Loading...
PC 04-14-03CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 14, 2003 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Con', Miller, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Chen Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Peter Gilli, Senior Planner; Gary Chao, Assistant Planner; Glenn Goepfert, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 24, 2003 regular Planning Commission meeting: Page 5, third paragraph: Delete: "Chair Chen closed the public hearing" MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve the March 24, 2003 Planning Commission minutes as amended Com. Wong Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Chen noted receipt of e-mails from Frank Ruiz and Pankaj Patel relative to agenda Item 3. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: TM-2002-05, U-2002-12, Z-2002-04, EA-2002-24 (Mit) Promethius 20800 & 20900 Homestead Road Tentative Map to subdivide a 23.86 acre parcel into four lots. Lots 1 and 3 will be mapped for 542 condominiums and one lot held in common. Use Permit to demolish 194 existing apartmentunits and construct five buildings totaling 542 units on approximately 10 acres of two existing apartment complexes (Villa Serra and The Grove) Rezoning of an approximately 10-acre parcel from R-3 (apartments) to P(Res) (Planned development, residential) Tentative City Council date: May 5, 2003 Request removal from calendar Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 14, 2003 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to remove Application TM-2002-05, U-2002-12, Z-2002-04, EA-2002-24 (Mit) from the calendar Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: R-2003-03 Dick Fang (Hung residence) 10110 Mann Drive Appeal of approval of a new two-story 4,463 square foot residence Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Mr. Gary Chao, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report. The applicant is appealing the Design Review Committee's decision and requesting that the wall height be increased from 10 feet to 11 feet. He illustrated photos of other homes in the area, and reviewed the R1 design guidelines relative to the application. The solution offered by the design guidelines is that the architects or design could use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve interior volume desired. Staff and the city's architectural consultant have worked extensively with the applicant's architect on the design of the proposed house; revisions have been made to simplify the roof designs, reductions have been made to the overall mass and the height of the house and the house had been flipped to provide more harmonious interface at the same time minimizing privacy impacts. Staff believes that a balance has been reached; therefore does not support the appellant's appeal. By raising the living room ceiling by merely one foot per the appellant's request, the exterior wall height of the house will also be raised. Currently the approved exterior wall height at the living room area is approximately one foot over the exterior wall height of the single family home immediately left of the project site. If the appellant's request is granted, the proposed exterior wall height of the living room edge abutting the existing single story home will be more than two feet higher which would present an abrupt transition. He reviewed the design options for the appellant. Mr. Chao said that the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council to deny the appeal and uphold the DRC decision or uphold the appeal and deny or modify the DRC decision. Com. Miller said that when he looked at the house it appeared the house on the right had a higher cave than the house on the left of the applicant's house. Mr. Chao concurred. Com. Miller asked that by flipping the plan, if in that version they are just one foot above the eave line and they flip it to the other side, which has a higher cave line to begin with, aren't they just one foot above at that point. Mr. Chao said that according to the architect, it would be two feet above, with the desired 11 foot plate heights, they would be at least two feet above the cave height of the existing single story home shown. Com. Wong referred to Page 2-1 ... "the committee found that an increase of wall height would cause the proposed home to be out of scale with the immediate adjacent single-story homes; therefore the request was denied." He clarified that since he was on the DRC with Com. Saadati it Planning Commission Minutes ~ April 14, 2003 was a request from the applicant for a higher plate on the living room. He said he declined it at that time because they did not have a photo of the living room for the higher roof. He said that after seeing the new drawing he was open to it. He pointed out his concern in the staff report the alternative footing. He said it was brought up in the R1 hearing, and noted that lowering it six inches would likely be a higher cost, and questioned if the benefit would outweigh the cost of lowering it to six inches. He said the applicant has a right to chose not to do it. Com. Corr said he concurred with Com. Miller that the height of the house on the right was higher than the house on the left, and noted that the middle house is not the existing house; the existing house is gone and this house which is higher has been put in its place and they want to add another foot above that. He noted the two requests, one to discuss extending the plate height by one foot, which is on the agenda, and second that they were presenting the notion of flipping the house. Com. Saadati said that relative to Com. Wong's comment regarding the foundation, he had seen foundations built which lowered homes before and said it was not an unusual design. He requested that the advantages and disadvantages of flipping the house be discussed. Mr. Chao reviewed that the applicant came to DRC on March 5, 2003 requesting that the elevation be flipped, with the justification that they had a better view from their master bedroom window; and staff found that flipping it provided a more ideal interface since there would he a garage next to a garage, and on the other side, a living room next to the neighbor's living room. Staff and DRC concurred with the applicant's request and approved with the elevation; flipping it back would result in a garage next to somebody's living room. Com. Wong said that it was stated at the DRC hearing that staff could go either way if they wanted to flip the house because originally it was the other way. Mr. Chao said if they can lower the cave heights as previously suggested, to no more than a foot higher than the cave height of the adjacent single family home, he felt staff would not object, but staff would like to point out that ideally it is a better interface or elevation to have the garage next to a garage, and living room next to somebody else's living room. Relative to the distance of the second floor to the adjacent house, Com. Saadati asked how much further it would be by flipping. Mr. Chao said he did not have that information because the applicant just submitted the revised elevation. Com. Saadati estimated that it would be 5 to 10 feet further, and privacy-wise, would be providing some improvement. Mr. Chao said if it is flipped, according to the applicant's request, the second floor will be closer to the single family home on the left which according to the drawing, has either a living room or bedroom, as opposed to the garage on the other side. He said that several home owners, including the two home owners immediately adjacent to the project site, signed the petition. Com. Wong asked for comment on compatibility and harmonious, as well as mass and bulk. He said by raising it one foot higher for the plate in the living room, it would likely come down more to compatible or harmonious, or would there still be a question regarding mass and bulk on the living room because the overall height of the building will still be the same? Mr. Chao said that by raising it, the concern is that the eave height is going to be now two feet more than the existing single family home on the right side. To be consistent with previous findings by the DRC, on similar projects, it has been determined that within one foot, plus or Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 14, 2003 minus, is an acceptable compatibility level. In response to Com. Corr's question, Mr. Chao said that the R1 ordinance allows the maximum height plate of 12 feet high, and 5 feet from the side yard setback. Mr. Piasecki added that it is largely not only based on what the ordinance says and what the guidelines say, but also the precedent that DRC has been implementing over the last 3 or 4 years where they have been doing it case by case. Mr. Dick Fang, applicant, said that in August 2002 when the sketches were finished, he told his client that the DRC approved a maximum height in the living room of 10 feet, which is one foot higher than the neighbor. He said his client wanted a height of 11 feet or more and it was explained that the city could be contacted to discuss the issue. He said the project was submitted in the sketch stage and discussed with staff, and staff returned it with two issues; the three car garage which was then recessed; and flipping the house. He said that is the reason when they submitted it to the DRC that they flipped the house, putting the living room on the south side and garage where illustrated. He explained his rationale for flipping the building and said that he felt the home was compatible with the neighbors if they kept height of the living room 11 feet. He then reviewed the foundation options. Com. Saadati clarified Mr. Fang's statement, that he preferred to have the elevation to remain as illustrated rather than flip it. Mr. Fang said it was better because the garages are side by side with the living room on the other side. If it is raised a foot, it is two feet plus andif flipped on that side, it is two feet. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Andrea Lin, 10074 Mann Drive, said she supported the appellant's request to have the ceiling height increased to 11 feet. Mr. Dennis Wightman, 10092 Mann Drive, said he supported the application. Com. Wong asked if Mr. Wightman had concerns if the floor height was higher and it was flip flopped. Mr. Wightman said he did not have a concern, since the sides of the houses have no windows and there were no privacy issues associated with it. He said he was satisfied with Mr. Hung's explanation. Mr. Chich Hung, applicant, compared the height of his walls to his neighbors. He said staff suggested lowering the living room floor, but he was concerned for his young children's safety and the possibility of them tripping on the step down. He said they would still need vaulted ceilings to reach the desired height. He said there were 15 to 18 homes within 200 to 300 feet from his home with 11 foot wall living room height and also big office buildings. He said he had 33 signatures of support from his neighborhood. He said he did not want to be treated as a special case, he just wanted his rights served as a resident of Cupertino. The city ordinance has a 12 foot wall daylight plane which the appeal floor plan is within its limit. He questioned the purpose of the ordinance if they did not follow it. He expressed his appreciation for the support, and said he hoped the future ordinance would have more precise measurements to follow. He said in some cases plan approval or not is dependent on the personal view which sometimes is subjective. Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 14, 2003 Chair Chen asked if Mr. Hung was content with either floor plan with the garages on the right or the left. Mr. Hung said he preferred the side with no window on the second floor, just the bathroom window which does not present a privacy issue. Mr. Roy Hampton, 21821 Oakview Lane, said he supported his neighbor, the comparisons listened to this evening, and said he understood they were looking at the compatibility of the neighborhood. He pointed out that his home was a two story, next to another two story house, which is a progression in Cupertino. As the older homes get refurbished they become two story homes, and there is a difference in elevation of the road, resulting in a foot of change in elevation. Mr. Hampton said it was not a massive house, it meets the detailed regulation and he supported it. Mrs. Yvonne Hampton, a Cupertino resident since 1974 said she has seen the neighborhood go from single story to two story homes; and said the home was an attractive solution to gaining a second story and more square footage; with no vertical wall on each side, and a pleasant transition keeping in scale with the neighborhood. She said she supported the applicant having his home built, and said that families with changing lifestyles want more square footage in their homes. Chair Chen closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Miller said that a significant amount of houses in the neighborhood had been redeveloped and likely were there before the ordinance since there are quite a few with higher plate lines and cave lines; there is a large development at the edge of the property; all two story with high room ceilings and high plate heights. He said it was clear that the neighborhood was in transition and it is not clear that the ordinance addresses a transition neighborhood as well as it might. He said there were two patterns of development and in the ordinance it talks about the predominant pattern in the neighborhood. Since the applicant is not proposing something above the requirement of 12 feet, he is within the strict ordinance guidelines. Relative to compatibility, if it is stated that it is compatible with the old way of doing things in the 50s then it doesn't work; however, if it is stated that it is compatible with the new way with the pattern that seems to be developing, then it is compatible. What is also being heard is that compatibility with the new way, with redevelopment of two story homes, is what the neighborhood desires. He said the intent of the ordinance is to protect the neighbors but in this case the neighbors are not asking for protection; and it is not clear that just another foot on a living room wall height is an incompatible thing with architectural styles. Com. Miller said he was inclined to favor the applicant. He said as noted earlier, the homes were built in the 50s and are in the high maintenance phase of their useful life and they are generally on larger lots. From a desirable standpoint and an economically viable standpoint it makes sense that these properties get redeveloped, brought up to code, more insulated and a new architectural style for the neighborhood. He said he did not see a reason to discourage that and in this case it almost seems like it is more an issue of personal choice on the applicant's part. Mr. Piasecki clarified that the project at the end of the street on Stevens Creek Boulevard was referred to as Eaton Place or Coventry; built by Summerhill Development about 5 or 6 years ago and is on the former Monta Vista Hardware Store site. It is a higher density, small lot, single family development, not a conventional single family development. He said that the issue was 10 or 11 foot height. In response to Com. Saadati's question if other trees and shrubbery were going to be planted there, Mr. Chao said not on that side since there are no proposed two story windows along that elevation on the second floor; therefore no new landscaping is required along that side. Com. Saadati said Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 14, 2003 that considering the neighbors on either side are not objecting to additional height, he did not object as long as some trees were planted to soften the additional foot. Overall the building looks nice and is proportioned right; the reason they did not approve the additional height is because the previous application that was submitted was not approved and there were no neighbors to speak for it. He said he was not certain if the house approval would set a precedent in the future relative to the ordinance. Mr. Piasecki said that the report has been based on precedent and is called case law. The cases in the past have been with one foot taller, it would set a new precedent to treat other applicants the same way this applicant has been treated; decisions are made based on what is good for the overall neighborhood. He said it would set a precedent since everyone is treated equally; they are not applied for one person who has neighbors who agree with their application and another way for an applicant that does not have neighbors agreeing; the law is applied unilaterally. Mr. Chao said if the house is under 35% there are still a set of findings that the director has to make, some of which have been discussed and includes making sure that the eave heights and the ridge lines entry heights are comparable with the adjacent single family, so they are built in the findings that staff would have to make to approve it. Mr. Piasecki said he knew of no other case in the last three years where there has been a conflict on a home under 35%, with an 11 foot or 12 foot high wall incompatible with its neighbor. Com. Wong said he concurred with Coms. Saadati and Miller. He noted for the record that he met with Mr. Gilli regarding DRC issues and he let Gary Chao know that he had met with the applicant on Friday at City Hall for about 20 minutes. He said he asked for photos as it was difficult during the DRC meeting to see if it was compatible or not. He said he was still frustrated with the ordinance not being compatible with the guidelines; whenever 35% FAR is exceeded, you have to go into the compatibility with the guidelines. He said he hoped they could tighten it up or correct it as the applicants are frustrated. Mr. Hung did a good job in communicating with the neighbors, getting buyin, which is what they encourage the residents to do. He said he supported the project and that the neighbors also supported the project. Com. Corr said he was having a difficult time with the issue because of the backlash from the community when the monster homes were built. They were asked to do something about it and did; and now people are asking why shouldn't they be able to build them? He said if this house was built in a neighborhood where all those monster homes had been built already, it would not be questioned since it would be deemed compatible with everything there; in fact it is shorter because those others had the taller ones, yet as you go through that neighborhood, you look around and see houses that are much taller than this and those are the ones that caused so much backlash. The question is one of compatibility; is this house compatible with its neighbors or not, and through that neighborhood there are bigger homes and smaller homes immediately adjacent on the left. The question is, what is compatibility? - it does fit within the R1 ordinance, it is less than 12 feet. He said on one hand he was torn with the notion of sticking to his guns in terms of what was said in the past; but on the other hand, a good case has been made for saying this one because of where it is and the houses around it probably is compatible. He said when dealing with the compatibility issue, it was difficult to say that it would set a precedent; what is the precedent? not the plate height because it is 10 or 11 feet, not at 12. He said he had to ponder it longer. Com. Wong said relative to Com. Corr's comment, he wanted to clarify they were addressing the plate height of the living room, not the monster homes. He said he understood the essence of the Planning Commission Minutes ~ April 14, 2003 1999 ordinance that they did not want to have monster homes in Garden Gate or in Rancho Rinconada. He said they were now talking about design, and felt that by adding another foot, there are questions if height is more important or design more important. Their goal was to have a good design and should try to shy away from monster homes because this is not really a monster home, this is a very well designed house, is symmetrical and tries to fall as much under the ordinance as much as possible. Com. Miller said he felt it was a key issue that they could agree it was a transition neighborhood; the houses are old and the neighbors are likely thinking that they want to redevelop with a design different from 50 years ago. He said it was difficult to expect the residents to stay with a design that was implemented 50 years ago; it is 2003 and newer designs are more fashionable and more desirable and they should be allowed to make that choice as a neighborhood. Chair Chen said she questioned what determines the compatibility- height or material and design? She also said that she had a problem with the old design that defines the neighborhood. The new design is a well designed home that is supported by the neighbors, and may be the future design that determines what a neighborhood will be like. She said she supported the project as proposed by the appellant. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Wong moved to uphold the appeal and support the applicant's raising of the living room height by another foot; according to the drawing submitted by the applicant Com. Miller Coms. Saadati and Corr Passed 3-2-0 Mr. Piasecki noted that the recommendation would be forwarded to City Council on May 5, 2003. Com. Corr clarified that he voted no to support what they had been through, with the monster homes and the problems and trying to solve them, and the backlash from the community. He said he might have voted differently if he felt it would go either way since he liked the house design. He said he did not feel the subject house would be a problem, hut was voting in favor of where they have been and to be consistent in how they apply the ordinance. Com. Saadati said his main concern was setting precedent and was not certain that in the future they would have the same situation coming up again and again, especially at the DRC level. He said he felt in general the house was compatible with the neighborhood and by putting some trees and softening the adjacency issue it would help; but he was uncertain about the future impact. Mr. Piasecki said that Com. Wong talked about the frustration applicants feel about the discrepancies between the ordinance and the guidelines. He said from staff's perspective no one is more frustrated than staff as they are the messengers, and put stock in what was done in the past and many people have participated in that and the wording that went into the ordinance and ultimately the guidelines. He said they want clarification as they do not like the role they are placed in. Com. Wong asked Mr. Piasecki if it would be better to have the Planning Commission go back to the guidelines and give suggestions to the Planning Commission or City Council because specifics were not addressed in the last three meetings. Planning Commission Minutes s April 14, 2003 Mr. Piasecki said that it could be discussed in a workshop format; staff will bring the R1 ordinance back and the specific topic should be discussed in terms of what is considered compatibility; if a tree is planted and it softens the interface, is 12 feet appropriate or 11 feet or two feet offset? Chair Chen thanked staff for the excellent job in working to maintain the compatibility based on all the work done before and Mr. Piaseeki's leadership. In the future, all the design and development still has to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2001-08, EA-2001-13 (Mit) Amar Gupta E1 Cerrito Road Hillside exception to construct a 6,500 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline, a private road and driveway on slopes greater than 30% and to exceed the 2,500 cubic yard trading quantity. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, reviewed the application for the hillside exception to construct a single family residence on a prominent ridgeline, requesting exceptions also for development on slopes greater than 30% and an exception to exceed the amount of grading quantity allowed on the property. He noted the two e-mails received in support of the application. There was a brief discussion about grading, wherein Mr. Gilli said that if dirt needed to be removed it would be removed offsite. Mr. Glean Goepfert, Public Works said that if fill had to be exported, it would be taken to a permitted fill site or to a landfill or taken out of the county. Com. Wong expressed concern about trucks traveling up and down Stevens Creek; residents are already concerned about the quarry. Mr. Piasecki clarified that another objective is to disturb as little of the natural terrain as possible. He said if there was extra fill they would not want to pack it on top of sites as it would slide. It would be preferable to move it off site even though it would cause some extra traffic and noise with trucks hauling the dirt. Mr. Gilli summarized that the applicant would have some information on the amount of cut and fill and the balance but almost all of the grading is either required to provide the driveway or is being done to mitigate the visual impacts of the house on the ridgeline, and for those reasons staff is recommending approval of this part of the exception. Relative to Condition 16, Mr. Gilli said that the driveway will not stay on the access easement on the Gupta property itself. Staff had considered requesting that the applicant abandon their rights to portions of the access easements that they don't need. Upon further discussion with other department and the attorney's office, staff would like to remove that condition which is what the new model resolution is representing. In conclusion staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the mitigated negative declaration and approve the hillside exception subject to the model resolution received at the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 14, 2003 in response to Com. Saadati's question about roof material and color, Mr. Gilli noted that it was a dark earth tone, and it is anticipated that the dark green and dark brown will work well together. Com. Saadati also expressed concern about excess fill on top of the existing soil which could cause slidings. He said he was certain a geotechnical engineer would address all of those and the construction of any fill that is going to be taken place. Mr. Goepfert said there is a preliminary approval of a concept that will be further investigated by the city's geotechnical engineer. Mr. Gilli confirmed that the replacement for any unforeseen trees removed would be at a ratio of 4:1. Com. Miller had no questions. Com. Wong said the driveway is going to be a 12 foot driveway and in the future it may be 20 feet because of potential residents. He asked if it would affect any vegetation or oak trees. Mr. Gilli said the driveway is going to be installed at 12 feet and the applicant was directed to look at designing the driveway so that it could be easily expanded to 20 feet; the point at which it needs to be expanded is if the driveway in question serves more than two houses; hence on the third house they will have to do some improvements. The third applicant would pay for it. It could affect vegetation and might be a hillside exception. The applicant could speak to whether the 20 foot alignment would require removal of more trees. Com. Wong questioned whether the Planning Commissioners would be willing to grant an exception to allow a four car garage since the house was 6,500 square feet. Mr. Gilli clarified that the applicant has the maximum square footage of 6,500 and can choose to remove area out of the house to have the four car garage; they chose not to do that. Mr. Piasecki said that it would be a variance, and staff would look at the ordinance. Com. Wong asked the applicant to be cautious when removing the fill, since there is concern about the driveway. He confirmed that 9 specimen oaks trees would be removed and 19 will be replaced. He said he wanted to be certain to include 19 trees in the condition of approval. Mr. Gilli said that the 19 trees are on the plan set but not in the conditions; but the plan sets on condition No. 1 are directly referenced as being the basis of the approval. Com. Wong asked for clarification regarding Condition 16. Mr. Gilli explained that when the area was developed it was subdivided and was thought that the areas outlined in green on the map shown were going to be the roadway; the alignment was not always the most appropriate alignment, but was drawn up that way at the time. He illustrated the property lines and the planned roadways on the map. In response to Com. Wong's question, Mr. Gilli said there were four properties between the Guptas and the Dors that could possibly be developed. Mr. Piasecki explained that the advertisement for the public hearing did not include a request to exceed the 6,500 square foot maximum. The ordinance does provide an exception procedure to do that so the applicant could come back and refile an application for an exception to fill in those garage spaces if desired. Com. Corr commended everyone on the project which has been going on for some time. He said they had seen a number of iterations of it over the years including some of Exhibit A; the house Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 14, 2003 was quite prominent and they did a commendable job in pulling it down and back. He said he was willing to support the project. In response to Chair Chen's question, Mr. Gilli explained the tree bond calculation, noting that a $10,000 bond had been used in the past, but said he was uncertain if it was related to a certain number of trees. The amount was used in cases where it is hillside development and there are specimen trees identified to be protected. He said the applicant is supposed to protect at least 11 trees along the roadway alignment and 20 more in another area. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reiterated Mr. Gilli's response that it was an arbitrary amount in the past; and pointed out that they have not had to keep the bond in the past. Mr. Terry Brown, representing Mr. Gupta, said he felt the process has worked and he and Mr. Gupta were satisfied with the end result. He said he felt the residence would be a credit to the neighborhood. He explained the construction of the retaining walls. Relative to grading, he said that in excess of 1,000 cubic yards of dirt would be taken from the site, and since they are close to Stevens Creek Quarry, will not have to pass any residences except the Dor residence. Relative to the tree issue, he pointed out that the section of the driveway which is affected by those trees and goes through the grove of oak trees on the ridgeline will likely only serve two residences, Mr. Guptas and the property immediately to the right on the map which is Phelps property. He said if it looked like in future applications that there was significant tree removal and it was unacceptable to the Planning Commission, there are opportunities with the fire department to provide additional turnouts and fire track turnarounds that could negate the need to have the roadway be 20 feet wide. It is something the Planning Commission has an opportunity to look at with any future application. Relative to square footage, Mr. Gupta is going to great lengths to establish a residential site there and to put in a long and costly roadway and it is his desire to have the maximum square footage possible. He would be pleased to have a four car garage as suggested and that may be the subject of a future application. Mr. Amar Gupta, applicant, read a statement into the record. He thanked the Planning Department staff for their support on the project. "It has been a long project but are satisfied with the way things worked out, in particular I thank Peter Gilli who has worked hard and demonstrated professionalism and has been extremely diligent in resolving issues objectively. The Inspiration Heights history is quite long and for some reason it hasn't been dealt with within the 75 years. It has a lot of challenging issues and based on experience over the last few years, all the issues are not technical, a lot of interdependencies in order to build anything there. I have been lucky to work well with my neighbors in terms of resolving all the issues, particularly those who have been here today have been gracious enough to grant easements so that we don't have to build any walls. They allowed us to do the sloping easement across their property so that there is a natural look to the terrain. I want to thank them for that. We are also confident that once we start this development, other neighbors will take the initiative to get their residential projects going as well, so hopefully we will see this whole area develop in a tasteful manner. We want to build this house as quickly as possible before their children go to college so they can enjoy it. The reason we agreed to those constraints and issues were primarily in the interest of finishing the house pretty quickly. We request that the Planning Commission approve this project so we can build as quickly as possible. We have worked closely with the planning staff and followed their recommendations; we want to build this house in a tasteful manner; I think they also agree that itis tasteful. We are committed and assured that we will resolve any new issues as they come up; we are committed in doing that. A precedence has been set previously in terms of reimbursing the cost of road that we build by future users as they build a house; we have signed an agreement with the Allisas and a Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 14, 2003 cost sharing agreement with the Dors, so we are reimbursing them the cost of the road they built, so based on this precedence we also request that it go into the minutes that future developers will have to enter into a cost sharing agreement with us." Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Louella Phelps, 397 Curtner Avenue, said that the trees they were discussing being removed were on her property. She pointed out that the ridge was in a different location than shown on the map. She said that she did not have any objection to the project, but wanted to make sure that the survey illustrated the exact location of her property and to be sure that the roadway is not going to cut into her property or to share it and put in a road and develop it. Mr. Gilli said that the trees were precisely in the area identified on the screen and half of the trees are on Ms. Phelps' property. Mr. Phillipe Dor, 22525 Balboa Road, said he was pleased with the work that has been done and said he supported the Gupta's project. He requested that it he recorded in the minutes that they had a road agreement for what they developed and everyone using the road in the future shares the cost of the road, and the new applicants will follow the road agreement. In response to Com. Corr's question about the gate, Mr. Dor said that the fire department has a key to the lock box. Chair Chen closed the public hearing. Com. Corr expressed concern that a $10,000 tree bond for one tree was not comparable to $10,000 for an oak forest; and said the provision of 4:l is appropriate. He said he supported the project. Com. Wong concurred with Com. Corr and said he supported the project. He thanked the applicant for working with staff and complimented the house design. Relative to the variance for a four car garage, Com. Wong asked if it was possible to avoid having the applicant return with an application if he desired a four car garage. Mr. Piasecki reiterated that the advertisement for the public hearing did not include an item regarding a variance for a four car garage; the advertisement serves the purpose of notifying the public what is being discussed at the public hearing; people who may have concerns about the size of the home would not have known if action was going to be taken; unfortunately the applicant will have to go back through the process. Com. Wong wished the applicant good luck and enjoyment in their home. Com. Saadati concurred with the other commissioners and said he supported the project. He questioned if there would be any vegetation on the new fill or will it be natural vegetation. Mr. Gilli said that a condition of approval will call for a landscape plan to be prepared with a description of the plantings which are natural. Com. Miller said he supported the project as well as Com. Wong's suggestion of the four car garage. Chair Chen said she supported the project; it is welt supported by the neighbors and thanked staff for working so hard to address the visibility to make the house invisible to the public street. MOTION: Com. Wong moved to approve Application EA-2001-13 SECOND: Com. Corr Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 14, 2003 VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Wong moved to approve Application EXC-2001-08, including addition of language in No. 4 regarding the 19 additional oak trees based on the resolution distributed at the meeting Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted the decision was final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee:. Com. Corr reported that the ERC reviewed the application which was removed from the calendar at this meeting and the Serran Gardens. He also reported plans to redevelop the 50 year old development north of Yamagami's nursery which is in a state of disrepair. Com. Wong suggested a study session regarding large projects in general. There was consensus that a study session would be beneficial. Housing Commission: Com. Miller reported on his attendance at two Housing Commission meetings since the last Planning Commission meeting. Topics of discussion included the teacher loan program modeled after the San Jose program, review of the CDBG grants, and putting in place a plan to relocate the residents of the Sorren Gardens apartment complex with a minimum of disruption. Mayor's Tea: Com. Wong reported that the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 15th at 5 p.m. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the written report. Relative to the Blue Pheasant there were a number of persons concerned about any amendment to the General Plan and that the action taken by the City Council was necessary should the city wish to entertain along term lease re-upping the lease for the Blue Pheasant restaurant and the City Council did approve that action, not the lease extension but entertaining the General Plan and zoning changes necessary for that. Mr. Piasecki discussed the Vallco Park study session scheduled for Tuesday April 15th from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.; the prospective purchasers of Vallco Fashion Park will be in attendance but will remain low key. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the purpose of the study session. He also reported that Extended Stay America is wishing to come back for a reconsideration hearing and having some discussions with council members to see if they can address the concerns raised when the City Council denied their application. He also provided a brief status report on the progress of the General Plan update, noting that it was going back to City Council on April 21st for finalization. Staff brought it forward and there are some options in there and the Council made comments about April 14, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes the various options favoring one that would select the participants from various interest groups or stakeholders in the community including geographic. The City Council will have individual appointments up to three persons; therefore 15 of the persons will be council appointees and the other 45 people will be selected by the council (people can apply). Com. Corr asked at what point the city could get involved in the Evershine project on Portal and Stevens Creek as it may become an eyesore. Mr. Piasecki said they were several months away from their last inspection and they have 6 months between inspections. The process can be lengthy as they can reapply for a building permit. Staff has asked the owners to clean up the site and they have done some cleanup, but not completed it. Com. Miller reported that he met with the Hunter Storm project people to get a history of the application, better understand the neighbors' point of view and be updated on the progress by the applicants. He reiterated the earlier suggestions to have a work study session to become more familiar with dealing with large projects. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus to have the study session on April 28th prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to the next regular Planning Commission meeting, at 5:30 p.m. on April 28, 2003 in Conference Room C. Approved as amended: April 28, 2003 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary