Loading...
PC 12-16-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 16, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corns. Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Chairman Roberts. Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy WordeH, City Planner; Raymond Chong, Traffic F-n~o~neer, Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS]REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Loe~tion: 15-U-96, 6-Z-96, 8-TM-96 and 22-EA-96 Sandhill Properties Tandem Computers 10741 No. Wolfe Road and 19590 Pruneridge Avenue Use Permit to construct 210 apartment units, 8 single family detached units and a 4-story hotel (maximum of 215 rooms) on ten acres. Zoning to change the zoning on a 10 acre parcel from Planned (commercial, office, recreation) to planned (residential/commercial) or other appropriate zone. Tentative map to subdivide 10 acres into 13 lots to allow 8 single family residences, 210 aparnnents on 2 lots, private driveways and a community center and park. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: To be determined CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEv:I lNG OF DECEMBER 9, 1996 Staff oresentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan and reviewed the changes to the application since the Planning Commission discossed the item on October 28, 1996. She noted that the proposed location of the hotel is now along the front lot of Wolfe Road; the apartment building is replacing the 20 single family lots, with 8 single family lots remaining; the apartment buildings are 3 story and the park areas have been redesigned. Referring to the architectural drawing oftbe hotel, she noted that the 45 foot towers shown would require a General Planning Commission Minutes 2 Decem~r 16, 1996 Plan change. She said that staff did not feel density was an issue per se; FAR and setbacks were issues of concern. Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, explained that there were no significant impacts bom the project for the a.m. and p.m. hours, and the level of service (LOS) at Wolfe and Prunefidge would remain at level C. It was pointed out that the potential traffic fi.om the hotel was studied, noting that the hotel patrons would be business people and have limited service. Ms. Wordell addressed the issue of the schools accepting the additional students. She pointed out that thc school district had different options to accommodate the additional students, such as portable classrooms, allowing the students to attend different schools within the district, and possible year*round classes. She said that the Cupertino Union School District confirmed that it could accommodate the ~_&qitional students. In response to Commissioners' questions, Ms. Wordeli pointed out that relative to noise impacts, the one unit of the 8 single family units, closest to Highway 280 would be the most affected. She said that the Planning Commission would have to make a decision. Ms. Wordell confirmed that the hotel was part of the project. She said that the applicant was responsible for having the traffic study completed and staff reviews it. Mr. Mike Anderson, Santlhill Properties, referred to the site plan, photos of similar homes designed by the architect, and disenssed the floor area ratio of the proposed single family units, noting that there were no vaulted ceilings in the proposed units. He discussed the side yard and rear yard setbacks and answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Bob Glnser, architect, presented an artist's rendering of the proposed hotel and used overlays to illustrate the landscaping. He discussed the parking allotments for the hotel, pointing out that most of the employees would be off duty when the patrons of the hotel would be utilizing the parking spaces. Referring to the overhead oftbe site plan, he discussed the fire safety access to the hotel property. Mr. Cowan explained the fire department requirements for multiple units. There was a brief discussion about the towers on the top of the hotel, wherein it was pointed out that they were merely for aesthetic purposes and would necessitate a General Plan amendment to accommodate thc additional height. Mr. Stuart Gmendl, SNK Multi Family, referred to the overhead oftbe site plan and reviewed the changes to the apartment complex. He explained that the apartments were now 3 story buildings; Building A (the south building) retained the center garage concept; and Building B (north building) had a podium design. Chair Roberts opened the hearing for public input. Mr. John Love, 20380 Town Center Lane, said that he was affiliated with the Maniott Courtyard hotel and spoke in opposition to the proposed hotel. He expressed concern about the width of the street behind the hotel and the traffic impacts. 2 Plam~ng Commission MinuleS 3 December 16, 1996 Mr. Jussi Rajna, 1725 Linnet Lane, read his letter into the record: "My name is Jassi Rajna and I live at 1725 Linnet Lane, Sunnyvale, 94087. I have lived here since 1975 and now the neighborhood is going through a.greater change thaa ever. My reason of speaking to you tonight is the will that I want to keep my quality of living comparable with the quality of living of other Cupertino and Sunnyvale homeowners. Regarding this development proposed Wnight, I ask you to k~p the same standards, ask the same questions, use your judgment exactly the same way as you do when you are considering other developments presented to you at other times. Why do I say this? Because I listened to you when you were discussing other developments and I admired your thoroughness and passion to maintain cx~de, architectul~t beauty and quality. I noticed how much you care about the people who will live in and around the buildings and structures. I can see that you ate really doing your task. I ask that you include in your vision even the Sunnyvale side of Linnet Lane. For example, the setback requirement at the Thompson project is 40 feet from the Pruneridge Avenue to the two story buildings, while it is only 20 feet required from Linnet Lane to the four story SandhiH Development. The effect of towering buildings are way larger on the narrower Linnet Lane with the existing single family homes than at the wide Pruneridge Avenue with spacious landscaped anms on the Hewi~t-Packard side. If you would make a scaled drawing, comparing the two situations, you would see a valley and a canyon, figuratively speaking. I am not continuing discussing details of th~ plan, you are far more experienced to do that. I am repe~ting my plea to you to look at the proposal as if it would be all surrounded by the same city. Thank you very much for being on tha Planning Commission and listening to mc." Mr. John Steele, 1775 Heron Avenue, addressed the issue of traffic, particularly onto Linnet and Shetland Place. He suggested a small opening for pedestrian tra~c to cut down the traffic from the apaxtment complex and the hotel. Mr. Ken Knudsen, 846 Shetland Place, expressed concern about the impacts of th~ development on the Linnet Avenue residents, and suggested limited availability of Linnet Avenue to the occupants oftha project other than the residents of the 8 single family homes. Mr. Eugene Boklund, 1770 Killdeer Ct., referred to the site plan and expressed his coneem about traffic impacts to the adjacent neighbors, the amount of through traffic into the development and suggested that the street be blocked off to allow residents to move around more freely and in a safer environment. A discussion ensued relative to the use ora gate to block through traffic. The following issues were discussed by the Planning Commissioners: Access to small park area along Highway 280; Fire sa_C~y access to the development; center parking garage concept; roof mounted towers on hotel; allotment for hotel parking; bicycle space allotments in hotel parking; FAR of 8 single family units; side and back yard setbacks; height of buildings; street width; Mr. Cowan distributed the eonditioas of approval. Mr. Chong stated that staff would meet with Cai Trans to discuss ramp metering. Following discussion, the following conclusions were reached: a vote of 3:2 to accept the concept of the central garage in the apartment complex; a vote of 3:2 for the ratio of 1:1 + evening employees parking for the hotel parking allotment; a vote of 4:1 for a 30 foot street width; a vote of Planning Commission Minutes 4 December 16, 1996 5:0 to have a barrio~l~ similar to that already in Cupertino, blocking auto traffic fi.om Linnet; there was consensus to allow the two additional feet height on the aparnnent buildings; the suggestion to consider reducing the FAR of the single family homes or reduce the number to 7 units, eliminating the end unit; consensus that the side and rear yard setbacks should be a minimum of 5 and 15; the bicycle parking allotment for apar~nent and hotel spaces should be 3. There was consensus that approval of the application included the understanding that the hotel unit would be constructed ns part oftbe development. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to grant the Negative Declaration. Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 8-TM-96 according to the model resolution. Com. Harris Chair Roberts Passed 4-1-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 6-Z-96 Com. Mahoney Com. Harris Passed 4-1-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 1997. geapectfuUy Submitt~ Recording Secretary Minutes Approved as Presented: January 13, 1997