Loading...
PC 02-08-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 77%3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 8, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle (Com. Harris arrived at 6:55 p.m.) Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Raymond Cheongo Traffic Eng'meer; Tricia Maier, Planning Intern; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meetings of January l 1, and January 25, 1999: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTA~: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve the minutes of the January 11, 1999 and Janumy 25, 1999 meetings as presented. Chair Doyle Com. Harris Corns. Corr and Kwok Passed 2-0-2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No. Applicant: Location: 32-ASA-98 Keith Royster Architects (Woodworks) 19875 Stevens Creek Blvd. Architectural review of a proposed remodel ofa fagade for an existing commercial building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued.from Planning Commission meeting of January I l, 1999 Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 8-U-98, 22-EA-98 Cupen'ino Dental Group 0383 Torte Avenue Use permit for a 1,890 square foot addition to an existing office building. Planning Commission Minutes 2 February g, 1999 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Withdrawn by Applicant MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to postpone Item 2 to the Febrna~ 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, and withdraw Item 4 t~om the calendar Com. Con' Com. Hams Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Com. Hanis amved during discussion of Item 3. PUBLIC HEARING Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 14-EXC-98, 1-V-98, 39-EA-98 Tom McNair 22261 McClellan Road Hillside Exception to locate a new residence on slopes greater than 30% (In an R-I zoning district). Variance to exceed the required 28 fi. height and 20 fi. front setback requirements in the R-I zoning district (Chapter 19.28) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued.from Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1999 Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct a three stoW 4,459 sq. fi. residence, which was presented at the Janua~ 11, 1999 Planning Commission meeting and continued with direction to staff to provide additional information, and work with the applicant to redesign certain aspects of the project. The modifications outlined in the attached staff report were reviewed. Staff will rcpor~ on the following issues as previously directed: documented accidents and traffic complaints for the area; ways to create a safer driveway access; additional parking; a new drainage plan that will not cause erosion along Stevens Creek Blvd.; how the FAR will be reduced if the slope adjustment criteria were applied; changes to proposed building materials and color; proposed landscaping; and whether the property is located within a 100 year flood zone or not. Staff recommends approval of the project. Ifa decision is reached, it will be considered final, and not forwarded to City Council, unless an appeal is fried within 14 calendar days. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reviewed the issues staff was directed to address at the previous meeting. He reported on the accident and traffic complaints; driveway revisions; additional parking; drainage plan; the proposed building colors/materials; landscape screening; and 100 year flood zone, as outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Jung answered questions relative to the house design, and whe~er it fell under the RHS or R-1. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said that it was zoned R1. Planning Commission Minutes 3 Febraa~ g, 1O0O Mr. Raymond Cheong, Traffic Engineer, said that for the city to consider a stop sign at that location, the neighborhood residents would have to circulate a petition for a 2/3 support. He said the location may not meet the technical warrants in terms of volume or accidents; however, the city would consider a four way stop sign for the location with a petition with 2/3 support. Mr. Tom McNair, owner and architect of the project, reviewed the justificataon for the driveway changes, noting considerations of traffic speed and road conditions. Relative to the parking issue, he said that if additional parking spaces above and beyond those shown on the revised scheme were needed, the street widening aspect could be explored; however, he felt it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He said he felt the layout for the four cars was adequate, and noted that any other project would have to utilize tandem parking. He said that the neighbors' comments at the last meeting were not necessarily objecting to the project, but were addressing what they perceived as safety concerns, which they had been working on for several years, such as Mira Vista Avenue traffic. Mr. McNalr said that the neighbors would prefer that the road be closed, but he did not feel it was a viable option. He said he was not opposed to a stop sign, which would help address safety concerns; however, he requested that it not be a condition of approval of the project; in the event the City Council did not support the stop sign, he did not want his project riding on that particular decision. He said that he felt the driveway location was safe; it was safe on the original design and even more so with the cars driving out head first, and that it adequately addressed any safety issues. He said that discussions relative to the number of accidents already occurred, and figures were consistent with other streets in the city. Mr. McNair showed a slide presentation which illustrated the line of sight fi:om street locations and also flom their driveway location to assure that there is adequate line of sight distances; and other houses in the neighborhood for different vantage points. He showed the areas where the tree limbs were cut by the city, pointing out that the trees would have provided screening of the entire area of the house. He commented that as a result of the city cutting the trees on his property, the impact of his proposed house was now being discussed. He said he felt it was unfair and prejudicial, and was concerned with any attempt to deny the project solely on the basis of the visual impact. He said it was not fair to characterize the project as a large project that was not consistent with the neighborhood, as that was not the case. He pointed out the four massive homes located on top of the crib wall that had greater visibility than his project. Mr. McNair said that building his project on a slope actually worked favorably because it is stepping down and cuts into the side of the hill, with adequate opportunity to conceal the house. He asked that the Planning Commissioners keep in mind the ordinances used as a guideline, noting this his house complies with every ordinance relative to the FAR and lot coverage, given the R1 zone. Referring to the redesign of the garage, Mr. McNair reported that he chose a more traditional roof treatment, in keeping with the original design; and in doing so was able to lower the ridgeiine by about 15 inches above what was in the previous package. Relative to the colors and materials, he said the zatique is the most appropriate color and the only one that is maintenance flee; however, he was willing to consider the painted materials, keeping in mind the painted materials would require future maintenance. He recommended the old zinc gray color if the painted colors were chosen, and said he would prefer to have it applied both to the walls and the roof. If the green pallet of colors was chosen, the forest green would be the most suitable green color, since the denali green is not one of the premium colors and does not carry the 20 year warranty. Mr. McNair said that drainage was adequately discussed; and reported that it is a closed circuit drainage system around the entire perimeter, with all roof gutters draining into the closed circuit. When it reaches the flench drain location, the pipes change flom a solid pipe to a perforated Planning Commission Minutes 4 Febmmy 8, 1999 drainpipe that will be embedded into the drain rock and be allowed to percolate. If it ever reaches the point of the 50 or 100 year storm and if the ground gets saturated to the point beyond the capacity of the drain system, there will be a sheet flow over the entire hill regardless whose project it is. He noted that the house piers would be down at least 16 feet into the natural dirt, and would be designed to withstand any hydraulic pressures on them from the soil conditions. Mr. McNair addressed the variance, noting that there were only three findings that need to be made relative to the variance. He said, keeping in mind that all the variance items without exception dealt with access, to deny any one of those variances, was denying the ability to access the project, thus denying the McNairs the right to build on their property. He emphasized that is was physically impossible to construct a garage there without the variances being requested, and physically impossible to make the height work. He said they could probably relocate the garage to some other location that would not necessarily be in the setback areas, but in doing so would cause more damage to the site as far as removal of trees. Relative to item 4, the proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations. He said he felt it was a black or white issue; either building on slopes greater than 30% is permitted, or building on slopes greater than 30% not be permitted; therefore the least modification was to allow the applicant to build on those slopes. Relative to item 9, which promotes development, Mr. McNair said that because the house is fully screened by the existing vegetation in addition to the proposed vegetation, he felt they met their obligation to reduce the effect of visible mass including building height to the extent possible without creating other environmental impacts. He added that an attempt could be made to push the house further away and further up the hill away from the parkland areas, but that would have more impact on the existing site since it would then require removal of additional trees. Relative to finding 8b, Mr. McNair said that the proposal is the minimum that is reasonable for his purposes, end if an attempt is made to restrict this house beyond what is already allowed under the RI zone, it would not be usable for his family. He said he felt the proposal was appropriate, that it was screened from visibility, and was much less visible than any of the other houses in the neighborhood. He said the neighboring houses could be used as a precedent for approving the project, as they were comparable size, larger massing, and had larger visibility than his project. Relative to the roof deck issue, Mr. McNair said that there were some areas with roof decks; one off the entry elevation to allow access, but also to reduce the mass of the roof, which would otherwise be required to cover that area, and would actually reduce the visible mass of the house. He said there were also roof deck areas offthe office, and offthe master bedroom which served as their yard area since they did not have a lot of usable yard area. In response to Com. Harris' request for clarification of the environmental impact forms, Mr. McNair explained the responses he provided, as not having significant impact or no impact in certain situations. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Bob Hoxie, 10545 Mira Vista Ave., expressed concern about backing out onto McClellan Road and lack of parking and said the current proposal addressed his concern. He questioned the Planning Commission Minutes 5 February ~, 1~99 need for the circular driveway and said he thought the original plan had less impact. He referred to the site plan, indicating where he resided and discussed thepotential impacts to his property. Chair Doyle closed the public hearing. Com. Harris questioned if No. 8b was erroneously omitted from the findings. Ms. Muxray clarified that No. 8b was not applicable because the 'b' came into play only if the house is visible from the ridgeline; there is 8, and if8 is tree, then 'a' and 'b' come into play; and since this is not a ridgeline issu~ 8b was omitted because it doesn't apply to this particular parcel. She said that hillside exceptions should be applied, but it is not necessary to apply the hillside development regulations. Discussion ensued regarding the remaining issues. There was consensus that the accidenfftraffic complaints issue was addressed. Com. Harris said she was still concerned about the interference on the park/private property; massiveness of the house and number of variances and exceptions required. Com. Kwok expressed concern about visual impact; massiveness of the house; however, he said that Ivff. McNalr addressed the concern about visual impact when he noted that the neighboring homes were the same size range. Com. Stevens said he felt all concerns were addressed. He said that he preferred the original color for the residence. Chair Doyle added his concern about building materials and colors. Relative to the height issue, Com. Corr said that he had no concerns about the height. Com. Kwok, agreed, stating that because of the steepness of the property, it was difficult to build a propeay at 28 fi. Com. Stevens said he felt the applicant's proposal was appropriate and benefited the city; and he agreed with the variances and setbacks. Chair Doyle said that the maximum height was appropriate; however, he felt the design element could be improved upon. He said that Com. Harris' concern about the screening issue could possibly be mitigated with plantings. Park/private property interface: Com. Hams said that the main concern with finding No. 4 was that it is the least modification of the development regulations; which maintain scenic views, and do not permit houses in parks unless there is a road; and if building on slopes a sliding scale that says if a house is built on a slope, the size will be reduced to mirigate the mass. With those conditions in mind, she said that should could no approve a house as large as the proposed residence, and that 44 FAR was too high because of the impact to the park. Com. Stevens said that in light of the ratio of 700 sq. fi. dedicated to exterior walls, both horizomal and vertical circulation, reducing it down to the 3700 hillside would be negated by the need to have those, which are not building mass, but are requirements of the hillside. Corn Kwok expressed concern about the visual impact and said he would support the variance on the visual impact. He said the screening will provide mitigation for the masses, and the FAR is consistent with the existing which do not have the screening. Com. Corr said that he felt the issues of visual impact and the park/private property came together on the property and the applicant did an adequate job with existing trees and screening He said he had been concerned with palling the driveway down below, and having the road go into the park. Com Doyle said his position on park interface is that by moving the house toward the front of the property, up the hill, it negates it, and adding vegetation will hopefully screen it, and he felt they would benefit long term with the proposal, rather than other proposals. He said he agreed with Com. Hams about the house size, but did not have reasonable means to quantify what size house Planning Commission Minutes 6 February g, 1999 would be appropriate for the property; however, if the house meets the visual requirements, the regular R-1 requirements should determine the appropriate size, and if executed properly, would be acceptable. There was consensus that the corrugated metal material was appropriate, sides and roof were appropriate also. A discussion ensued regarding the building color. Com. Hams said that she preferred a painted finish; Chair Doyle said mat the zafique finish was acceptable, but was concerned that the roof was of the same material. Mr. McNair reiterated his preference for the zafique finish and pointed out that it was more in keeping with the normal agricultural type building, and that to be consistent, the same material should be used on the roof and walls. Com. Hams pointed out that the residence was not a barn, but a house in a residential area, and reiterated her preference for the painted surface. The Commissioners concurred with Com. Hams' comment. Chair Doyle suggested that staff work with the applicant to return with acceptable materials to minimize the visual impact, either forest green or slate gray. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 39-EA-98 Com. Stevens Com. Hams Passed 4-1~0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 14-EXC-98 according to the model resolution, with modifications of colors to forest green or dark gray; and new garage designs Com. Kwok Com. Hams Passed 4-1-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Con' moved to approve Application 1-V-98 according to the model resolution Com. Stevens Com. Harris Passed 4-1-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: l -EXC-99 Cai-Neon Signs (Walgreens) 10795 So. Blaney & 20075 Bollinger Sign Exception to exceed the number of ground and wall signs in accordance with Title 17 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Mr. Jtmg reviewed the application for seven sign exceptions for the proposed Walgreens, as outlined in the attached staffreport. He stated that the purpose and intent of the sign ordinance was to identify and enhance businesses while maintaining the aesthetic appearances of the city. Staff does not feel the findings for a sign exception can be met and recommends that the item be discussed further end direction provided to the application regarding reduction or elimination of the need for an exception. In order to grant the exception, the Planning Commission would have to make the three findings outlined in the staff report, and staff feels that none of the Planning Commission Minutes ? February g, 1999 three fmdings can be made and if the applicant chooses not to explore other options, recommends denial of the application. Ms. Murray clarified that the site had not yet been subdivided and the applicant was requesting the sign exception for the total three site package. She said that there may be development on one of thc other sites in the future. Mr. Mike Tavis, Cai-Neon Signs, said that it was unfortunate that their objectives in the sign program submitted did not mesh well with stafffs. He said he felt their objectives for the prope~y based upon conversations with neighbors, tenants, and Mr. Cowan, in terms of revitalizing the project, were the same. He distributed photos of the visibility the anchor tenant in the rear of the property had from different vantage points. He explained the objectives for the sign requests, which included the need for the anchor tenant in the rear of the center, to be visible, and the need for extra signage because of the size of the property. He added that the Walgreens' standard sign package was not consistent with the city's regulations and reviewed the justification for the sign exception requests. Mr. Jung noted that the Walgreens' property in Sunnyvale had two large wall signs, one facing Maw Ave. and the other facing Fremont Ave., but did not have the photo drive up or drive up pharmacy windows. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Stevens said he was still concerned whether the site was considered three individual parcels or one. Ms. Murray said that one possible solution would be for them to work with staff on what the signage allotment would be for three parcels, since there would potentially be many retail stores in the center with signage needs, and it would prevent it coming back when the subdivision is complete. Com. Stevens recommended that staff review what the signage would be as separate property so that there would be no confusion whatsoever; and noted the locations for the proposed signs to benefit each property and fit into the sign ordinance. He indicated which signs he felt should be illuminated and those that should not, particularly on the Blaney side, because of the close proximity to the residential area. Com. Kwok said he was receptive to some flexibility in terms of number of signs in the area, but in particular to work with staff on the non-conforming 17-1/2 ft. sign. He said he concurred with Com. Stevens that caution should be exercised on the Blaney side beeanse it was residential and the lights should not interfere with the residents. He said a plan was needed that was satisfactory to staff, and that addressed the neighborhood residents' concerns. Com. Corr said that he was also concerned about the three parcels and said that if the sign package was approved for the front parcel, the end result would be a plethora of signs. He concurred with Com. Stevens' suggestion to address it as a whole development, with one plan. He said the Walgreens' logo sign was suitable, but did not feel a photo drivenp sign or ddvenp pharmacy sign were needed on the side. He said that he would welcome a revised plan to consider. Com. Harris said she agreed that there should be a sign program for the whole complex which is currently under one ownership, and any transfer could be made subject to the agreed upon sign Planning Commission Miuntes 8 Fehruapj g, 1999 program. She said that Cupertino had a fair sign ordinance and all applicants were treated equally. She said they did not want 17-1/2 fl. signs or pole signs, but wanted proportioned signs. She said she felt that it was an insult to have an applicant come forward and acknowledge the sign ordinanCe, yet request numerous exceptions because they felt they were doing the city a service by redeveloping a center. She said the right approach was to present signs that meet the rules with the desire to fit into the town and be a good neighbor, with the possible need for some exceptions. She said that she felt a pharmacy drive up window was reason for an extra sign. Com. Harris said that she felt the application should not have been presented in the format that it was and recommended that it be continued. She suggested that the center remove the old 40s and 50s style design poles, and write a plan for the entire site that meets the sign ordinance, considering the site as three parcels, with the possible need for one or two sign exceptions to be considered. Chair Doyle said he felt the proposal should be revised to meet the sign ordinance either as three parcels or one parcel. He concurred with Com. Hams that the application should not have been presented in its format with request for seven sign exceptions. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to continue Application 1-EXC-99 to the March 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, with thc stipulation that in thc spirit of cooperation, the applicant have the new proposal to staffby February 22, 1999. Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 Com. Harris requested, because of the late hour and the importance of the item, that the Annual General Plan Review be continued to the March 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Item 8, the Annual General Plan Review, to the March 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Steeens Passed 5 -0-0 Chair Doyle declared a recess fxom 9:35 p.m. to 9:55 p.m. Application No.(s): Apphcent: Location: 14-Z-98, 42-EA-98 First West Investment Inc. 20696 Fargo Drive To pre-zone a .23 acre to Pre-RI-10 Tentative City Council Hearing Date: March 1, 1999 Staff vresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to prezone an existing single- family residential property to Pre-RI-10. The applicant plans to demolish the existing home and build a new home. Staff recommends approval of the prezoning. A recommendation if reached will be forwarded to the City Council on March 1, 1999 for a final decision. Ms. Trieia Maier, planning Intern, referred to Exhibit A4 and briefly reviewed the item, as outlined in the staffrepon, and answered questions. Com. Stevens noted that the model resolution should reflect a correction to read that there is no right-of-way annexation. Planning Commission Minutes 9 Februa~ g, 1999 Thc applicant was not present. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 14-EA-98 Com. Con' Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 14-Z-98 Com. Corr Passed 5 -0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 15-EXC-98, 40-EA-98 David & Klm Gudmundson 22362 Regnart Road Hillside exception to demolish an existing residence, construct a new 6,500 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline, to exceed the allowed setbacks on the downhill elevation and exceed the maximum grading quantity of 2,500 cubic yards in accordance with Chapter 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff pr0sentafion: Thc video presentation reviewed the application to demolish the existing residence and construct a 6,500 sq. ft. home, requiting a hillside exception, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application, inchidin4 the hillside exception. A decision will be considered final and not forwarded to City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to a slide which illustrated the property relative to the surrounding lots. She discussed the footprint of the proposed building as well as the proposed emergency access road and its partial realignment. She referred to the various elevations and reviewed the proposed floor plans for the new residence as well as the proposed landscape plan. Ms. Wordell noted that several letters were received from neighbors who were in favor of the project; however, had concerns about drainage and the sewage system. Staffwas unable to respond to their concerns because the letters were received just prior to the meeting. Staff recommends that there be partial discussion about the architecture and site design, and continue the item, to allow staffto return with more information on the drainage, grading and sewage. In response to Com. Hams' question about the location of the new residence, Ms. Wordell reported that other areas were not suitable development areas because both sides of the ridgeline are steep slopes and there have been geological problems in other areas. Mr. Walter Chapman, designer, referred to the overlay of the existing residence with the proposed residence and noted that the proposed residence would be extended on both sides, making a longer structure, but not Increasing the height of the structure. He pointed out that a major portion of the building was integrated into the hillside, and that their approach to placement of the home was to minimize any grading of the actual ridgetop or the yard areas, extending the building footprint onto Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 8, 1999 what is already flat yard. He continued to discuss the design of the proposed residence, noting how the structure was set into the hillside. Mr. Chapman explained that 2,700 cu. yds. of grading was being done to bury the house into the hillside and to realign the emergency access mad which currently has a severe S curve. He said that there were also concerns about the safety of the access road because it cut through the front of the current residence and the homeowners have had narrow escapes from accidents on the road. He answered questions about grading, the emergency access road, and the visual impacts of the proposed residence. Mr. John Aldrich, landscape architect, said that the pine trees in the area of the proposed swim pool would be removed because they were diseased. He clarified that the 50 foot retaining wall served to make the road less steep, and also to sink the road, whereas the original road would have been more exposed. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Doyle summarized the issues: location on a prominent ridgeline; second story downhill setbacks; average is 4.8 not 7.5; second Stow extends over first story; grading quantity exceeds 2,500 cu. yds.; landscaping; and flat yard area. Com. Harris said that she felt it was a good project, designed with the land in mind. She said that the exceptions should be reduced; she did not object to the second story over the first story for the small triangle, but felt mitigation was necessary where the height was 19 instead of 15 and was visible from at least one point in the valley. She suggested the downhill setback should be closer to the standard half of what it should be; she did not object to the grading, noting that it was ingenious in terms of digging out the basement area. She said that she concurred with staff relative to additional landscaping. Com. Harris expressed concern about equity, and pointed out other hillside properties were not permitted more than 2,000 feet of flat area which translates to hard surfaces, not soft surfaces. She said she felt the 2,000 ft. was too low to give people enough usable space, but 17,000 was too high, and the applicant is building a retaining wall so they can have a sports court, when a neighbor couldn't come in for a new development with a sports court. She said there appeared to be an equity issue, and would prefer to see less flat yard area, even if they had to choose a swim pool rather than a sports court, and not build the 6 foot retaining wall which has to be screened from the valley side. Com. Harris said that she felt the house itself was exceptional. Com. Corr said he agreed on the additional landscaping; and felt comfortable with the flat yard area since the neighbors did not object to it. Com. Kwok said he liked the project because it would improve the visual aspect of the valley with the landscape. He expressed concern relative to adequate lighting going into the basement because of the proposed retaining wall. Mr. Chapman said that all of the habitable rooms that are shown daylighting out will meet the uniform building requirements for light and ventilation. Com. Kwok said he was interested in the neighbors' concerns and also the drainage and sewage issues. Com. Stevens said that the location on a prominent ridgeline was not a concern, nor was the second story extending over the first story a major concern; the 19 foot height was not a major concern because there was a window; the downhill setback of 4.8 was suitable; grading not a major concern as it involved moving around only; and additional landscaping if staff feels it is appropriate. He Planning Commission Minutes 1l February 8, 1999 said he was unsure of the meaning o£flat yard area; however, did not agree if it meant 15,600 sq. fl. or 17,000 sq. It. of concrete or covered area. Chair Doyle said that he wanted to see a dearer picture of what the project would look like relative to prominent ridgeline; setbacks should be maintained as called for; second story extension over the first one is suitable; height exception of 19 is suitable; grading quantities appropriate; expressed concern about which came first in the grading area, moving the road or the sports court; setback of the first floor a goof concept; drainage issues will be returned; need a better understanding of fiat yard area for next discussion; opposed to removal of pine trees unless no visual impacts as a result of their removal. Com. Hams commented that staff had not discussed the concern relative to the downhill setback issue, and the reflecfivity of the windows had not been discussed. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to continue Applications 15-EXC-98 and 40-EA~98 to the March 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Harris expressed concern about the environmental impact report reviews, completed by the applicant, indicating there were no negative impacts. She pointed out that the Planning Commissioners depended on the information in the report when making a decision on an application, and that it was important to have accurate information in the reports. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: There was a brief discussion of itmns contained in the Director of Community Development's report, wherein Mr. Cowan answered questions. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:29 p.m~ to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on February 22, 1999. Respectfiflly Submitted, Eli/~eth Ellis Recording Secretmy Approved as presented: February 22, 1999