Loading...
Draft Minutes 12-13-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES December 13,2005 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL TUESDAY The regular Planning Commission meeting of December 13, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chair Gilbert Wong. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Gilbert Wong Marty Miller Angela Chen Taaghi Saadati Lisa Giefer Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Senior Planner: Contract Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Colin Jung Gary Chao Aki Honda Tricia Schimpp Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of October 25,2005 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Miller, to approve the October 25, 2005 minutes as presented. (Vote: 5-0) November 22, 2005 Planning Commission meeting: Page 3: Second last paragraph, delete "(Vote: 5-0-0)" MOTION: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to approve the November 22, 2005 minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Wordell noted receipt of items received relating to the cell tower (Item No.1); e-mails relative to the Vallco Fashion Park mall and the Marketplace. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 December 13, 2005 POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 3. M-2005-04 Bret Moxley (Knopp residence) 21925 Lindy Lane Modification to a Tentative Map (TM-2005-03) to provide access for Lot 2 ITom Lindy Lane. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Postponed ITom the November 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Request removal ITom calendar. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to remove Application M-2005-04 from the calendar. (Vote 5-0-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Virginia Tamblyn, Bixby Drive, Cupertino: · Requested postponement of the hearing date to a January meeting for the Marketplace application scheduled for December 20, 2005, to allow another neighborhood meeting to be held to help resolve issues such as odor, traffic, parking, and building size. Keith Mnrphy, East Estates Drive, Cupertino: · Requested that the Marketplace application be postponed to January for the same reasons Ms. Tamblyn stated. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Commnnity Development Director: · Explained that scheduling is based on a standard schedule, when applicants provide the needed materials for their applications and all the environmental work is completed, they are scheduled. Tlris application has been in the process for a number of months, trying to get the materials together; it is always difficult to tell an applicant they will summarily be continued. · Said he agreed with the speakers that there are still a number of unresolved issues, and the Planning Commission may continue it, but they are aware of the January schedule with many large projects which May take several meetings. It is not foolproof that if the item is continued because the Planning Commission needs more information or because it is requested, that they will actually be heard then. Unfortunately there is a lot of projects and applications before us and we need to keep moving along. · There is an unresolved problem with the parking in particular and the Planning Commission will have to deal with whether that is addressed sufficiently on the 20". There Will also be a hearing at the City Council, hence there are ample opportunities even if people are unable to get to the Planning Commission meeting to bring up issues before the City Council. We are aware of the many issues in that neighborhood and will be addressing them as the application moves forward. · Given the workload that the Planning Commission will face in the next month, they may consider having special meetings to provide more opportunity for input. CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. U-2005-14 William Stephens (T-Mobile) 20041 Bollinger Rd. Use Pennit to erect a 35-foot tall, slim-line monopole with three panel antennas and an equipment shelter for wireless phone service. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued from the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 December 13, 2005 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for the Use Pennit to erect a 35-foot tall, slimline treepole with three panel antennas and an equipment shelter for wireless phone service. He clarified that the property owner was Pacific Rim Park, and that the applicant (T -Mobile) was seeking to be a tenant of the center; Tin Tin Market is also another tenant at the center. · Reviewed the Background and Surroundings, the Monopole Design/Camouflage Techniques, the Radio Frequency Emissions and the neighborhood input since the previous Planning Commission meeting, as outlined in the staff report. · He reviewed the design alternatives, to see the issues that staff deals with when it reviews the applications; all of the options are available to the Planning Commission in the event they choose to approve the application. This is a no landscape alternative tree pole design; a treepole that would be camouflaged as an Italian Cypress without the landscape screen; an unadorned monopole design. · He reviewed other issues including noise rrom trucks and refrigeration equipment; lighting; odors, vermin control, overflowing garbage bins, rear property drainage as outlined in the staff report. · Staff recommends denial of the Use Permit application due to the insufficiency of the landscape screen behind the treepole itself that would be needed to blend in with the treepole. William Stephens, T-Mobile: · Referred to the staff report regarding landscape screening. He met with staff to discuss the specific issue of landscaping screening and tried to define some talking points to go forward with a more adequate plan, and agreed that two parking spaces should be enough to provide a much more significant landscaping plan. · The square footage that was offered with those two parking spaces was merely an estimate of pulling it out of the air; there is nothing locked in about 180 square feet; the additional number put into the staff report of 324 square feet is also fine with us; it was the two parking spaces that we were focused on, because that gave me something specific to go back to the landlord and to T Mobile to discuss, both rrom the space that the landlord would be giving up per se, to allow us to do the landscaping and also for T Mobile's benefit so they knew how much to budget for new landscaping plan. · Clarified that T -Mobile was willing to consider an even more enlarged landscaping plan; we just don't know what the parameters are and we haven't been able to reach that point with staff and to know what we need to design. · After the November 21 meeting with staff, they made the suggestion that they would work with an arborist consultant as agreed to by the city, to defme what trees would be appropriate. The December 6 letter was merely to get to some of the previous designs because I know the Planning Commission hadn't had benefit of that and since a lot of the neighborhood concern was over the mass where (or) the visual obstruction that our installation might impact; I wanted to make sure that the Commission also knew that we had some other designs that staff had considered that were much less obtrusive. · The applicant is open to any condition for approval or other fonn that the commission wants to put that forward in; we just don't know how far to go and what is adequate. · In my written communication I asked for your consideration to look at our application on its merits and while staff has provided a comprehensive report, there are outstanding issues there, but T Mobile is not in a position to do anything about those, not until we are a tenant, and only as a matter of condition of approval that this Commission would put forward. Those are not directly pertaining to our application; we would like to be considered on the merits. · Offered photos of the site to provide another perspective; provided photo simulations to show three views rrom the most trafficked areas and showed the views perceived to have the most Cupertino Planning Commission 4 December 13, 2005 impact. · Asked that the Planning Commission not deny the application, they are willing to consider other landscaping if recommended by the Planning Commission. · Asked for direction and guidance in moving forward. We have put forward four plans and would prefer not to have to submit a fifth plan with a specific understanding of what area the city would like to have covered. If we could find a way to do that as a condition of approval, it would be optimal, but some other fonn of moving forward with some understanding if that it is what the commission would like to see would be helpful. Chair Wong: · Clarified that the public hearing was to discuss the cell phone towers; there are other concerns regarding the shopping center not related to the application. The other concerns are addressed and brought to the attention of the Planning Department and have to be addressed through code enforcement. Staff ensures that they will address those issues, but tonight's topic relates to the cell phone tower. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Tom Huganin, representing La Roda Court HOA: · Said his slide presentation was identical to the one shown at the previous Planning Commission meeting. · The neighborhood believes the cell tower it is out of character in the residential neighborhood. · Said that it degrades the visual appearance of the center; it blocks the scenic vistas of the western foothills. · There is no noise study. · He expressed concern about the visual impacts of the project. · He said there were other locations available for the applicant to explore. Billie Cramb, La Roda Court: · Said that she had adequate phone coverage with Verizon Wireless. · Expressed concern about the health issues she felt were associated with having a tower that close to her home. · Said that added noise from the cell tower would have a negative impact. Gene Young, Cupertino resident: · Said he had not seen enough data about the safety impacts ftom the cell tower in the area. · Does not like the idea of having cell towers in the area as the area is already unsightly. Joy Han, La Roda Court: · Questioned the need for the cellular tower as her present carrier AT&T was adequate. · Expressed concern about the long term impact of cellular towers in a residential neighborhood, to the present generation as well as future generations. · Commended T-MobiIe's work to make the pole unifonn looking in the neighborhood; however, nothing has been shown to disguise the cellular tower, and the appearance does not . confonn to the neighborhood. Mr. Jung: · Said at the last Planning Commission meeting and included in the staff report, a radio ftequency study was presented that examined a worst case scenario what the exposures would be ftom this particular facility and compared them to the Federal safety standards. The Cupertino Planning Commission 5 December 13, 2005 Federal safety standards for this type of PCS frequencies, is referred to as one milowatt per square centimeter of exposure and the report concluded that maximum public exposure at ground level was more than y,% of the maximum pennissible exposure. · According to the federal statutes 1996 Telecommunications Act, ifthe facility itself meets the federal standard, local jurisdictions such as Cupertino are not allowed to regulate it based on RF exposures. If they were to regulate it, it would have to be based on design, other impacts such as noise, impact on parking, but not on RF exposures. Christina Papadakas, Cupertino resident: · Said the neighbors did not want the cell tower in the residential neighborhood. · Expressed concern about the visual impacts from the antenna. · Asked the city to support the neighborhood and deny the application. Mary Ann Overton, Cnpertino resident: · Has Cingular service and has no problems. · When Walgreens was constructed, they had to ensure there were adequate parking spaces in the parking lot; and the applicant is now proposing to remove two parking spaces. · Said that there was evidence of rats in her attic. · She said that several trucks were dumping water in the drains in the parking lot. · Opposed to the application. Janet Lin, Cupertino resident: · Said her AT&T cellular phone service is adequate, and questioned why another pole was needed in the area. · Said she had a rat infestation in her attic during the last two years. · Expressed concern about the impact of the radio frequency on small children. Satish Parbhakar, La Roda Drive: · Said he didn't have any problems with his Sprint cellular service. · Noted that there was stilI a rat problem in the area. · Said the tower will detract from the view of the mountains. · Expressed his doubt that there was no other suitable location for the pole; the applicant should look harder at finding at more suitable location for the pole. · Recommended that the application be denied; forcing the applicant to find another location for the pole. Kevin Till, Blaney Avenue: · Said that it was not aesthetically pleasing to have the antenna placed in the small area; it would degrade the neighborhood. · The AT&T cellular service he has works fine. · Recommended that the applicant find another location for the pole, perhaps in a commercial area such as Home Depot. · Opposed to the application. Roger Guertin, La Roda Court · Noted that a previous application from Cingular was denied. · Expressed concern about the noise emitted from the area. · Said that the shopping center continually violates codes; said that he is catching rats on the fence and the dumpsters are emptied in the late evening; the area is not kept clean. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 December 13, 2005 Mary Edbrooke, Cupertino resident: o Said her property is adjacent to the Tin Tin Market, about 50 feet ftom the proposed cell tower. o The neighborhood will not benefit ftom having another pole in the area; the present coverage ftom other carriers is sufficient. o Expressed concern about the noise emissions; and requested that a reading be taken in the evening hours. o The area is already unsightly; adding another pole will only add to the unattractiveness of the area. Mr. Piasecki: o Clarified the parameters of the Planning Commission and what they are dealing with. The EMFs have been preempted by the federal government; we cannot make a decision based on the EMS; as shown in the slide the number is extremely low ftom these kinds of facilities. o The surest way to give the applicant what he wants is for us to make a decision based on EMS and then he can take us to court and the courts will overrule our decision and he will have his treepole. o The second parameter is we don't protect views over the Tin Tin Market property any more than we protect the neighbors' views over your house. o hi terms of what is enough; there is a redwood grove behind the library that is probably 10,000 square feet, that would be more than you need to screen something. If you follow my principles; you will block views with trees and hopefully that will be an enhancement. Mr. Jung: o Relative to the noise issue, he presented a memo ftom the code enforcement officer, the measurements were taken during the day; the night time noise standard is 55 decibels; and the range of readings was ftom 49 to 60 decibels; when a truck was accelerating. All other readings were 55 decibels or less which meets the night time standards. Com. Saadati: o Based on photos presented, the antenna cannot be blended in and not be visible. o Concurs with staff recommendation for denial. Com. Giefer o Concur with Com. Saadati. o I support wireless communications and cell phone antennas because of the high demand for better reception and devices within the community; however, we have seen two applications in the specific area and I want to give more feedback to staff and also for the vendor proposing them. o This is a problematic area; it is not large enough to plant sufficient green screening to stealth any type of tree. The issue I had last time it was put before the Planning Commission prior to continuance, is that the surrounding cypresses would always have to be trimmed or topped lower than the communications pole which is unnatural and the communication pole would stick out. o Previously asked if there were any cypress trees within the bay area to look at. o The Tin Tin Market location is not a good location for a cell tower regardless of tree type proposed. He suggested a location that is off DeAnza in the building where the Travelsmith Travel Agency is, a two story building behind the Yasso Greek restaurant. o Do not want to hear more applications for this site. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 December 13, 2005 Com. Chen: . Agrees with colleagues that it is not a good location for the cell phone antenna because of the residential area and lack ofIandscape. . Recommend the applicant explore other possibilities within the city. Vice Chair Miller: · Concur also; aesthetically it is not a good location; there are other locations that the applicant can consider. Chair Wong: · Said he concurred with staff's recommendation. · He addressed the audience, stating that it was the second time the issue had been addressed, and it has been made clear about this particular location. · He said that moving in the new century, wireless communication, DSL is going to be the future. The community needs to learn to be proactive and go with that; and work with the vendors to provide wireless service for our community; tlris may not be the perfect location but eventually it is coming to our neighborhood; it may be shorter or a different device, but there are other issues we need to be proactive; we do have a wireless communication ordinance, and we need to be open to having wireless devices in our neighborhoods; how and when we do it will be around the corner. · The Planning Commission is supportive of wireless services, but this particular location, based on aesthetics, is not the right place. Motion: Motion hy Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to deny Application U-200S-14. (Vote: 5-0-0) Mr. Piasecki: · Noted that it was a final decision of the Planning Commission, unless appealed witlrin 14 days to the City Council. Chair Wong declared a short recess. 2. U-200S-18, ASA-200S-14, ~-200S-08,~2005-06 Iloc~ellllomes 10716 Stevens Canyon Ild. Use Permit to demolish 15 apartment units and construct 15 townhomes. Architectural and Site Approval for 15 apartments. Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.1 acre parcel into 15 lots plus one lot held in common. Rezoning of a I.I acre parcel ITom Apartment (R3) to Planned Development Residential (P Residential) for 15 townhomes. Continued from October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: January 3, 2006. Tricia Schimpp, Contract Planner, presented the staff report: · She reviewed the application for a Use Permit to demolish 15 apartment units and construct 15 townhomes; and architectural and site approval for 15 apartments. The application also includes rezoning the site ITom multi-family residential (R3) to planned residential; and tentative map approval to subdivide the site into 16 lots for 15 townhome units and one common area lot, as outlined in the staff report. · The revised proposal is for twelve 3 bedrooml2 bath units and three 2 bedrooml2 bath units, each containing a front yard and a garage. Parking requirements are 42 spaces; the applicant Cupertino Planning Commission 8 December 13, 2005 has supplied 45 parking spaces, 27 of which are garage spaces. · The project was presented on October 25, 2005 and was continued to address six items addressed in the staff report, including number of two and three bedroom units to be provided; reduction of overall height of the structures to protect possible impact to daylight plane of the adjouming properties; accessibility of ftont balconies; accessibility of attic space and not using it as living space; relocation plan in the area; clarify whether or not the site was within the Monta Vista boundary; and determine school impacts. The staff report addresses the issues raised at the previous public hearing. · She reviewed the table showing the updated plans, the revised site plan and the revised landscape plan. · Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit, the rezoning, and the Tentative Map. Vice Chair Miller: · Asked staff to comment on the excerpt ftom the Housing Element of the General Plan, rental housing preservation program, "when a proposed development or redevelopment of a site would cause the loss of multi family rental housing, the city will grant approval only if at least two of the following circumstances exists." The application meets one of those, but not two. Mr. Piasecki: · This has come up before and if you go through the criteria numerated, it is virtually impossible for any site in town to meet it. What the statement says is that the city will develop a program that will address these issues. We haven't developed a program; it doesn't exist, and we have not been literal about the implementation of this particular policy. This is one of the reasons we have applicants to up the BMR to at least adhere to what the spirit of what this says and also do the relocation and assistance for the existing tenants who are within projects. I don't think it is very practical to expect that applicants can double the number of units that are on a piece of property, nor would that necessarily be desirable in a lot of situations. · There is no program and it is not applicable technically. Vice Chair Miller: · The point is that there is some concern on my part of what we are doing ftom a planning standpoint, we have had so much rental housing, we have so much for sale housing, and I think because of market conditions, we can expect that people are going to want to do conversions ftom rental to for sale. · Relative to commercial, what we did on the part of the General Plan, was we said let's sit down and devise some guidelines as to where it makes sense and where it doesn't make sense. We haven't done that for conversions ftom rental to for-sale and I think it is appropriate that we do it before we arbitrarily start picking individual sites and setting precedence for doing conversions like this, because I could fully expect that there is others in that particular section of multi-family zoning and there is another multi zoning just down the block ftom that, and I could expect that they will all want to come in and do the conversion and use this as an example, and we don't have any guidelines in which do decide whether that is or is not reasonable at this point. · I suggest ftom a planning standpoint we should be doing more upftont before we start looking at applications like this. Mr. Piasecki: · I agree that we should do that; we just did our General Plan update and I think the Council when they do their goals for the next year, will decide if that is one of the programs that we will make a high priority. · I don't disagree with the concept, but at the same time, I don't think we can hold applicants up Cupertino Planning Commission 9 December 13, 2005 until the point when we determine that this is the highest priority. · I don't disagree with what you are saying; we should be doing this but expect that we will bring this to the City Council and ask if they want to do it right away. I don't want to hold this applicant up; we have done Murano, which is similar and also did the conversion for the A viare apartments which was removing rental housing stock as well. Vice Chair MiUer: · The conversion was a different scenario and was addressed by a different program and a different set of rules. Mr. Piasecki: · The effect is the same; it is the removal of rental stock. The positive thing we can say is that we have had some rental housing, the market has clearly shifted away fi'om rental toward ownership. It is something staff should focus on, but it is our problem and our responsibility to get our act together on what our policy is, not necessarily hold applicants up while we process that particular issue. We will bring it up to Council when we do our goal setting seSS10n. Ms. Schimpp: · Indicated that the applicant would have to respond relative to Com. Giefer's question about rental rates in the community. Michael Abdollahi, Rockwell Homes: · Said he felt they made significant changes to the plan; very sincere and sensitive about previous comments made; made many good changes in colors, elevations, materials; dropping the project one foot; meeting with the tenants, providing all the assistance possible for existing tenants. · It was a good meeting and no problems were anticipated. · Not adding that many students to high school; the impact is insignificant. · Cupertino deserves this proj ect. · In response to Com. Giefer's question about rental rates in Cupertino, he said that he did not have the information, as it was difficult to get over the phone. What he did ascertain was that Cupertino has rental availability which is good news for the tenants. · Said that they were providing $400 per tenant for moving expenses; $800 for those who need special care; and also up to $600 for the first 6 months per tenant for transitional costs. · Monthly rentals have not be raised; some have been dropped; a 60 day notice would be given for any changes. Mr. Piasecki: · Noted that if the project wasn't proposed and if the current project remained, they would likely be forced to do a complete renovation which would increase the rental prices to be more in line with present market rates at about $1600-$1800 month or higher. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Pleased with the changes in the project. · Expressed concern about the loss of rental units in Cupertino and the appearance of the complex, so that the building structure is broken up into units, rather than appear as solid roWS of housing complex. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 December 13, 2005 · Recommended that the affordable housing in Cupertino be spread around to different areas, not just one area within the city. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Chair Wong: · Regarding what Vice Chair Miller brought up relating to the General Plan, since it was put in 1993; why did they put it in there and why wasn't the City Council was proactive in implementing a plan to protect our rental housing stock. Mr. Piasecki: · One of the reasons is we were seeking the State Department Housing Community Development approval of our housing element and in terms of affordability they look at rental housing. · It is not necessarily a bad concept, it is a good concept, but when you get into the wording that Vice Chair Miller read, it is practically impossible for any site to comply with that. It probably needed some rewording and reworking and as we go through and develop a program perhaps we would provide better definitions of what we were intending. As pointed out there hasn't been an onslaught of removal of rental housing. Com. Giefer: · Recalled from the A viare conversion, that as part of the conversion policy and apartment policy there has to be a minimum of 5% apartment dwellings available within the city. · Questioned if it would be somewhat self-regulating on future conversions as well because to me this feels close if this one passes this evening; Mr. Piasecki: · Said 15 would not tip the scale, but is close. Com. Giefer: · I agree with Vice Chair Miller issue, I think it is something we need to address because this could be the next big boom; after commercial conversion, let's convert the apartments to for- ownership housing. I don't know if this would be a good time after we hear this and conclude this deliberation, for us to consider sending a minute order or going on hiatus with conversions; to indicate that it is something, if we do as a group feel strongly about it. Vice Chair MiUer: · Zoning is one of the issues; it is zoned as multi-family residential, not for-sale. The question is whether from a larger principle standpoint, we are going to arbitrarily as applications come up, change or spot zone or spot rezone different sections as applications come in, or whether we are going to look at it first and say this is what makes sense from a city standpoint, what is best for the city; and this is how we are going to allow applications to change if in fact it does make sense. · It is not a property rights issue because the zoning specifically calls for multi family residential and that means that the applicant can tear down what he has and put up a better building except that it still has to remain as rental. The issue is the conversion to for-sale, because from Cupertino's standpoint, these units are going to go up, they are going to sell for $1.25 million and that is not the market we need to address in terms of where affordabiIity has to be in the city. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 December 13, 2005 Mr. Piasecki: · Commented that the General Plan allows residential; it doesn't state whether rental or ownership. The zoning has to be changed if they wish to build an ownership project; that is why they have applied for a rezoning application. It is not necessarily 1rue that the zoning is locked in; that you can't change it. You can make an application, and the applicant can move on. The Planning Commission needs to take whatever action they feel is appropriate relating to this application. Vice Chair Miller: · Aside from the issues of principle, the application is very well laid out, well designed; the architect did an outstanding job. · I like the project, the way it is laid out; they were sensitive to concerns of the neighborhood, to the changes they made. In general am pleased with the end product. · Unfortunately I have a philosophical issue that overrides that. Com. Chen: · I can understand the concern of lack of implementable policy to provide clearer direction to applicants, and can see the concern of a loss of affordable rental units. I see a potential opportunity to redevelop a very old site and think it is an idea project, surrounded by residential area and has a great relocation program and good BMR units offered to the market. · I support staff's recommendation. Com. Giefer: · I agree with both Corns. Miller and Chen, that we need to address conversion between apartments and condominiums. A more appropriate project to put the brakes on would have been A viare because it was much larger and impactful to our community than a 15 unit conversion that we are presently discussing. · It is a well designed project and it will be a nice replacement to the current dilapidated rental units. The applicant has tried to meet the intent that I was getting at last time when I was talking about affordable housing by providing a rental assistance program for applicants as they move out into other units that will most likely be higher priced than these, but I also don't feel that we should penalize the applicant for not raising the rents once he purchased the property. Knowing that he is acting in the spirit ofthe intent that I had out there and be a good landlord, I would support the project. · I do feel we need to support Vice Chair Miller and try to make the Council aware that this is probably the next big thing we will see. Com. Saadati: · I also concur with Vice Chair Miller point of view; however, considering this is a 15 unit, the impact on the rental stalk is not significant and converting a 40 year old homes is going to improve the area. The applicant has addressed all the issues that were raised in our previous meeting and I support staff's recommendation. Chair Wong: · The architect did a good job designing the project; addressing most of the previous concerns of the Commission. I also agree with Vice Chair Miller that philosophically in regards to our General Plan, regarding affordable housing in Cupertino, it has to be spread around. Monta Vista is a unique area with exemplary schools and there should be affordable units in the area for sale or rent, and should be open to everyone. · I also will not support the project based on philosophical reasons. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 December 13, 2005 Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to approve Application U-200S-18, TM-200S-08, Z-200S-06, ASA-2005-14. (Vote: 3-2-0; Chair Wong No; Vice Chair Miller No) 4. EXC-200S-08 (EA-200S-02) Hillside exception for a new 6,500 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and an exception to the required second story offset. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for a hillside exception for a new 5,155 square foot residence and a 975 square foot secondary dwelling unit on a prominent ridgeline with slopes greater than 30% and a variance allowing the second dwelling unit to exceed the maximum allowed size by 175 square feet. · Explained that the applicant's original plans have been revised to address the concerns raised by Councilmember Lowenthal regarding the height and visibility of the house. The revised floor plan is for a single story home as outlined in the staff report. · Relative to the landscape plan, staff recommends four additional minimum 36 inch box trees be planted to help mitigate any potential visual impacts of the secondary dwelling unit. · Staff supports the variance for the secondary dwelling unit, and the finding are attached in the staff report. · Letters from the HOA support the revised plans as well as a letter from neighbor M. Koski supporting the project which she previously was opposed to. · Staff recommends approval of the project with the attached revised model resolution. Mr. Chao: · Answered commissioners' questions relative to the proposed project. Martin Bernstein, Architect: · Reviewed the project and proposed changes, including those to address the concerns of the Mid Peninsula Open Space District for potential impact on views. · Relative to the proposed development covenant, the city has recognized the property right of developing 6,500 square feet. The first choice for the covenant would be to consider deleting it because it is redundant. The city ordinance requires any additional proposal of square footage has to come before the Planning Commission; the second choice if you need to include the covenant would be to delete any reference to square footage and just state that a covenant shall be recorded that limits any future addition to the project unless an approval is received from the Planning Commission. · The rest of the development is shown and there is a lot of neighborhood support; have met with them regarding the current plans. · Asked for support of the project. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. George Luchessi, neighbor: · Said he supported the project; they have been responsive to suggestions for changes and made changes. · Expressed concern about the plan for a sanitary sewer. He said if the sewer could be constructed according to plan, he would have no objections, but the sewer crosses through an easement through his property which is a concern. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 December 13, 2005 · Said he did not want a long retaining wall constructed in the hillside encumbering his property, and was willing to work with the McCamishes so that the sewer line goes through with a minimum impact on his property. He said he felt it could be done if they consulted beforehand. · The current design has no above ground structures and is underneath the improvement which is the emergency road and if they Can adhere to that, fme. The separation issue might possibly be resolved by putting the sewer main in a sleeve and you would be able to come within 10 feet. · Said they have done a nice job on the house and the landscaping around it and he supported it. Jennifer Griffin: · Commended the architect for the revamping the house design. · The structure is very compatible with that area; it does no present such a high profile on the ridgeline which is the intent to make sure that area is still beautiful for everyone in the area and the owners are able to build a home of proportion. · Said she hoped the trees on the property Can be protected. It appears there are many items written into the plan for this property to make sure that the existing trees were protected; neighbors have indicated they lost several Oaks on the property. Hopefully the trees can be protected with fences around them; make sure there is no bulldozing and trenching within the root structures. · Relative to the secondary dwelling unit, she said she felt they should not be allowed to exceed the maximum limit of 800 square feet; however, the applicant warranted the exception as they reduced the overall size of their home so that it would be compatible with the neighborhood. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Chair Wong asked staff to address Mr. Luchessi's concern about the sewer line. Mr. Chao: · Said staff has been working with Cupertino Sanitary District and San Jose Water Company, and both districts support the project. The Sanitary District provided a letter stating that a sewer could be provided on the site and in conjunction with the water district, the details of the design separation will be worked out. · It is confirmed that all the utilities will be located within the existing easement; none of the sewer or water lines are proposed to be outside of the existing easements. If there needs to be adjustments or any expansion of easements, that is a private issue wlrich can be worked out between neighbors. If it turns out that the final design, the sewer needs to go outside of the easement on Mr. Luchessi's property, he will be made aware of that. At this time all proposals are within the easement on the road underneath the existing service road. · He said that the city was not responsible to notify about sewer work being done on private property; the Sanitary District is available for questions regarding the status update. Mr. Bernstein: · Said they would communicate with Mr. Luchessi about the plans. As far as making a condition, when a water district is proposing to start construction, property owners who are affected by work get notified. · The concern about how that communication happens is by regulation already. There is no need to have it as an ordinance condition. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 December 13, 2005 Mr. Chao: o Reported that in terms of tree protection and the additional condition on the screened trees, there should be a covenant recorded on the property to mention that the trees are protected trees. o For the future property owner, Condition No.4 suggests four additional screening trees, and these trees should be locked in as preserved trees on the property, so that if the property were to change hands in the future, the next property owner would cut it down because they are not aware of the condition. Likewise there is one oak tree that is specimen oak that is being preserved, that is closest to the house and Condition 3 addresses that. That tree also should be mentioned in the deed that it is a tree of significance and should be preserved. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve Application EXC-2005-08 (EA-2005-02) as amended; No. 6 Development covenant, the last sentence to be deleted; No.5 electric gate the covenant will be struck because it is redundant; No. 4 additional screeued trees, the four additional trees wIll be recorded as a covenant. (Vote: 5-0-0) The planning Commission decision is final unless appealed. 5. MCA-2005-01 City of Cupertino Citywide Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 16.28 (Fences) Continuedfrom the October 25,2005 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Unscheduled Aid Honda, Seuior Planner, presented the staff report: o Stated that the application was a continuation of the October 25, 2005 study session of the Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 16.28 (Fences). She reviewed the comments provided by the members of the public at the study session as outlined in the staff report. o Comments included fence heights, landscaping along property lines, fences, electronic gates, and fence post caps. o Comments provided by the Planning Commissioners at the public hearing were outlined in the staff report. Staff was directed to develop options to the fence ordinance to be presented at the following meeting. o Staff recommendations include Option I to allow up to an 8 foot high fence on a residential lot where a 6 foot fence is currently permitted by the fence ordinance, regardless of the approval of adjacent property owners, and with the exception that the property owner would be required to obtain a building permit. If such fences are on common property lines, the decision of the fence height would be between the property owners and the city would not be involved with any decision or disputes between the property owners, provided that the resulting height is allowable per the fence ordinance. o Option 2 would maintain the existing language in the ordinance, with no changes to the process for allowing higher fences. If an adjacent property owner does not agree to an 8 foot fence, the property owner seeking the 8 foot fence may apply for a fence exception, which is reviewed and determined by the DRC. o Staff included six options relative to electronic gates as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends options 2, 4 and 6. The Planning Commission also considered fence materials: to define appropriate materials for gates in residential areas vs. commercial areas; prohibit barbed wire fencing; and make no changes in the ordinance. o Staff recommends Option 2 to amend the fence ordinance to prohibit barbed wire and other similar wire, and that a definition be considered that barbed wire, razor wire, and/or electrified Cupertino Planning Commission 15 December 13, 2005 fencing be prohibited unless required by law or regulation of the City, State, or Federal Government. · Staff presented two options relative to the fence post caps. Staff initially supported Option 2 to maintain the existing language in the ordinance excluding fence post caps from fence height requirements. However, because of concems expressed by residents, staff recommended Option I to provide clarification in the ordinance regarding the height and size of the post caps. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide direction on how to proceed with the amendment. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rlnconada resident: · Said she felt that electronic gates set a precedent of exclusivity in a neighborhood. · Non-electronic gates on properties are more appropriate for lots in the range of 10,000 square feet, or on flag lots with the gate set back from the main road. · Said it was appropriate to regulate the fence caps. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Chair Wong: · Fence Height: Said his preference was No. I; the reason as staff recommended there be some flexibility; we saw one owner who wanted to go beyond 6 feet; the remaining two feet could be either lattice material or 7 foot fence material and a foot of lattice material; that could be determined at a DRC hearing with staff's input. · Electronic Gates: stand firm on my view on electronic gates, that I do support them based on health, safety and welfare. Relative to the six items, would modify No.4 for the gate to be set back based on the fire department requirements; perhaps 20 or 30 feet; I don't want folks being queued up in the street but on the driveway. · Flag Lots: Said he viewed it differently. There was an applicant about a few months ago who wanted electronic gates toward the front because they also wanted to use that driveway as more of a play area for the children to ride their bikes. · I can understand when Ms. Griffin is coming from, regarding we don't want a gated community, but there have been a number of applicants who have been coming to us concerning security. I don't see the difference of having a manual or non manual gate. · Fence Materials: Support Option 3 with the addition of no barbed wire. I feel fences should not be regulated. Suggestion of using appropriate materials; I see that as the beholder's eye of what proper materials should be used, some people like to use stone. I prefer no changes to the ordinance, with the exception of no barbed wire based on federal guidelines. · Fence Post Caps: Support No.2 to maintain the existing language. I believe in less regulation and allowing the residents of Cupertino to see what they like; I can understand some concerns regarding compatibility, but we have to find some way to regulate that. People have different tastes; it is difficult to regulate fence posts as well as fence materials. Com. Giefer: · Fence Height: Support maintaining existing language; if we allow an 8 foot fence when neighbors don't agree on it, we are setting up to divide the neighbors more. I agree with staff's position we have the vehicle in place today for one to get approval to go to a higher level than 6 feet. I think that mechanism is already there. · Electronic Gates: I have not found one that I agree with yet since being on the Planning Cupertino Planning Commission 16 December 13, 2005 Commission. 1 have a 48 foot long driveway and could have a 8 foot high fence and an electronic gate, and it would look like a fortress, but I don't want my neighborhood to look that way. I don't want it to look like I am afraid or that I am very exclusive; 1 don't support driveway gates in any fonn. · If we are going to define rural or secluded, I suggest that we allow in RHS areas, not in Rl areas, because I think there is an argument for having them in rural or secluded areas. · Fence Materials: Prefer the language staff suggested with regards to security materials, barbed wire, razor wire and/or electrified fencing; I would like to see that added to our existing fence language. I do not want to regulate what materials people chose. 1 feel that industrial materials are true security materials. · Do not want to see broken bottles along fences. Different types of materials that are hostel should not be used. I want to see the language that staff has listed; staff recommends Option 2 to amend the fence ordinance prohibiting barbed wire and other similar materials. It would be adding the language barbed wire, razor wire and/or electrified fencing are prohibited unless required by law or regulation. That would be new language to be added to the fence ordinance. · Support staff recommendation which is No.2 to add the prohibitive materials as opposed to try to regulate what is allowed. · Fence Post Caps: It is an opportunity for people to express themselves. I do not recall what the problematic ones were like. I vacillate on that one; common sense and good judgment should prevail; I am hesitant to regulate that - no strong position on this. Com. Saadati: · Fence Height: 6 foot, but if there are issues with the neighbors' privacy, I think that is something that should be brought to the Planning Commission or DRC to allow the people to have some flexibility. · Electronic Gates: No preference whether it is electronic or not; it needs to be set back; the further away from the street the better so it is not visible. Allow electronic gates but not next to a street, unless the situation is such that it is not possible, then apply for an exception. · Fence Materials: Option 2 if suitable, prohibiting barbed wire. Need to have flexibility for fence materials but it has to be desirable materials and doesn't adversely affect the area. · Fence Post Caps: Should be some limit; some could be significant in size and not blend in with the rest of the fence. It needs to be proportioned. Vice Chair Miller: · Fence Height: Not opposed to going to 8 feet, it is important that ifit is a good neighbor fence, the neighbors have input. The current ordinance states it has to go through some kind of public hearing such as DRC, if the neighbor says yes, then it would be as staff approval by the Director of Community Development. If the neighbor disagrees, it should be done through a DRC hearing, staff can do the research, bring it to DRC, if they want to appeal it. That is what the current language allows. · Electronic Gates: Presently there is an inconsistency in terms of allowing non-electronic gates but not allowing electronic gates, and 1 don't see the difference between the two. I would like to eliminate the inconsistency and go with Option 2, allow driveway gates regardless of whether they are electronic or manual, subject to the list of conditions. Would like to add safety. Neutral on whether to add rural or not. · Fence Materials: I would like to add the barbed wire language into the current ordinance. · Fence Post Caps: Support Option 2. Com. Chen: · Fence Height: Support the height being changed to 8 feet; the higher fence provides good Cupertino Planning Commission 17 December 13, 2005 privacy screening. · Electronic Gates: If there is a gate, it doesn't matter whether it is electronic or not. Adding No.4 is good. · Fence Materials: Adding language relative prohibiting barbwire is appropriate. · Fence Post Caps: Support No.2 Chair Wong: · Regarding electronic gate, after hearing colleagues' comments, 1 support No.2. Vice Chair Miller: · I also support No.4 on electronic gates. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to continue Application MCA-200S-01 to the second Planning Commission meeting in February, 2006. (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: None None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: The meeting was cancelled for lack of business. A special ERC meeting will be held later in December. Housin!! Commission: Com. Saadati reported that the meeting was cancelled. The next meeting will be held in January 2006. Mavor's Monthlv Meetin!! With Commissioners: Com. Saadati will provide a report at the next meeting. Economic Development Committee Meetin!!: Chair Wong reported the meeting was cancelled for lack of business. Director of Community Development: Ms. Wordell had no additional report. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the special Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on December 20, 2005. SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary