Loading...
PC 11-14-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4642 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 14, 1988 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: 7:30 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Sorensen Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planiting Director Travice Whitten, Assistant Oty Engineer Leslie LoPez, Deputy City Attomey APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 24,1988, as presented. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed, Com. Szabo abstairting 3-0-1 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 26, 1988, as presented. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed, Com. Claudy abstaining 3-0-1 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 2: Auu!ication(s): 8-Z-88. 21-U-88 and 14-TM-88 - Landmark Develoument Applicant requests continuance to regular meeting of November 28, 1988, to complete design modifications. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to Contirtue .8-Z-88, 21-U-88 and 14-TM-88 - Land- mark Development per request of the Applicant SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 4-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Two letters received from the Gregory Group regarding Item 3, Cupertino Fire District. Letter of Ms. Dorothy Lyddon of November 14, 1988, regarding Item 3 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Chr. Sorensen announced the swearirtg irt and reception of Mayor John Plungy on Thursday, November 17, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 14, 1988 Page 2 PC- 559 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 1: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 21-U-88. 10-TM-88 and 30-EA-88 Mariani Development Corporation S.wn!: Southeast comer De Anza Blvd. and Homestead Rd. 12..±: USE PERMIT: To construct a residential development consisting of 670 +- units in 3- 4 story buildings over parking garages. TENTATIVE MAP: To subdivide approximately 18 net acres into 4 parcels ranging from 2.9 to 6.6 acres in area. CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1988. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 21, 1988 (21-U-88) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED (lO-TM-88) Com. Szabo stated he had reviewed the video tapes on the hearing of October 24, 1988, and commented as follows: Number of bedrooms verses the number of units: - The CQmmission seemed to conclude that the number of bedrooms was the critical item rather than the number of units; to some extent he disagreed with this concept - Number of bedrooms was not proportional to traffic impacts; two one-bedroom units would, generate more traffic than one two-bedroom unit - Some two bedroom units were occupied by a single adult or children in the unit Addirtg two-bedroom units while the total number of bedrooms remained unchang- ed would result in less traffic being generated Housing need: number of units did not necessarily measure the housing generated; the most critical need in Cupertino was rental housing for families with childre~ hence he favored more two-bedroom units rather than single bedroom units Would look favorable towards the provision of two bedroom units Lake verses landscaping: not an overriding concern; however, shrubbery would not have to be watered extensively after the first few years and very efficient drip watering systems could be installed. Thus he was partial to landscaping rather than a lake. Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application and presented revised exhibits. Applicant's Presentation: Mr, Jack Dellett, Architect, briefly reviewed the revised exhibits. Mr. Delmare, Mariani Development, commented as follows: The towers had added some articulation to the comer of the buildings Lake proposed would mask noise and was considered an environmental enhancement; however, a landscaped area (grass) could be used by the residents Fence proposed would surround the entire site; plans would be presented at a later date PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Regular Meeting of November 14, 1988 Page 3 pc- 559 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Delmare stated that approximately 55% of the units would be one bedroom with approximately 5% of the units three-bedroom as advised by market specialists. Mr. Art Pittock, Northpoirtt, presented Northpoint Homeowners Association Presentation: topics included Background, Northpoirtt and Mariani Meetings, Density, Height, and Traffic Flow. Residents of Northpoirtt requested a reduction in height and density and were very concerned about traffic impacts. Mr. Rolf Hagenlocher, 20196 Northbrook, Cupertino, commented as follows: Requested a reduction of the number of units to 20 units per acre Requested a traffic flow diagram and information on the Bluejay intersection Questioned developirtg a project when the Level of Service (LOS) Rating was aD Questioned whether Cupertino needed apartment housirtg or residential housirtg Questioned the number of recreational facilities that were proposed Asked that the building height be reduced to lessen density and visual impacts; sug- gested design alternatives to reduce the height Asked that the four story buildings be placed adjacent to Hwy. 280 Mr. Mort Schour, 20151 Northwood, Cupertino, commented as follows: Asked that the tennis courts be relocated away from traffic to prevent safety hazards Questioned the maturity of trees to be installed on-site Questioned Staff statement that the revised project was comparable to the original one Ms. Cheryl Erickson, 20179 Northwest Square, Cupertino, stated that from her experience at Apple Computer, adults were looking to share one bedroom units; project was neither family units nor affordable. She was concerned regarding traffic and safety hazards. Ms. Doris Higman requested clarification of the traffic flow patterns at Bluejay intersection; she cited potential congestion. Mr. Victor Turesin, 20228 North West Square, Cupertino, was concerned regarding the building height and the resulting loss of his view of the hills; he asked that restrictions be imposed. In addition, he cited air pollution and the draw of mosquitoes from the lake. Ms. Evelyn Olgiate, 20123 Northcoast Square, Cupertino, stated that the 1981 Study did not account for the development of Blaney Ave; she noted hazards to pedestrian traffic. Mr. Mike O'Connell, 10924 Northview Square, Cupertino, agreed that traffic flow would be diverted onto other streets; noted a traffic accident that occurred due to such diversions. Ms. Nancy Burnett, Cupertino, was concerned about the growth of the City and traffic impacts; a healthy environment was precluded by air pollution and use of the lake by ducks. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 14, 1988 Page 4 PC- 559 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Ed Heim, 10838 Northpoint, Cupertino, commented as follows: - Commended Mariani and the Planning Department for efforts to create a viable project Was unsure whether density would be an overriding concem in assessing traffic impacts; he suggested traffic improvements that might be helpful Suggested the number of units be reduced by removal of the proposed fourth floor Favored landscaping (grass) over the lake proposed and felt installation of a second swimming pool would be a benefit Mr. Philip Young, 20174 Northwind Square, Cupertino, stated that negative impacts would result from the development proposed and admonished the Commission to carefully consider the proposal from Mariani Development. Mr. Delmare responded as follows: Density: number of bedrooms was a better indicator of density than the number of units Unit mix: developers wished to build what the market required Building height allowed amenities such as enlarged setback areas naffic: Applicants did not wish to build a project that residents could not easily exit; in addition, the 10-15% existing on-site traffic would cease Fencing/gates: such would be presented at a later date as part of the landscaping plan Lake: construction of the lake would be similar to a swimming pool and would prevent the maintenance problems referenced Ms. June Biersteadt, Barton-Aschman Associates, reviewed the Homestead and Bluejay A.M. Peak Hours Count; questions were answered. Com. Szabo commented that the area traffic had not been accounted for in studies com- pleted; such would have a significant impact on traffic flow within the City of Cupertino. Break: 9:30 - 9:40 P.M. Com. Mackenzie commented as follows: Noted that the question was whether the traffic studies were to be believed or not Felt that proposed traffic improvements would make a significant difference in the carrying capacity/traffic flow in the area surrounding the Bluejay intersection Impact on Northpoint had been dramatically mitigated by the generous setbacks; trade- offs offered were reasonable and adequate Felt that one-bedroom units were needed Clarified that he felt the bedroom count was a more important determinate in traffic impacts than an apartment count; however, there was not a one-to-one ratio Such was his rationale in voting agairtst a recent application of the Seven Springs project; an increase in bedroom count (not number of units) would impact traffic Development proposed was consistent with the General Plan for the site Landscaping the open area would require grass since shrubbery for a large open area was inappropriate even though such would require little water Benefit to the City was a quality project which provided much neede~ housing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meetirtg of November 14, 1988 Page 5 PC- 559 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Com. Szabo commented as follows: This development was the last big project remaining in the City Housing needs had to be balanced with the resulting traffic impacts and congestion Proposal under consideration was a better project than previously presented; impacts on adjacent residential had been lessened and project was much more attractive However, some concerns remained, namely, the use of water or landscaping in the open space area and the proximity of some recreational playing fields to traffic Traffic Studies were believable but understated because of the following assumptions: - Studies only considered the buildout of Cupertino, not the buildout of other cities surrounding Cupertino - Once past the immediate intersection studied, traffic flow would be uninterrupted Number of units proposed: marketing surveys studied the maximum return on the in- vestment; the Commission wished to insure that which was best for the community Housing was required by single parents who may not be affluent; thus, two-bedroom units may not sell for the maximum dollar value Proposed that the total number of units be reduced while the bedroom count remain Com. Claudy commented as follows: Noted the mitigations that had been accommodated, i.e., placement of the garage along the eastern property line, adjacent to Northpoint, to reduce noise intrusion Density: Applicant had a right to apply for the density requested Traffic impacts would continue whether there was development of this site or not; sig- nificant traffic improvements would be installed with this project Felt that the project was acceptable With respect to the open space area, he reiterated his concern regarding the use of water However, he would not oppose a reduction in the density proposed Chr. Sorensen commented as follows: Noted the City's need for apartments and was favorable to the design proposed; However, she had concerns regarding pedestrian safety and the traffic flow Recommended a density of 28 units per acre rather than the 35 per acre proposed; reduction of total number of units while not reducing the number of bedrooms Wished the underground parkirtg to remain and favored additional recreational facilities Four story buildings on the comer to be relocated toward the 280 side of the site Would not vote favorably without accommodation of some of these requests Com. Szabo su~ested a reduction to 550 units without reducing the 1004 bedrooms. Com. Mackenzie objected to this change which may require dramatic architectural changes. Chr. Sorensen was favorable to requiring 550-575 units with 1004 bedrooms. CQm. Claudy would not oppose the change under consideration; however, if the Commis- sion required what was most needed in the City, low income housing would be built. Mr. Delmare reiterated conclusions of the marketing study; he noted that 575 units would result in a loss of 150 one-bedroom units and the resulting mix of one and two bedroom units would be well under the recommended percentage and reverse of the marketing recommendation, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 14, 1988 Page 6 PC- 559 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com.Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. Com.Szabo Passed 4-0 Com. Mackenzie moved approval of Application 30-EA-88. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Application 1O-TM-88 subject to con- clusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 21-U-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report per the Model Resolution. There was no Second to this Motion. Com. Szabo moved to recommend approval of Application 21-U-88 sub- ject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report per the Model Resolution with the following changes: total number of units to be 575 with the total number of bedrooms to be a maximum of 1004, relocation of the four story buildings toward 280, increasing the recreational facilities (swim- ming pool and tennis courts). Chr. Sorensen Passed, Com. Mackenzie dissenting 3-1 Com. Szabo responded to Mr. Cowan's question regarding a possible reduction in the mass of the building from the change in mix of one and two bedroom units, stating that the Commission wished to see a reduction in the four story height. Com. Mackenzie objected to requiring a redesign at this stage of the Application process, with the exception of requiring additional recreational facilities; such was inappropriate. ITEM 2: Application 8-Z-88, 28-U-88, 14-TM-88 and 36-EA-88 (Landmark Development) Continued to November 28, 1988, as stated under Postponements. ITEM 3: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 7-Z-87. 30-U-88 and 37-EA-88 Central Fire Protection District City of Cupertino Southwest corner of Stellin¡¡ Rd. and Seven Sprin~ Pkwy. .67 · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meetirtg of November 14, 1988 Page 7 PC- 559 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued REZONING: (7-Z-87) From City RI-6 (single family residential) to City (BA) public building or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. USE PERMIT: (30-U-88) To construct and operate a fire station of 8,400 sq, ft. with trainirtg and classroom facilities. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL DATE: (7-Z-87) December 5,1988 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED: (30-U-88 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan cited a letter received late in the day regarding the notifica- tion process for this Item; he confIrmed that legal requirements had been complied with. He reviewed the perimeters of the Hearing, namely, the site planning and architectural plans. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Richard Thaxton reviewed the history of the Application and noted that the goal was to create a functional and aesthetically pleasing structure. Mr. Dan A Hunsaker, Architect, reviewed the functional requirements of the station. In response to Com. Claudy's question regarding the proposed size of the station, Mr. Thaxton responded that the hazardous materials rig as well as the new reserve ladder truck and engine would be stored on-site; also the battalion chief would be stationed there. The Public Hearing was then opened, Mr.A Katz, 21290 Rainbow Dr., Cupertino, stated that he welcomed a fire station at this location; however, he asked that the Gregory Group have some input irtto the design, Mr. Barry Teppola, 11582 Momirtg Sprirtg/Gregory Group employee commented: - The roof on the west elevation with its near verticle angle, would reflect directly into the common recreational area of Seven Springs development 408 homes would view this angle of the station Asked that the roof be sloped and the two small skylights on this side be reconsidered Roof height at this poirtt was 30 ft. whereas Seven Springs had a height limitation of 26 ft; due to the railroad easement, there was no room for a landscape buffer Had no objection to colors or materials proposed and felt the design was compatible with surrounding development Mr. Jim Jackson, Gregory Group, commented as follows: - While favorable to a fIre station in the area, he felt a better design could be achieved; the proposal was not compatible with the community Objected to the west elevation roof design and height and added that the buildirtg was out of scale with the community; furthermore, the roof would be a metal material PlANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 14, 1988 Page 8 PC-559 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Chris Gatley, Architectural Review Committee, Seven Springs, agreed with the above comments and offered to meet with the Fire District to resolve concerns. Mr. Thaxton responded that there was approximately 400 sq. ft. of storage in the rear roof elevation; such was necessary due to the irttended use of the station as stated previously. He added that the proposed masonry wall would help break up the expanse of building; furthermore, there was landscaping (trees) and a burm toward the Seven Sprirtgs side. Mr. Hunsaker confirmed that there was a structural beam under the ridge of the roof; if such were required to be relocated, the clear span of the bay would be interrupted. Com. Claudy concurred with comments of Seven Springs residents regarding the expanse of roof as viewed from this development. Mr. Hunsaker responded as follows: Additional skylights, roof wirtdows or other architectural features could be added In addition, there would be trees irt the rear yard area and additional trees could be added to break up the roof area if necessary. Presented a scale drawirtg of the 30 ft. building with a 500 ft. distance between the station and Seven Sprirtgs recreational facilities showirtg the view angle Applicants did not attempt to design the buildirtg to match a typical home; irttent was to design a structure which provided character and focal point for the area Public and community buildirtgs had their own character and function and should not appear as a house or oversize garage; the proposal was a structure the community could identify with and be proud of the uniqueness and character of design Applicants offered to color test the building durirtg the construction process 3Ô ft. height was established by the Planning Department, along with the setbacks Com. Mackenzie suggested the Application be returned to Architectural and Site CQmmittee (ASAC) for consideration of materials, colors and architectural design features on the rear elevation; design alternatives of larger skylights, roof windows or dormers were cited. CQm. Szabo agreed and advised that the prirtcipals (Applicant and the Gregory Group) meet prior to this hearirtg to discuss issues of concern. Consensus reached that the conceptual design was approved with further review by ASAC. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearirtg, Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 Com. Szabo moved to approve Application 37-EA-88 (Negative Declaration). CQm. Mackenzie Passed 4-0 Pl.ANN1NG COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Mcetirtg of November 14, 1988 Page 9 PC- SS9 PUBUC HEARINGS CQntirtued MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Szabo moved to recommend approval of Application 7-Z-87 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearirtg per the Model Resolution. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 Com. Szabo moved to approve Application 30-U-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearirtg per the Model Resolution and addirtg a requirement that the Application be returned to Archi- tectural and Site Committee for design reconsideration of color, roof materials and the use of architectural features to break up the rear elevation,roof. CQm. Claudy Passed 4-0 Mr, Cowan stated he would forward Application 30-U-88 to the City Co.uncil for review, ITEM 4: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 15-TM-88 AND 38-EA-88 City ofC~ino City of Cqpertino West side õf StelliQi Rd. between Alves and Chri~tensen Dr. 'Ll TENTATIVE MAP (15-TM-88) To consolidate five (5) existirtg parcels irtto one (1) lot encompassirtg approximately 7.18 acres. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: CategoricallyexempL Staff ~tation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Qaudy moved to close the Public Hearing Com. Mackenzie Passed 4-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Application 38-EA-88 (Negative Declaration) Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meetirtg of November 14, 1988 Page 10 PC- 559 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Application 15-TM-88 subject to conclu- sions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution SECOND: CQm. Claudy VOTE: Passed 4-0 NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 5: FIT.F REFERENCE 80.003.4: Report on ABAG 1988 Housing Needs Determination Study Mr. Cowan reviewed the Report on ABAG 1988 Housing Needs Determination Study. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to send a Mirtute Order to Council recommendirtg that the Report on ABAG 1988 Housirtg Needs Determirtation Study not be contested, SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 4-0 OLD BUSINESS: - None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: - CQm. Qaudy questioned the color of Redeemer Lutheran Church He noted that signs posted on the length of closure of McClellan Rd, were inaccurate. - Chr. Sorensen requested information on plantings to be installed on the Apple Building. She asked whether a report would be made on traffic concerns raised by the Commission. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: - None. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Plannirtg Commission adjourned at 11:45 P.M. to the next Regular Meetirtg of November 28, 1988 at 7:30 P.M.