Loading...
PC 10-24-88 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 OCTOBER 24,1988 Meeting Held in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Ave. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: 7:30 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Sorensen Vice Chairman Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Staff Present: Steve Piasecki, Assistant Plannirtg Director Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Com. Mackenzie asked that the Motion on Application 15-EXC-88 be amended to read, "..per plans submitted, but only where the adjacent property owner agrees." MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 10, 1988, as amended. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed, Com. Adams abstaining 3-0-1 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter of Lawrence E, Stone, Mayor of Sunnyvale, dated October 17, 1988. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM 1: Application 7-M-88 Louis Lau (Rainbow Drive) Requesting approval of Plan- ning Commission Interpretation for placement of an accessory structure outside of an approved pad location for a hillside lot. Site is located on Rainbow Drive northerly of Upland Way. Application 8-TM-88 Fred Reinell Œlam:y Ave. at Hall Ct,) Requesting approval of Planning Commission Interpretation of front and side yard locations for lot 17 of Tract 8117. Site is located on the east side of Blaney Avenue southerly of Rodriquez Avenue. (Note: See Page 5 of Minutes for further clarification of this Item) ITEM 2: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 24, 1988 Page 2 PC - 558 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued ITEM 3: ITEM 4: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Application 25-TM-87 (Amended) Perry & Jones Requesting authorization to adjust the approved rear yard pad location for various lots within a five lot subdivision located at the westerly terminus of Rainbow Drive. Application 9-U-83 (Amended) Gre¡¡ory Group (Seven Sprin¡¡s) Requesting interpretation of a minor amendment of an existing Use Permit to allow removal and replacement of existing specimen trees. Com. Mackenzie moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Com. Adams Passed 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 5: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 26-U-88 and 34-EA-88 Pasadena Development Gr0l1p SaIm; 10050 Pasadena Avenue on the east side of Passadena midblock between Stevens Creek Blvd. and Granada Ave. lli Parcel Area (Acs): USE PERMIT: To construct an operate a mixed use commercial, office and residential building. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 31, 1988. Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application and the Monta Vista Guidelines. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Roger Griffin, Project Architect, commented as follows: Project continued a successful pattern, blending residential and office use Compared the proposed height of this project with development on Passadena Ave. Materials and exterior treatment proposed was in keeping with other projects in the area Requested a Condition to condominium the upper story for private ownership With respect to Recommended Condition 16, Parking, 10 spaces were available on-site Provided information on the atrium in response to Commissioner's questions The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams Com. Mackenzie Passed 4-0 Mr. Piasecki confirmed that 10 parking spaces existed; he did not feel an additional Condition was required to condominium the building, so long as the individual apartment units were not being subdivided. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 24, 1988 Page 3 PC - 558 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Chr. Sorensen encouraged the Applicants to observe the Tree Protection measures listed. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 6: Com. Mackenzie moved to grant a Negative Declaration. Com. Adams Passed 4-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 26-U-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution, Conditions 1-13; Condition 14. modified to reflect 10 parking places; Condition 15; Condition 16. modified to reflect 10 parking places; Conditions 17-24. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 21-U-88. lO-TM-88 and 30-EA-88 Mariani DevelQpment Corporation ~ Southeast corner De Anza Blvd. and Homestead Rd. l2...±.: 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 10, 1988, Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application and discussed the modified plan; he called attention to the 1raffic Analysis presented. Com. Claudy, after careful consideration, felt the project was too dense and the lake proposed would have to be eliminated unless the Water District had additional information. Chr. Sorensen stated she was very concerned regarding the density proposed. Com. Mackenzie noted that the project would add housing units sorely needed in the City; however, he agreed regarding the use of water as a design element Com. Adams questioned the density requested and benefits to be derived by the City. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. John Delmare, Mariani Development, commented: The project would address the housing shortage in the City Density was composed of traffic and building mass; with respect to the former: - Noted the Traffic Studies completed on this project - Applicants did not wish a project that residents could not access - Goal was that the traffic impacts not be increased by this project PlANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 24, 1988 Page 4 PC - 558 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Delmare continued as follows: - With respect to building mass, the current proposal had less impact on surrounding properties, better setbacks and sight lines - The 10% increase in density allowed amenities such as underground parking, more open space, less crowding and impervious coverage and a more aesthetically pleasing project Lake: an analysis of water evaporation vs. watering of plantings would be presented Level of Service Ratings remained the same with the exception of the 280 off ramp/ interchange which went from B to C Rating was, in fact, a one second dif- ferential.Bluejay which did not have a signal at present and was currently operating at a Level E or F; signalization of this intersection would improve the rating until residents realized the Level of Service improvement and increased the traffic flow at the site Proposed Traffic Improvements were reviewed Mr. Viskovich noted that traffic projections made in the past tended to be conservative; he reviewed traffic patterns and the assessment of such. Mr. Delmare further commented as follows: Stated that the specimen redwood tree was removed to accommodate a street Was unsure of the mix of one and two bedroom apartments in the current proposal Added that there was evidence that a higher project density generated fewer trips Asked that the project be fully fenced for security and safety for the children Noted the addition of single story garages between the project and Northpoint which provided a visual and sound barrier for both projects Ms. Jane Bierstedt, Barton-Aschman Associates, reviewed the transportation model provided in the Report and the base traffic volumes addressed in other traffic studies. Mr. Piasecki stated that the rate of evaporation at Memorial Park was similar to the amount of watering required for a lawn area as evaluated by the Public Works Department. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Melbert Adams, Northpoint, commented as follows: - Noted traffic impacts and delays at intersections, other than those already discussed Traffic impacts were his major concern The Applicant seemed to be saying that more is less, i.e.,. lowering density resulted in a slightly greater traffic Cited the potential substantial economic loss in property values due to traffic impacts Ms. Gini Thomas, Northpoint, commented as follows: Traffic was her major concern Reviewed potential traffic impacts on the adjacent intersections from this development Questioned the feasibility of a traffic signal at Bluejay Noted the limited stacking lanes available to accommodate traffic . Questioned the placement of a median on Bluejay; requested a working plan for review Asked that the Applicant be required to install improvements prior to construction Mr. Vidovich reviewed the payment schedule and timing of improvements as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting ofOctober 24,1988 Page 5 PC - 558 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Mort Schour, Northpoint, commented as follows: Asked about the fencing of the project and cited safety concern for the children Questioned the lake proposed and options during a drought year Questioned whether the project was comparable with the original project or not Asked what arrangements were made in payment of the land owned by Northpoint Mr. Paul Weinberg, Northpoint, was concerned about a signal at Bluejay. Additional traffic increased congestion and reduced quality of life; such could be measured in distance to place of employment and commute time; such had increased dramatically in recent years. Wolfe Rd. was an example of things gone wrong; signalization of Bluejay would not help. Ms. Pat Muscat, Northpoint, reported on the School District's assessment of impacts from the project; the installation of crosswalks to insure safety of the children was discussed. Ms. Kay McPhearson, Northpoint, asked the Commission to view the traffic congestion at Bluejay between 8:00 - 8:10 AM; she noted the limited stacking lane on Bluejay. Mr. John Delmare responded that traffic was a major concern; he reviewed the improve- ments to be installed and the benefits to be derived from such. Mr. Vidovich discussed the benefits and impacts of installing a traffic signal at Bluejay. Mr, Delmare felt that residents of Northpoirtt were more satisfied with this proposal; he added that existing traffic from the site, which would disappear when construction was initiated, had not been accounted for in traffic projections. Ms. Shirley Saho, Northpoint, asked that the number of Northpoint residents not be taken as an indicator of a lack of concern; due to a change in the hearing date, some individuals could not attend. Break 9:55 - 10:10 P.M. Com. Mackenzie commented as follows: Was favorable to the project Noted that concerns about architectural issues were no longer beirtg raised Agreed that the number of bedrooms, not square footage, was a determining factor in number of cars; in addition, he was favorable to smaller, one bedroom units The resident's concem seemed to be traffic; however, two separate traffic studies indicated that traffic could be managed Asked that the comer towers be reconsidered and architectural diversity encouraged Com. Adams commented as follows: Credited the Applicant with answering concerns previously raised by the Commission 1faffic circulation could work with the installation of improvements Cited Exhibits 2.2, 3, 4, and 5 (artist's rendering of pedestrian's view) and noted the corner penthouses and lack of sandpiling the buildings on Homestead Ave. Questioned the benefits to be derived by the City for the density being allowed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 24, 1988 Page 6 PC - 558 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy commented as follows: Concurred that the units per se would not cause traffic Proposed street improvements would facilitate traffic flow; a traffic signal at Bluejay was required irrespective of the size of the project Concerns expressed by the public were related to traffic Agreed that the question of benefit to the City had not been fully answered; he felt the best amenity would be an attractive facade Concurred that the comer towers accentuated the building height and suggested con- sideration of eliminating them Was not especially in favor of a fence which resembled a walled city Lake: wished to see the information regarding evaporation vs. watering lawns One-story garages would shield Northpoint from noise and view impacts Was favorable to the project with some minor adjustment Chr. Sorensen commented as follows: Was favorable to the project Had some concerns regarding the Lake; wished to see the studies/reports referenced Revisions made since the last Meeting were good Favored more two bedroom apartments Was satisfied regarding traffic having heard testimony from experts Remained concerned regarding the density proposed and suggested 550 units Agreed that minor changes in the corner towers were necessary Favored the fencing proposed for the safety of the children Suggested Continuing this Item until after the November 15th. Housing Element Consensus that the basic design, layout, number of units was acceptable; the water issue remained a concern of the Commission as well as the corner towers. Mr. Delmare responded that the architects would reconsider the corner tower as well as incorporating architectural diversity in the roof lines. Applicants envisioned wrought iron fences; the landscaping plan presented was a conceptual plan and would be presented for review by the City. With respected to benefits derived by the City he cited the attractive- ness of the project, on-site recreational amenities and the increased housing made available. The Public Hearing remained open. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com, Claudy moved to Continue 21-U-88, 10-TM-88 and 30-EA-88 to November 14, 1988. Com. Mackenzie Passed 4-0 A member of the public stated that the Applicants had not appeased Northpoint residents. Mr. Rolf Haggenlocker, Northpoint, cited the Traffic Study projection Level of Service Rating F; he suggested an alternative main entrance to the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 24, 1988 Page 7 PC - 558 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 2: Application 8-M-88 Fred Reinell (Blaney Ave. at Hall Ct.) Mr. Piasecki stated that the Applicant wished to insure there was no confusion regarding the driveway and 15 ft. front setback off the easterly property line; Commission concurred. NEW BUSINESS: - None OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Adams asked that lighting at the Apple Day Care Center be reviewed. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: None. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:45 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of November 14, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. Approved by the Planning Commission At the Regular Meeting of November 14,1988 ~/4I.Æ' od~f-vA/~ uralee orensen, . oman Attest: