residential tbr the area. He said that parking was the main concern and the residents were looking for some traffic restriction. Mr. R. L. Johnson, 836 Shetland Place, Sunnyvale, complimented Ms. Wordell and the planning staff for the excellent work and the report. He said the report addressed all his concerns about the development becoming residential. He said the preference would be for prune or cherry orchards, and then hotels or commercial, which are impractical. He said the proposed development was the best residential plan he has seen and he was impressed especially with that directly behind his residence. He said that his concern was for traffic and the gate, and suggested that the traffic en~v-Jneers from the cities of Sunnyvale and Cupertino work together tbr a viable solution. Mr. John Steele, 1775 Heron Avenue, Sunnyvale, addressed the issue of traffic, particularly going down Shetland Place. He illustrated where he would like to see the wall extended, and suggested a small opening in the wall for pedeslrian traffic only. He said that by extending the wall, it would cut offvehicle flow into the Shetland area and the Linnet area and overflow traffic. He said it would also eliminate the need for the gate. He said the purpose of the small lot is minimal because it was too small for sports activities. He commended the Sand Hill staff for the excellent job and said he was in favor of keeping it a residential area. Mr..lussi Rajna, Linnet Lane resident, said that his home faced the shopping center area, He said that the type of development was not as much as concern as the amount of development. He said that if it was overdeveloped there would not be enough parl(mg space and the effect would be the same. Mr. Kenneth Knudsen, 846 Shetland Place, and General Manager of Chateau West Improvement Association, said that there were two stringent requirements ti'om the majority of the organiTafion and the neighbors. He illustrated that the traffic should be limited to traffic coming down Heron, and bypass'rog stoplights. He said when he bought his home 28 years ago, there was a Safeway store in the area, but it was not successful. He asked that all efforts be concentrated on doing the best job on a residential area. Mr. John Love, 20380 Town Center Lane, Cupertino, said that he was associated with the Marriott parcel and would address the easement from the current cul de sac to Pmneridge. He reviewed the areas of concern outlined in his letter dated October 23, 1996, which was part of the staff report (Page 12-45)." Mr. Warren Mine, 10630 Becker Lane, addressed the traffic pattern on Linnet Lane. He said that the proposal for the gate on Linnet Lane for the 8 properties plus the Mine property, with passes only for those residents was an adequate control on traffic. He illustrated a preferred access for traffic which would help mitigate traffic flow down on Linnet Lane. He said that it would be beneficial not to close the section offan keep a very restricted use on the gate on Linnet Lane. Chair Roberts asked staff to summarize the access of the gate and how it would work, as there appeared to be some misunderstanding about the access of the gate and how it would work. Ms. Wordell clarified that the g~e would be proposed to be open only to the 8 lots plus the Minet family. As proposed it would be not wailed off any other way. She said she felt the gate was sufficient in controlling the access. Planning Commission Minutes 20 October 28, 1996 Mr. Anderson said that it was his understanding that the existing paved area to the Marriott was about 36 feet, with about 23 feet of clear space, with parallel parking on each side. 'Paey are propoffmg 30 feet of clear space. He said he felt Mr. Minet liked the idea of having the gate that services his mother's property and the 8 homes, and allowing access to come fi.om the apartments into the park area. He said that the disadvantage to walling it off would be that you could not drive from the apartment complex into the park. The advantage is that it assures that no one fi.om the apartments would be able to access Linnet Lane. Referring to Item 12, Com. Austin said that there was no need for commercial because the present commercial is suffering. She said that Mr. Minet's desire to keep the gate open may be so that the homes could use the aliemate rome to go to the shopping center. She said she was not in favor of recommending commercial mixed use. Relative to the 20 lots, she said she would rather see the adjacent apartments longer but less broadened om. She said that it was a condominium-style housing for which a need existed. Com. Austin said that she felt the 4 story apartments were attractive, a good use of space. She said she was in favor of the residential development; but she felt the de£~gn was bland. She said that the FAR was appropriate. Com. Austin summarized that she was in favor of the project w~th some architectural modification along the Wolfe Road frontage, and some redesign in the 20 single family area. Com. Harris asked staff to respond to three issues contained in the Johnson's letter. (1) Fire protection: It indicates Cupertino lacks the manpower and equipment to effectively handle the increase; the narrow width of the proposed roads seem insufficient for emergency vehicle operation; unless sprinklers and fire resistant roofing are required there will be a critical threat to the neighborhood (2) She said she would like more information on the comment about a transformer exploding as tree limbs hit it during windstorms. (3) The vector control issue: the comment that they would like the rodents and insects destroyed before taking over their properties. Com. Hams requested a staff response to Marriott's letter and its 8 points; specifically Items F, G and H. She said she felt it would be more attxactive to have residential across fi.om residential a~ the Wolfe Road site; however, the city needs the sales tax dollars. She said she was in favor of keeping the commercial use on Wolfe Road, and if it is the right destination retailer, it would benefit the community. She said she agreed with staff on the issues, except the incompatibility of the single family lots. She said she liked the single family lots; it was a quiet area with m/xed views. The setbacks were not adequate and a balance was needed; there needs to be reasonable setbacks and reasonable lawn sizes. She said she would not be Opposed to Com. Austin's suggestion of a common wall or zero lot [me on one £ade to get more space on the other side. She said she concurred with Com. Austin on the architecture of the large building, and that it was too 'blocky'. She said that she did not like the flat roofs; there needs to be more interesting view; the north elevation seems to have an interesting view; it needs to be dealt with; it is too massive. Com. Harris said she concurred with staff that 4 stories was too high along the back as well. She said she would not want to live with a view of a 4 story garage with catwalks around it. It is a very interesting approach to inner city hying, but it is not appropriate tbr Cupertino. She said she liked the podium look on the fxont parcel rather than the 4 story garage as a focal point with catwalks. She said that more screening was requlxed for the 20 units that abut the shopping center. She summarized that she was in favor of residential except ~br the front; she apprecmted the attempts being made; however, she felt that they were not there yet. Chair Roberts said that commercial use was a crucial item. He said that fi.om the City's economic point of view, he saw merit in it but a flesh approach was needed for the property with a tenant with regional appeal. He said that a commercial operation with magnetic appeal could be of help to the Planning Commission Minutes 2l October 28, 1996 neighboring shopping center, and that possible commercial uses should be explored before making a tinal decision. If the decision fell in favor of commercial uses, the 20 single family lots would have to be addressed as well from the standpoint of economic feasibility. If the Wolfe Road frontage were to be converted to residential, it is possible that the single family enclave as being quite attractive. He expressed concern with the noise exposure of the 8 units close to Highway 280. He said that the 4 story apartments were an innovative solution, although some of the views were prison-like. He clarified that the 4 story building was excessive especially in view of the neighboring residential area, and he would rather see 3 story if it were economically feasible. He said that relative to the single family units, the FAR ratios provided were disjointed. The 20 units were quite dense and he said he would be open to solution such as were suggested in zero lot lines and common wags to provide more sense of spaciousness. Chair Roberts said he would like more information on noise levels and mitigations, and that more attention should be paid to the alignment of the access road. A discussion ensued about the use of retail for the site as opposed to residential use. Mr. Anderson pointed out that it is difficult to secure a destination user for the site, and the present tenants in the shopping center are small establishments. He said that in order for the area to be set aside for potential retail use, there would need to be tradeoffs to make the remainder of the project work. Mr. Cowan clarified that the applicant may have to prepare more schematic as opposed to refined drawings. He said that further consideration would be given to the commercial viability. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Item 12 to the December 9 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Roberts Com. Austin Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 2-1-0 Mr. Thompson requested that Item 12 be continued to the November 12 meeting. Com. Harris said that she was not comfortable separating the three items for discussion. Chair Roberts concurred, stating that if the items were separated, a decision may have to be deferred. Mr. Thompson again requested an earlier date for Item 12, because as the items are continued to be linked, and as the issue of the retail continues to face the Sand Hill property, the proposal before the Planning Commission may be delayed until December or January. MOTION: SECOND NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Items 10 and 1l to the November 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Roberts Com~ Hams Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 2-1-0 OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None REPORT OF THE PLANN1NG COMMISSION Com. Harris requested that she be placed on the next agenda to submit a report on the housing ._ solutions tour she participated in recently.