Loading...
PC 02-10-2015 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APPROVED/AMENDED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. FEBRUARY 10,2015 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 2015 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Vice Chair Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Geoff Paulso Paulsen Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner: Don Sun Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Staff Present: Asst.Dir. Community Development: Gary Chao Assistant Planner: Gian Paolo Martire Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester CEREMONIAL MATTERS: 1. Election of New Chair and Vice Chair,Committee Appointments: Welcome new Planning Commissioner(s); elect new Chair and Vice Chair,make a recommendation to the Environmental Review Committee; assign Committee representation, review 2015 meeting calendar. Vice Chair Lee welcomed new Commissioner Geoff Paulsen,who served on the Bike Ped Committee and Parks and Recreation Committee. Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development, reviewed the various committees needing representation from the Planning Commission. MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Paidsee Vice Chair Takahashi, and unanimously carried 4-0-1, Com. Lee abstaining, to elect Com. Winnie Lee as Chairperson for the 2015 year. MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 4-0-1, Com. Takahashi abstaining,to elect Com.Alan Takahashi as Vice Chair for the 2015 year. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 February 10, 2015 2. The following Committee assignments were made: Design Review Committee Vice Chair Takahashi: Committee Chair Com. Gong: Representative Com.Paulsen: Alternate Economic Development Committee Com. Paulsen: Representative Com. Sun: Alternate Council Reps: Chang,Vaidhyanathan Environmental Review Committee Chair Lee: Representative Com. Gong: Alternate Council Reps: Chang,Vaidhyanathan(alt) Housing Commission: Com. Sun: Representative Com. Paulsen: Alternate Mayor's Monthly Meeting: Chair Lee: February 4 Chair Lee: March 4 Com. Gong April 1 Com. Paulsen May 6 Vice Chair Takahashi: June 3 Com. Sun July 1 Chair Lee August 5 Com. Gong September 2 Com. Paulsen October 7 Vice Chair Takahashi November 4 2015 Meeting Calendar: Vice Chair Takahashi reported he would be absent from the February 24, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Cupertino Planning Commission 3 February 10, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING 2. DP-2014-08,ASA-2014-13, Development Permit to allow the construction of a TR-2014-60 two-story 15 unit apartment complex; Architectural Terry Brown(D&B Legacy,LLC) & Site approval to allow the construction of 15 unit 10310 No.Foothill Blvd. apartment complex housed within 3,two-story buildings with underground parking; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 6 trees to facilitate the construction of a new apartment complex. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Gian Paolo Martire,Assistant Planner,presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for development permit, architectural and site approval and tree removal permit for the construction of a two-story 15 unit apartment complex on No. Foothill Blvd. He reviewed the site and surroundings, development allocation, site plan, architectural review, parking/traffic, site improvements, tree replacements, landscaping, public outreach and staff's responses to their concerns. He said the Fire Department and Public Works Departments were integral in reviewing the project and site circulations in terms of the two access points on the site. Staff feels the privacy impacts mentioned have been mitigated through the extended setbacks of the development and landscaping. • Staff recommends approval of the following subject to findings and conditions of the applicable resolutions: Development Permit,Architectural and Site Approval and Tree Removal Permit. • Staff answered questions about the application relating to parking, grading, tree removal and replacement. Terry Brown,D&B Legacy,LLC,representing owner of parcel: • Provided background of the property owner who provides rental properties in Monta Vista and west Cupertino, his intention is to develop the property and keep it as part of the family rental income properties. • He described the property, noting it was a difficult site, and thanked staff for helping them get it developed; it is a trapezoid, elevated well above the street, adjacent to Rl properties which is always an issue with multi families' dwellings. There is a row of mature Oak trees at the northern property line which happens to be the property line that joins the Rl people to our north. Videos were taken showing the views that would come from those places adjacent to the RI properties. Chet Tang,Architect: • Reviewed the project, noting that it was a challenging site not only in terms of the immediate context but also a challenge as a gateway site into Cupertino from Los Altos,Mountain View and Sunnyvale. Referring to the project summary he said they were fully in compliance with everything in the R3 zone; in addition to that they were sensitive to the adjacency of the neighbors. From a community design point of view there are also challenges,not only from adjacency point of view, a lot of existing trees but also working with the Fire Department there are a lot of requirements in terms of site access. • Regardless of the technical issues, the one thing they want to meet the challenge was to create a residential scale gateway that could be a reasonable gateway to additional apartment projects down the street. It is really non-descript now, the hope is that this project would enhance the presence of that gateway. They are removing only 6 trees from the site; the presence of the site will have a landscaped feel because they are retaining so many trees especially on the eastern side of the site. In a project like this with the noise condition, generally people back their project onto the street. In this case with the view looking west, there is a gateway condition; we want to have this project address the street even though there is some noise issue there but that is a very important element for us. • Said that the typical apartment project is single loaded with a'corridor on one side; they have created Cupertino Planning Commission 4 February 10, 2015 a boutique village feel; a mix of multi-level units and flats, in order to create the pods of buildings instead of just a row of buildings like a typical apartment project which is an intentional move to break down massing the project inherently and creating passageways that would come into the outdoor living room in the middle from the parking area. The landscape plan creates a sense of entry both on the north drive and on the south drive coming in with a gateway type of landscape element. The passageway coming through from the driveway area and the parking area coming into the outdoor room is the heart of the project; it is also an interesting device to break down the building massing as well. The project is designed to feel like a home; the mix of different unit types is interesting, a unique feature. Architecturally one of the things they wanted to do is create eave lines that does not make it a complex; so along with the notion of a boutique village, it has broken up the eave lines and the roofline, the building is broken down so that they feel and experience individual bungalows and complexes. He showed a video of the proposed project; discussed the materials used, and reviewed the architecture. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Albert Perry,Alpine Drive, Cupertino: • Expressed concern about the impact on Foothill which is a unique street where 18 wheelers line up spewing gravel, with a highly used bike lane, cars lining up each day to get to the elementary school just past the proposed project which makes it almost impossible to turn out of the street. It is a very dense area that doesn't need any more density. He suggested that a real-time traffic impact report be done. Said he resided in a triplex three houses away and generate several vehicles every morning and several each night. Said there is no way a 15 unit complex with 30 car stalls is going to have 8 vehicles in the morning and 8 at night. Three speakers representing The Apartments on Foothill Group: • Three females spoke on behalf of the group (no last names given) • A slide presentation was shown of various locations and activities within the city, trucks and school buses going to different locations, people headed for their job, etc. The narrator showed pictures of different building designs, architecture and areas of concern relative to traffic. Commented that there were areas of concern throughout the city. It is a public safety concern to add additional traffic on Foothill; some design features don't fit in with the neighborhoods. • Another female speaker expressed concern about privacy; there are homes with large windows and balconies that can see into one story homes, which affects their privacy. R3 - in the code there are requirements to protect for privacy other than planting trees. They should use the architectural and structural solutions also. Other slides which illustrate that Cupertino is famous for Foothill Blvd. famous for bike trails, famous for schools and the guiding principle for the General Plan. Cupertino should be safe, friendly, healthy, connected, walkable and bikeable. We don't feel that this project provides some of the value we saw so far; they provided some landscaping, some outdoor open space but it doesn't fit into the fabric in this neighborhood around this community. • Said that 8 units would be more appropriate for the area and would be in line with creating growth and housing for people without as much impact on the cycling community and the trucks going to the quarry regularly, and the traffic that will not go away because the schools are crowded. • The community pleads for the city's help to mitigate risks where they live every day, and don't make it worse by this and some other high density housing brought to Foothill. The road and school are at capacity; it needs to be looked at from a sustainable development perspective and find the right project for the community,protect the students, cyclists and walkers. Bo Chang,representing Foothill Blvd.Apartments Group: • Showed a slide presentation of different areas of the inside and outside of his home which illustrated his views and examples of privacy intrusion in his house and outside. Showed examples of attempted Cupertino Planning Commission 5 February 10, 2015 mitigation on his property and said he wanted to remain a good neighbor. He suggested lower building elevation as a mitigation measure. Kate Brauner,Vista Knoll Blvd.: • Expressed concern about the traffic; she contacted the school by letter to make them aware of the school traffic on Vista Knoll, which prevents her from getting out of her driveway in the morning. There is no parking allowed on Vista Knoll; she suggested giving parking stickers to the residents of the new complex. Alan Brauner,Vista Knoll Blvd.: • Very skeptical about 8 or 9 movements in or out; when told by builder that this was mostly for professionals, they are going to be going to work and traffic is a disaster. Said he would like a real time study and not something out of a book that has no relevance to what is being built. Jennifer Griffin,Rancho Rinconada resident: • Asked if the property was still in the County or has it been annexed into Cupertino; Creston is currently being annexed parcel by parcel into Cupertino but is designated as a Cupertino neighborhood; said Creston should not be compromised because they are still in the county. • Suggested there be some discussion on issues of the annexation especially if this current apartment proposed project is still in the county; when will it be annexed and how is that being handled? It is possible it has been in the city the whole time as the lot has been empty for years?What is the grade of the north entrance which is currently the only access point now and what is the grade of the south exit, next to the Alpine Road? How do the residents get down to the sidewalk? She suggested putting in a bus pull out with a bench with a rain cover. Said it was a difficult site with many challenges and would be easier if the trucks weren't using those roads so much. It is a very congested area Chair Lee: • Asked staff to review the grade, annexation,walking paths, sidewalk and bus stop pullout. Gary Chao: • Said the project is in the city of Cupertino, not in the county pocket Ms. Griffin referred to;which is the reason it is before the Commission for a decision. It is not related to the Creston Park neighborhood issue. • In terms of the walk, there is a meandering pathway that leads from the sidewalk up to the project and it feeds into the common open space; you can walk along the driveway and there is a designated pedestrian path that is ADA acceptable or compliant that is serving the project in connecting it to the sidewalk. Gian Paolo Martine: • In terms of the grade for the ingress and egress, it is 15%on the north ingress and between 15 and 20% on the south egress. (It is all 15%on both) Gary Chao: • Said the applicant is not required to provide any bus stop amenities although it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to discuss it with the applicant and realize that it is not up to them to decide if it is appropriate to put in a bus stop or not. VTA would have to be involved and they will have input about where and how it looks, and the specs meeting their requirements. If the majority of the Commission desires to entertain a condition that requires the applicant work with VTA to have that dialog and if acceptable to VTA, the applicant could provide some amenities. Other than that, as suggested by Com. Paulsen, benches, carve-outs or spaces for people to sit are all within the Commission's purview. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 February 10, 2015 Jonathan Chang,Vista Knoll Blvd: • Said the two story high density project is not consistent with the neighborhood and the city of Cupertino; and asked the commissioners how they would like to have a two-story building looking into their yard and house. He commented that developers try to squeeze every single inch of the property by building high density apartments. The 30 parking spaces will not be enough for residents and their guests and there is no other place to park other than Vista Knoll Blvd. The project will bring more congestion, parking and traffic issues to Vista Knoll Blvd. Foothill Blvd. is a highly trafficked road with plenty of commuter traffic and big rig cement trucks. How will the fire department and emergency responders get access; is it safe to cram that many people into such a small space? • The city parking requirement does not fit this project because there will be plenty of people living here; large families will move here because of the excellent schools and developers will be able to charge high rental rates in this red hot market. Cramming more than 50 people into this complex will be a recipe for disaster. Kalyan Ramanatin,Vista Knoll Blvd.: • Addressed the issues of design,traffic and security. Said while he did not fully understand ordinances, he was certain the developers planned the development adhering to the ordinance. Said he felt the design is inconsistent with the neighborhood. The neighborhood consists of many single story homes and the proposed project is a two story home with balconies, and windows overlooking his home. It is not consistent with the neighborhood and intrudes on their privacy. • Secondly, the traffic on Foothill is a nightmare! It is easier to make a turn onto Market Street in San Francisco on any day rather than try to turn into Foothill Blvd. Security is also a major concern; the backyard of the high density apartment complex looks into the living areas of the mostly one story homes. Reducing the size of the proposed complex to 15 units would help make it more manageable and comfortable. Mrs.Ramanatin: • Said that her 11 year old daughter has fears about the proposed development as she and her sister are home alone frequently and feels the neighbors from the proposed development will be able to look down inside their home. She. expressed concern about the open spaces in front and back and the potential that the back area may become a problem area with people hanging out. She asked that there be noise mitigation in the area when construction occurs and afterwards. Thomas DeFranco,Vista Knoll Blvd.: • Said he resided behind a fourplex unit diagonal from applicant's property. When that project was built, they moved the project back because there were balconies 25 feet from the fence that looked straight into his house. They used landscaping to offset the visual intrusion; now many of the trees are 20 feet high so all the foliage is above the visual line, now someone standing on the balcony can see directly into the living room of the other house, the same problem that existed before. That's not the intention but that is what has resulted from the way the landscaping solutions do not work. • He said a single story unit behind the single family houses would be a direct solution to the problem of the neighbor being able to look directly into his home. A two story unit behind the single family houses has never worked, it hasn't worked on Alpine; and the city of Cupertino has allowed it. It is an atrocity. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Com. Gong: • Said she would like to address what needs to be done in order to require the applicant to speak to VTA about the bus carve out; it makes sense if they state that the traffic on Foothill is atrocious,that a carve out would only be positive. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 February 10, 2015 Gary Chao: • Currently there is a bus stop out front with a carve-out for the bus. There are no amenities such as a shelter or bench; they would first need to have a conversation with the applicant and ask them to comment on that. It was discussed briefly but it requires VTA's consent and requires coordination with VTA; you could consider adding a condition that would direct the applicant to have the conversation with VTA to maximize that effort and the applicant can weigh in, in terms of what their commitments in that regard are. There is nothing to prevent working with the developer to carve out areas that are around the area along the frontage or other points of the frontage; it does require some retaining wall or grading work to create a flat spot to cut into the slope, to create an area for a bench or some other sitting piece; it could be a more passive sitting area; perhaps the retaining wall itself could function as the sitting planter/sitting area; it doesn't have to take on the form of an actual bench. He said he would encourage that dialog with the applicant. Staff could support that; it is a good suggestion; it is a little trickier to involve VTA, another agency that is not in this room today, and the city cannot commit to what they are or are not going to say. There may be reasons for their not supporting something like that. Said he felt it was a good idea; a condition can require that conversation to take place and the city staff can help facilitate that conversation. Mark Kelton, Civil Engineer: • Said if they try to push it down 4 feet, they have to push everything down 4 feet the entire site in order to maintain the ADA access. Can it be done; yes, however, one of the things done in working with staff was try to maintain a minimal amount of retaining walls, that they would try and keep a 5 foot retaining wall max for most of this. There are some minor exceptions but if we push it down to 4 feet more, the back seat wall at about 18 to 24 inches becomes 5-1/2 to 6 feet and on the most southerly side that wall which was about 6 feet to 7 or 8 feet becomes more like 10 to 12 feet which is a very tall wall staff was trying not to have us do. Gary Chao: • Said it was their original direction to the applicant; if the applicant is willing to drop a few more feet they can deal with retaining walls along the back. It is not desirable to have retaining walls taller than 6 or 7 ft for many reasons; there are ways to side the retaining wall with wood, stone or terrace it if there is room to help break up that visual impact. That being said the retaining wall that is in question outlined in red,the people living there would be the ones looking at the large walls. Com.Paulsen: • Suggested they consider a bench set further from the bus stop which would alleviate the need for VTA's involvement. He said he agreed that the traffic is a big issue especially the big rig trucks; the school buses are also a serious long term issue. • Said he could appreciate all comments about the views and the privacy as he had an Apple Computer building go up behind him which blocked his previous beautiful view of the mountains. Said theoretically there a some things one can do, but this project was zoned for what's built; it is built in compliance with what is permitted; therefore for them to require the developer to reduce their opportunity to get income from the property would not be fair in light of the fact that they designed it according to what was already zoned. What one can do is build taller and narrower but again Cupertino residents do not like height which has been clear. He said in his case he would rather there be a 20 story Apple building he could see around and still see the sunset; however he can't do that because it is limited to 4 storys. The other alternative is called a density trade where the developer gets a density credit at another development. A development in another location could be made denser and this area left open space. It appears this is something that has been hammered out carefully with staff according to existing requirements so it seems like it is tough to require the developer to make a major structural change in terms of the number of units and that kind of thing. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 February 10, 2015 • It is fortunate to have the California Live Oak tree in the Cupertino area; it is fast growing into a large bush and last a long time. With skilled arborists and some pruning, one could grow an effective green wall to mitigate the privacy concerns; the sunset and the view of the mountain concerns is something that has been in the zoning for a long time and don't see it easily changed. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said that traffic is a major concern, the convergence of two elements, the truck traffic and morning school drop-offs are primarily morning problems. Relative to people trying to turn left out of Vista Knoll onto Foothill southbound, it blocks the people trying to get out of Vista Knoll turning right onto northbound Foothill. Has the city considered a left turn prohibition during certain hours which would alleviate that problem but does restrict residents from turning left in the morning? Has there been discussion with the cement plant with regard to some level of traffic control during specified times? It appears to be more of a global traffic problem that is not fair to pin on this project. Gary Chao: • Said they don't have an answer; they have had conversations with the cement company about traffic it is an independent conversation outside the purview of the Cominission. The cement company is not party to this application; the question can be asked as a side comment from the Commission. Staff would be happy to follow through and come back with what they find out. City Attorney: • Following the tragic incident involving the bicyclist, the city is working on school zones and whether or not there could be some truck regulations around certain school zones. It is in the works and is a process that will be coming back to the Council in a couple of months, but there are certain things the city cannot do. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said bike traffic on Foothill heading northbound is proceeding downhill so bike speeds tend to be a little higher heading in that direction; his main concern is the exit and cars exiting not necessarily during peak traffic times,but in general. Heavily travelled bike route Foothill Blvd. is probably one of the most highly travelled bike routes in the country; because of that there is a concern with cars turning out something to make residents aware that it is a very high bike traffic area and to be on lookout. • Privacy concerns are the second major concern; looking at the layout and plan view where buildings are being placed, it seems it is as optimized as possible to respect the privacy of the citizens; one person commented about how someone would like to have a two story house next to you. Said he lives in a one story house with a two story next door and closely spaced; the situation is fortunate from the standpoint of a lot of existing vegetation that can be maintained there is probably gaps, filling those gaps would be positive with regard to some of the planting to enhance privacy. The one comment about landscaping deteriorating over time, you might lose a tree or two from construction but how do you maintain that good neighbor environment? • Said he felt staff and the owner have done lot to mitigate and enhance privacy as best as possible but is there any element in terms of long term maintenance of that landscaping to ensure that everything doesn't die. • Construction dust and noise mitigation is a given; a good plan is needed from the standpoint of start times and dust mitigation across the site; make sure to use common sense courtesy during construction as it will add to the traffic. • There were some concerns about parking overflow; it seems like there is a trade between privacy and parking and from an adjacent resident's perspective would be curious which is more important, privacy or expanding the parking spaces on the site such that there is enhanced security. It seems there were more concerns about privacy than safety and parking elements but that is a trade that could be Cupertino Planning Commission 9 February 10, 2015 entertained. Gary Chao: • In terms of landscape maintenance and requirements some good points have been made by the public as well as the Commission regarding the desire of making sure that the landscaping, whether it is a preservation of the existing trees or new plantings being proposed are going to be carried out as well as surviving the construction. • As mentioned previously once the project is approved, the project, the site plans, the landscaping plan associated with the site plan is considered protected category; they will be held to it in terms of being sure that its carried out accordingly, also in the future if something happens to it that it would be addressed. They could consider adding a condition that requires a covenant being recorded that further stipulates that, so it is clear to the property owner that the landscaping shall be maintained as well as consider a condition that requires certification of the landscaping planting by a professional arborist; a report be provided to the city either after the construction or prior to the final occupancy of the development. It can also be conditioned that after a year a report by a professional arborist be submitted to the city that all the trees are in good standing. It is a check-in and the applicant may be open to that. • Said they could consider having conditions requiring signs relating to cyclist or pedestrian crossings, but the sign should be placed on the private property for the benefit of the exiting vehicles from the apartment complex because he was not sure what Public Works prohibits in terms of signs within public right of way. The concept is for people to see that sign. A condition can be entertained to that effect, as well as work with staff to carve out a space in front to provide the opportunity for benches or sitting opportunities. They are good conditions to consider. City Attorney: • Referred to the terms and conditions of the ASA, Paras, 8 and 9 with respect to Para 8 does require a landscape installation audit conducted by a certified landscape professional after the irrigation and landscaping has been installed; it is already a term and condition of the architectural site approval. Sub Para. 9 refers to the landscape and irrigation maintenance including that failed plant shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants. It may also be an appropriate place to add the additional condition about a covenant should the Commission so chose. Com.Paulsen: • Addressed an earlier comment about the sun shining in the drivers' eyes as they exit the development; stating that it could be mitigated by selecting a tree species that would have leaf cover high enough to block the sun for the exiting drivers,but tall enough so that the under story wouldn't block the view of the oncoming traffic. Com. Sun: • Shared concerns about guest parking and also traffic in and out to Foothill Blvd. Said he shared some of the same concerns that the public did, such as Foothill traffic; It is not only public traffic, for the Planning Commissioners they will likely isolate the issue to this single project; the challenge is how to combine this particular project into the larger issue of Cupertino traffic. • Said it was also challenging for him because city has zoned it as zone 3; they have to obey the law and vote to allow developer or applicant to develop zone 3 residents here. Said it was suspicious and he shared some concerns about the privacy, similar to Coin. Gong's concern about reducing grade, or dig more dirt out but he did not think it was very feasible in the construction part. • Said perhaps they could reduce the number of units to solve the traffic problem; and the privacy issue could be resolved between the applicant and the neighbors. He said he hoped that staff could do some mitigation about the privacy because the presentation from applicant's side and from the neighbors' side is totally different than the picture. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 February 10, 2015 • Said his main concern is if they have the right to challenge the R3 zone to ask the applicant to reduce a couple of units to have more guest parking. Said he drove around and there was no other place to park cars except the tiny neighborhood. Two parking spaces for each; a total of 30 parking spots is not enough spaces for 15 units. Com. Gong: • Said she supported a condition that would require the applicant discuss the issue of carving out the bus stop. Said signage should be on private property, and also requested the angle of the egress be sharp enough to hinder a rolling exit and to keep the visual line of site exiting on the left completely clear,perhaps 5 to 8 feet. Gary Chao: • Said it could be added in a condition that the applicant shall work with staff to evaluate the exiting driveway along the south of the property for the following: (1) To ensure that the exiting curvature alignment is maximized to reduce speed as cars exit; (2) Look at traffic triangle to the south making sure there are no physical obstructions in terms of vegetation, planned features or walls and staff will consult with the city's traffic engineer as well as the applicant's civil engineer to make sure it is maximized. The bottom line is they can work with the applicant to make it happen. • Relative to the bus duck out,up till now we have been talking about pedestrian features not necessarily changing the geometry of the street to facilitate a full bus inset that alters the curb so I want to make sure we get clarity on what conversation we are having with VTA; it is one thing to talk to them about having a facility for bus shelter, for pedestrians to wait for the bus; it's another thing to talk about expanding the curb and carving in, because that will impact eventually the sidewalk as well. There is the option of creating something informal, not involving VTA but serve a similar purpose. He said he wanted to make sure they understand the majority's direction. Com.Paulsen: • Suggested not consulting with VTA initially but have the architect design a small shelter for residents located back from the street out of VTA jurisdiction but close enough to the bus stop itself. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said he was not sure he agreed about not consulting the VTA, as they build a lot of bus stops and have insight on what works and what doesn't. They should at least be consulted to understand their general practice. There were security issues; if it is too far back there may be concern that somebody could lurk there Most of the shelters in Cupertino are structured with sidewalks behind the shelters. Chair Lee and Com.Paulsen: • Said they agreed. Com. Sun: • Said he agreed and supported Com.Takahashi's proposal. Signs okay. Chair Lee: • Referred to site plan, said her biggest issue with the project was the width of the driveway(20 feet); a two way driveway is 24 feet;they would save 4 feet width to get two ways a one-way road. Gary Chao: • Said it would impact the project significantly if talking about 4 feet. All the 14 tuck-in parking stalls would have to be redesigned; there are advantages. They looked at the circulation and bounced it off the Fire Dept. as well as Public Works; there are advantages to this particular circulation design where you are coming in one way because there is an intersection closer to the north and you hear Cupertino Planning Commission 11 February 10, 2015 people talking about queuing and conflicts with the traffic already on Foothill; ideally the least amount of outlet from a project would be better in that case,having one outlet vs.two; but you would rather have cars queue on sites as opposed to having multiple disruption opportunities to interrupt the flow of the traffic and possibly causing some congestion there. Queuing further away to the south is better than north in that regard and also there is grade considerations and the Fire Dept. would be happy if it is wider,but in this case they support the layout. Said to consider that as they evaluate the width of those streets as well. It can be done, but does require significant alterations to the design of the project that the applicant would probably have to weigh in on. Chair Lee: + Said she was uncertain how her colleagues felt about the traffic backing up; people mistaking it for an entrance when it's an expressway. People travel significant speeds and some came to say that it is not safe. Said she felt it was ideal to have one way beeause it is eenfusing to dA a one-way road because size felt a two-way road was confusing. Com.Paulsen: • Would support the one-way over the two-way; the people coming in and going out are going to be 95%residents so they will adhere to that; it does beg to question,what kind of signage on that exit is going to be there for drivers that are visitors that might be tempted to turn into the exit? Gary Chao: • Said they could have a condition relating specifically to people exiting, watching for pedestrians and cyclists. It could require the applicant to work with staff to require proper signage in warning signs where it is clear so that people understand it is not an entrance. There could also be arrows on the ground and also additional signs on the private property. Com.-Paulsen; Vice Chair Takahashi. • Said he supported narrower roads and one-way... He said he assumed that there have been some traffic engineers consulted on whether the flow is clockwise or counter-clockwise behind the unit. Vice Chair Takahashi: • There are pros and cons to either direction; one con about switching the direction is there is a bus stop that is going to block the view of people if they are exiting; that would be a concern when there is a bus at the stop, they are not going to be able to see traffic easily as well as bikes are going to be going around that bus so that would be a concern of reversing it, but understand and agree with your point that it is a little counter intuitive; that is why I thunk signage is going to be necessary to avoid that; and even with that you are still going to get a few people going the wrong way. Gary Chao: • Some points of consideration; one is signage, the other about alignment of that egress driveway; ironically there are pros and cons and whether it should be 90 degrees or at an angle because if you were to address Chair Lee's concern you want the driveway to be at an angle. • If the Commission wants to entertain a condition and craft some of those principles, staff will work with the traffic engineer to best address some of those requirements, to make sure a design is hindering speed, such as a big speed bump. Com.Paulsen: • Suggested they recommend as a Commission that the best traffic engineering best practices be used to ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety for egress and ingress. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 February 10, 2015 Vice Chair Takahashi: • Relative to the street view; one concern that speakers have raised is architectural consistency; the design looks nice; however, there are a lot of vaulted ceilings and pitched roofs which are adding to the height and potentially some of the obstruction. Seeking comments from others as to the thought with regard to some of the peaks and whether or not the design style is necessarily as good neighborly as possible. Is there a grade there to be discussed? Com. Gong: • Said she would like to know that staff has opened the door to higher retaining walls; look at lowering the grade first rather than just changing the peaks. Said she felt lowering the grade would be agreeable to many of the RI residents and help with the overall situation as opposed to just adjusting a peak or two. Com.Paulsen: • Said he liked the design, although different; different is appropriate as long as it is aesthetically pleasing. The concern about hours of sunset or whether or not you can see the setting sun, if you chop 2 feet off the peak roof vs. lowering the whole project 2 feet,she he said she he would favor lowering the whole project; it maintains the architectural integrity of the design. Gary Chao: • One benefit of lowering it is you see a retaining wall in the front that's in the slope of the front lawn, that effectively would be reduced; while the retaining wall in the back will be increased, the retaining wall seen along the street front is going to be lower as well as the front landscaping slope. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said he sympathized with the architect and the civil engineer in terms of the amount of work that has to go into the grading decision with regard to all of the access elements. Said if it is driven by privacy concerns they need to think about it in terms of making it 2 feet deeper. It will add to the cost of the project, and it will require some level of redesign;just looking for a balanced perspective on what that is, 4 feet would be challenging. Com. Gong: • The applicant said their concern was the restriction that staff placed on them about the height of the retaining wall; now that staff has opened the door to raising the height of the retaining wall it is worth looking at. It would be good to hear the impact of two more feet and their willingness. Com. Sun: • Relative to lowering, he said considering the privacy of the neighbors, he did not feel it was proper for them to make an economical or technical suggestion for either removing the dirt or changing the architecture. If they agree that privacy is an issue, give them the option to pick whatever they think is proper as long as it meets the privacy requirement. The applicant can figure out the best way to meet the privacy standard; doing either the combination or the one-way. He said he would like to reduce the grading to 2 feet; but economically uncertain the applicant would spend that much money. Com. Gong: • Said she wanted to increase more grading. Applicant: • Said they would like to keep the integrity of the architecture; if there is a way to lower those pitches in some way that they can look at the detail they want to be respectful,they have done a lot of work on the architecture with design review. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 February 10, 2015 Com. Sun: • Suggested that before making motion they have some discussion about the privacy issue where originally two solutions were proposed: (1) Downgrade the elevation; (2) Change architecture wheel. A third solution has been proposed to plant some Oak trees. The three options should be discussed. Said his proposal was to leave this alternative;before making a motion fully discuss three options. His proposal is to leave this alternative to the applicant; have them decide which way is most efficient for the community. They can work with neighbors and generate the best solution. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said he agreed but felt having a landscape requirement would give some assurance of a view standpoint, but agree with the applicant being in a position to work with staff in terms of those other elements. Gary Chao: • Following discussion provided wording summarized for Inclusion in Motion(Insert A for Motion) Motion: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Vice Chair Takahashi, and carried 4-1-0, Com. Sun voted No,to approve Resolution DP-2014-08,Resolution ASA-2014-13 and resolution TR-2014-60 with amendment to conditions as clarified and stated by Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development. (Insert A for Motion) To approve all title,the condition to consider to add to change is a condition that requires the applicant to work with staff to explore with VTA possible bus stop enhancements including but not limited to the duck out,pedestrian amenities shelter and benches; consider a condition that requires the applicant to work with staff to explore and study the driveway safety with the objective of reducing exiting speed and increasing visibility and awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety; Consider a landscaping condition that requires that the existing and proposed landscaping screening are maintained/upkept through a covenant on the property; in addition to require the applicant to furnish a report of the health and status of the landscaping of the project one year from the final occupancy of the project. The report is to be prepared by a professional arborist. Consider a condition that requires the applicant to work with staff to minimize the height of the project and privacy concerns by considering one or a combination of the following items: (1) Lowering the grade up to 2 feet,unilaterally across the board; (2)further enhancement on landscaping planting vegetation gaps and tree types,and fencing height;would add fencing height does require consent of adjacent property owner if on joint property; (3) Potential architectural changes including but not limited to roof pitch,plate heights, and other ideas that the applicant can come up with that doesn't significantly alter the design of the building; but accomplish lowering the height of the project slightly. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 February 10, 2015 Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Chair Lee reported: • Commissioners were asked for feedback on meetings; was the interaction at Council meetings effective, should monthly meeting continue; would it be better to have a more information interaction with Council? • Discussion about work program calendars. Teen Commission: • Said it would help if she had more informal interaction with Council relative to the work program. TIC Commission • Working on fiber optics with AT&T. Library • Friends Book Sale — Feb. 21, 22; Cupertino Library website up and running; Lego classes; Silicon Valley Reads 2015 event. Fine Arts and Housing Commission • 2 Committees want to work with Planning Commission. • Commissioners agreed that they would benefit with informal interaction with Council. Economic Development Committee: No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Written report submitted. ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the February 24,2015 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabet�Yis,Recording Secretary Approved as amended: February 24, 2015