Loading...
PC 06-14-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408)77%3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 14, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Kwok, Stevens, Chaixperson Doyle Commissioners absent: Harris Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, Colin Jung, Associate Planner City; Tficia Maier, Planning Intern; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 24, 1999 regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve the minutes of May 24, 1999 Planning Commission me~dng as presented Com. Kwok Com. Hams Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Doyle noted receipt of correspondence fi-om the Public Health Institute; a newspaper article from the .San Francisco Chronicle, and Mr. Chieh's written objectives relative to Item 3. POSTPONEMENTSfREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 5-ASA-99 Ayub Khan 20655 Cleo Avenue Architectural review for a 3-unit, approx. 4,500 sq. fi. apartment building on a 9,300 sq. fi. lot Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 1999 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 4-TM-99, 4-Z-99, 13-EA-99 Pm Brothers 7816 Festival Drive Tentative map to sub&vide a 1.96 acre parcel Into eight lots. To re-zone a 1.96 acre parcel from Pre-A to Pre-RI-6 Tentative City Council hearingdate July 15, 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 14, 1999 Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 3-TM-99, 14-EA-99 Judy Chen 7359 Rainbow Drive Tentative map to subdivide a 14.661 square foot lot into seven lots for an approved townhouse development. Tentative City Council hearing date June 21, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Con' moved to continue Items 5 and 9 to the June 28, 1999 meeting, and Item 7 to the July 12, 1999 meeting, Com. Stevens Com. Hanis Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Com. Kwok requested that Item 2 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 7-ASA-99 RWC, LLC (Grosvenor International) 1-5 Results Way Architectural and site review to modify the entry landscaping at an existing industrial complex. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed There was a brief discnssion reg~ding the size of the oleander trees. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve the Consent Calendar Com. Corr Com. Hams Passed 4-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 4-ASA-99 Erh-Kong & Ding-Wei Chieh 10333 Degas Court Architectural and Site approval to allow the construction of a 978 square foot first & second story addition to an existing one-story duplex. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Contmued from May 10, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for reconsideration to construct a first and second story addition to an existing one-story duplex. A permit was erroneously issued to begin eonsmmtion although the application had not gone through the architectural and site Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 14, 1999 approval procedure frrst. The)ncorrectly issued p,,mlt and construction of thc addition triggered opposition from several of the applicant's surrounding neighbors, who are concerned about massiveness of the addition and privacy mitigation. The city attorney has advised the Planning Commission to allow for the second story addition unless it is concluded that the applicant cannot mitigate both privacy and design issues. The applicant has prepared a revised proposal in an attempt to address the privacy mitigation and design issues, and is in compliance with all duplex setback measurements. Proposed changes include switching the master bedroom/bath; replacing a gable roof plan with a hip roof; offsetting the west side wails to comply with the revised setback requirements and provide additional offset distance; and changing the roof element over the stairwell to minimize the wall height. As a result of two meetings with the adjacent neighbors, the Chiehs prepared study sketches describing possible development options. The applicant wishes to add to the primary unit to take advantage of a rear yard aiong with partiai use of the proposed front courtyard, whereas the neighbors wish to shift the second story space as far from their dwellings as possible. Staff recommends approvai of the application; a decision if reached will be considered final and not forwarded to the City Council, unless a~ appeai is filed within 14 caiendar days. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, provided a snmmary of the application and reviewed the findings and tentative position of the planning Commission, as outlined in the attached staff report. He referred to various drawings and overlays of the original elevations and proposed elevations and explained the applicant's proposed changes. Mr. Cowan discussed Table 2, Development/Design Comparison of Proposed Chieh Duplex Addition and R-1 Standards, noting the problem area in terms of applying the R-1 standard of the second story setback, side yards. Relative to the stairwell, he noted that the requirement prior to June 3~a was 15 feet; however, it did not comply with the new requirements of 12 feet. He said that the proposed application meets the R-2 ordinance, and most of the requirements for R-I. Mr. Cowan reviewed sketches la, lb, 3a, 3b and 3c provided by the applicant at the request of the neighbors, which ilhislxated various options for the building expausion. He stated that staff felt the applicant had taken great strides to comply with the planning Commission's directions, and said the design changes provide privacy protection and tend to reduce the scale of the building. Mr. E. Chieh, property owner, explained the objectives of the proposed application: (1) Addition of 2 bethooms, 1 bath, 1 family room to meet the needs of his family to acco~inuodate 2 children and in-laws; (2) Minimize the disturbance of Unir B; (3) Control ennsnmetiun costs by using some of the former layout and structures; (4) Maintain the integrity of the duplex, Mr. Chieh reviewed the solutions/responses to Planning Commissioners' concerns, which were outlined in his handout. (1) Switched sides of the master bedroom and bathroom to improve the privacy protection; (2) Met all setback requirements; (3) Met the 50%, 2~ story to 1't story ratio; (4) Met the 50%, 4 ft. offset and reduced wall height on 2°a story; (5) Changed the roof structure designs to reduce the overall visual mxqs; building height reduced by 2 feet; roof design changed from gable style to hip style; (6) Sloped ceiling of the stairwell to further reduce the visual mass; (7) Change the window style on south side as requested by neighbors; (8) Reduced window size on stairwell and changed the window style on the master bedroom; (9) Used obscure materiai for bathroom windows, stairwell window, and bedroom windows; and (10) Received a copy of the owner's certificate from Santa Clara County showing that there is no wire clearance issue arising from planting trees next to the fence. Mr. Chieh discussed the aitematives suggested by neighbors, which he said did not meet his objectives: (1) Build a one story addition in the courtyard areas; (2) Consolidate Unit A and B as one umt; create a new second story Unit B over the garage and the old Unit B; and (3) Move Planning Commission Minutes 4 Jane 14, 1999 parents to existing Unit A and build 'a larger dwelling out of Unit B and a new second story addition over the garage and a pOrtion of Unit B. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Owen Byrd, representing Henry and Nancy Adelman, said that they continue to oppose the Chieh's application and request that it be denied for the following reasons: The impacts of the two story proposal have not been fully mitigated; the modest changes made since last presented, do not adequately address the privacy impacts of this design on the surrounding neighbors, nor the incompatibility of the design with the neighborhood. He said that the Planning Commission could deny the second story addition on the property, if it is determined that the design review findings cannot be made. He said that the Adeimans submit that the unique characteristics of this property, particularly its flag lot configuration and the design of the surrounding single story residences, can prevent the Commission from making the required findings for any second story addition on the property. He reviewed the required findings from the code and noted the privacy inlrasion on the Adelmans from the bathroom if the bedroom/hath were switched as proposed. He said they were opposed to anyone invading their privacy from the adjacent home. Mr. Byrd said that the apphcants elected not to follow the Commission's direction to cite privacy landscaping closer to the building. He said that it is true that the strip of land closer to the property line is at a higher elevation than the land closer to the Chieh's building; but the PG&E requirement that the landscaping in that zone be kept pruned to a 15 foot height will effectively prevent the landscaping from having significant screening value for the Adelemans. He said that the proposed project proposes an abrupt change in building scale and would result in an abrupt transition in height and bulk; the hipped roof does not mitigate this impact because the impact is a function of the overall height which has been stepped down only I foot 10 inches. The issue is not just the shape of the roof; the building itself remains twice as tall as the surroanding residences. He said that the location and height of walls do not harmonize with the adjacent development; the revised second story setbacks do not mitigate this impact. He illustrated photos of the three other second story duplexes in the neighborhood which have much greater second story setbacks. He said that the fourth finding was that the new project in an existing residential neighborhood is not designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrnsive impacts. The proposed project contains substantially more bedrooms and baths than any other duplex in the neighborhood. He pointed out that the Chieh's home would total 2375 square feet, while the other two story duplexes were only t400 to 1600 square feet, and had 6 windows facing neighbors' yards, while the neighbors' had none. He said that the proposal was a much more intense project on the only flag lot in the subdivision, and was not compatible with the neighborhood. He said that beyond the findings, the specific findings enumerated in the code, the revised R-I standards have not been fully met; the Commission directed the project comply with the new R-1 ordinance; and of all those provisions, the second story side yard setback requirement has not been met, yet it would appear to be one of the most significant for this project, given the intensity of its privacy impacts. As the staff report concedes, this project provides a combined second story side yard setbacks of 36-1/2 feet, but the new ordinance requires 45 feet. hi addition the proposed stairwell wall does not comply with the setback requirements of the new R-1 ordinance. Relative to the option of a single story addition, Mr. Byrd said that the Adelmans submit that the variance findings could be made and they would support the variance request if made by the Chiehs, specifically because the flag lot presents exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that do not apply to other properties in the dislrict; the variance would prevent unreasonable loss or hardship for the applicant and would not be detrimental or injurious to properly in the vicinity. He showed a photo of the construction from the Adelman's window and asked the Commission to consider if they would Planning Commission Minutes $ June 14, 1999 want to live with the permanent unmitigatible impacts of the proposed project, or would they want the city officials to apply~the findings and deny the project to protect residents from those impacts. Mr. Emil Kolev, 10344 El Prado Way, also speaking on behalf of his wife Anita, said that the addition would be built in an area where three of the neighbors oppose it. He referred to an overhead of comparisen of two story duplexes, and noted that there were no other similar duplexes with as many rooms and floor area. He pointed out that the Chieh's residence was adjacent to six neighbors, whereas the other two story duplexes only had two. He noted that the other two story duplexes were probably built to accommodate the size of the lot, and were all the same square footage. Based on the comparison, he said he felt that no second story addition should be built as proposed. Mr. Kolev said that the findings of the code could not be met with the proposed addition; his property value would decrease; if the addition is built, his fomily would bear en unfair high property tax based on an unrealistic price they paid for the house. He said he was not aware of the proposed addition when he purchased his home, and if the addition is approved, he may seek legal ways to recover his losses. He said he felt the change in building scale of the proposed addition was too abrupt. He said the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should taamonlze with adjacent development, location, height, and materials of wails, fencings, hedges, and screen planting. He said the item is more achievable although they would prefer walls of lower height; there is no viable solution for proper landscaping at this time as the applicant does not want to plant any trees near the house, and in his opinion the bank near the fenceline will not support any good vegetation because it is too narrow and too weak. He said new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects. Mr. Kolev said that even with the proposed changes, his privacy and light are still effected and the noise and traffic will increase due to the close proximity of the addition and the number of people living in the home. He said that based on the above findings, his family recommends denial of the proposal and given a continuation he would propose to the applicants to explore the following ideas: first utilize to a maximum degree the court area between the two units of their duplex, and if the area in the courtyard is not ~fficient, the necessary additional space can be built over the garage or Unit B of the duplex, but only at~er the first floor has been fully utilized. Ms. Cheryl Besemer, 22783 Voss Avenue, said that she agreed that the privacy issues were of concern on the proposed addition. She said she appreciated the Chieh's efforts in addressing the neighbors' concerns, but felt that the roof style of the second story could be further mitigated to lower the overall height of the building and set back the peak of the building for a visual appearance of less bulk. Relative to planting trees against the fenceline, she suggested they be planted closer to the house to eliminate the branches and wire problem and allow the neighbors as much space as possible. She said she felt that a flag lot was the least appropriate for a second story addition in an existing one story residential area. Mr. Mark [schia, 10315a El Prado Way, said that the new addition on the Chich's home obsmmts the view the residents had, and trees would not alleviate the problem. He said he felt allowing such a large home in the midst of the commllulty was uot appropriate. He noted that he was not previously aware that there was a two story duplex on the comer until it was pointed out to him, which illustrated that if in the right location, it would not be intrusive on the neighbors' privacy. Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. Mr. Chieh thanked the speakers for their input. He noted the growth in population of Cupertino over the past thirty years, and point,d out that duplexes were established in the area for Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 14, 1999 medium/low density multi-family houging. He said that he attempted to meet as many of the guidelines as possible, adhered to the rules and tried m meet all the suggestions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Chieh said that he was hopeful that his efforts would be recognized and a reasonable and fair decision reached. In response to Com. Kwok's question about location of the trees, Mr. Chieh said that he would prefer they be located closer to thc fence for privacy mitigation, and noted that if too close to the house, they could damage the structure. Mr. David Perng, architect, briefly discussed the tree plantings for privacy mitigation. Com. Stevens said that duplexes were two homes on the same lot that an R-1 would be on; the FAR of an R-I is usually much smaller initially than what is found in a duplex, and therefore that is thc 40°/$ nde; in effect what the duplex R-2 is for is to allow expansion initially upon building a building for larger space and more bedrooms. He said the flag lot is a major problem because of the amount of people living around it. He smd he felt thc proposal resubmitted with thc bedroom switched, privacy mitigation issue of windows has been addressed; the front windows look over thc applicant's courtyard and own garage which is not a privacy problem; tree planting closer to the house would inilially be better because of the cone of vision. Com. Stevens smd thai he felt the architectural review has been met, end it was explained by the assistant city attorney that denial could not be based on two story alone. Com, Corr smd that the applicant attempted to address all concerns; and the one area where a discrepancy existed even though they were asked to look at the R-l, the R-I really doean't apply. They were able to get very close with the exception of the 14-1/2 feet at the stairwell which would have met the former R-1 but is short of making the new one. Given that, it met all the other R-ls. He smd that he agreed that planting the trees closer to the house was more suitable. He said reversing the bedrooms to the east met with their requirement. Although nothing was submitted relative to color and materials, he said he felt they met their obligations. Com. Kwok said he was eo~zemed-wl~a~ satisfied that the privacy control measures had been met. He smd the applicant met the guidelines and directions given at the last meeting, and based on that could not deny the construction of the second stow addition. Chair Doyle said he had hoped that the commullity and applicant would come together with a compromise that would meet everyone's requirements, but they had not reached that point yet. He said it was the role of the Planning Commission in such cases to define the gray are'& He said he felt the colors and materials should be consistent with the existing residences to blend in as closely as possible; composite roofs were discussed and the others are shake roofs, which could be an issue. He said the issue was to try to mitigate the impacts of the property on the neighbors; the mitigation should be the responsibility of the applicant not the people impacted with it. He said he felt the issue of one story vs. two story would become the biggest planning difficulty for the next five years, and as such, setting a precedent in these areas is difficult and would cause it to be revisited many times. He noted as a general nde, it should be a requirement that the second story units be hidden. Chair Doyle commended the applicant on the work completed, but smd there was still a lot to do yet, and that he could not support the proposal in its present state. Com. Stevens clarified that he would like to have it lower, and have the smacture hidden similar to those on John Way. He said he still had a reservation about the flag lot. Com. Corr said that he suppr~ed the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes 7 Jane 14, 1999 Chair Doyle said that he was not certain if the design flexibility given to this type of development has been pushed m that direction far enough yet. He said it might be possible to take and potentially split the difference between the upstairs space and the courtyard, ~ad shift everything in that direction to reduce the mitigation by a certain amount. Also attempt to get the roofline down four to five feet to about the 21 foot level. A discussion ensued regarding potential options, wherein Mr. Perng answered questions. Com. Stevens said that because there were no solid guidelines, and the applicant met the requirements and did a very good job of it, with the caveat of having the trees closer to the house, he supported approval of the proposal. Chair Doyle expressed concern that it would be setting a precedent to have a detailed design review for each sto~y. He said that if a more definitive set of guidelines was set that indicated no impacts on the neighbors, it would have to be mitigated on the site with the intent that the second sto~y would not be viewable from offthe property. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 4-ASA-99 with the proposed conditions in the model resolution Com. Kwok Com. Haxfis Chair Doyle Passed 3-1-0 Chair Doyle declared a recess from 9:00 to 9:10 p.m. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 6-ASA-99 Harold Ghazvini 10061 Pasadena Venue Architectural review of modifications to an approved use permit for a new 4,059 square foot mixed use office/commercial/residential building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for architectural review of modifications to an approved use permit for a 4059 sq. ft. mixed use building as outlined in the attached staff report. A use permit was granted in November 1998; however, inaccaracies in the architect's site plan were discovered and require site plan changes, architectural changes, and landscaping changes. Staff recommends approval of the application on the condition that two of the palm trees be retained and the window design features proposed for the south elevation be made of spandrel glass rather than painted on to create the illusion of a window. A decision if reached will be considered final and not forwarded to the City Council, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan, and noted the proposed changes including larger setback on the south of the left side, consolidating the front entry, and narrower landscape strip and setback on the north, and interior stairwell. She also poimed out the design changes, including the dormers, center entry, new window treatment and rendering perspective of the building. Staff recommends that the centgr palm tree be removed. Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 14, 1999 There was a brief discussion regarding the previous presentation of the application in 1998. Mr. Mark Snow, a~chitect, said that the palm trees were incorrectly shown on the drawings, and noted that in the original submittal it was requested that all three palm trees be removed. He said that the main reason for the redesign was to rectify the property line setback issue; architectural changes were made to alleviate potential long term maintenance issues; and the entry features were modified to clearly define the entrance way and to more closely reflect the neighborhood. He referred to the overlays which illustrated the modifications to the footprint of the buildings, which increased the setbacks and reduced the footprint. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Corr said that he felt the redesign was an improvement of the original proposal, the architectural features were appropriate; however, he was uncemin of the landscaping plan. Ms. Wordell clarified that the landscaping plan included shrubs and ground cover. Com. Kwok said that the setbacks were appropriate; however, he was concerned also about the landscape plan. Mr. Snow said that the applicant was uncomfortable with the proximity of the palm trees. Later in the meeting, Com. Kwok said he felt it was appropriate to keep 2 palm trees. Com. Stevens said that the setbacks were appropriate; the changes to the front enlrance were suitable; however, he said that many architectural features that made the building interesting were removed. He said he preferred the spandrel glass to the painted glass; noted that it was a two way driveway and caution should be exercised. He said that because it is the Monta Vista area with a unique standard of its own, he concurred with staff's recommendation. Although palm trees were not a favorite of his, he said that in order to maintain continuity, two palm trees should remain. Chair Doyle said that relative to setbacks, they should try to maintain the 4 feet on the other side, and narrow the building by 2-1/2 feet instead of moving evetTthing over. He said the offsets should be kept so that there would be some articulation on the sidewall, othenvise there would be a large flat plane except for the one window protxuding. He said he felt the palm txees should be saved and moved. Chair Doyle said he felt original building size should be maintained; and that their error should not give them extra benefit. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 6-ASAA99 with the following conditions: the north wall to include a window popout; keep all 6 window popouts; retention of 2 palm trees Com. Con' Com. Hams Chair Doyle Passed 3-1-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: 5-EXC-99 J & T Corporation dba Cal-Nenn (Armadillo Willy's) 10100 DeAnza Blvd. Planning comrmssion Minutes 9 June 14, 1999 Sign ex~ception to construct a monument sign at an existing restaurant site. Planning Commission deciston final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a sign exception to allow a monument sign ia addition to two existing wall signs for the Armadillo Willy's restaurant. Staff feels an additional sign is warranted at this particular location, and recommends approval of the application. However, staff feels the red and yellow banner sign stating "Real Texas BBQ" is too bright and should be toned down or painted to matcli the brick red of the existing building. The applicant maintains that the colors are integral to the corporate logo and requests to keep the colors as proposed. A decision if reached will be considered final and not be forwarded to City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Tx/cia Maier, Planning Intern, reviewed the application and illustrated the location of the proposed signs. She said that staffreoommended approval of the application, subject to the color change in the wall banner. Craig, of Cal Neon Signs, said that he had worked with Armadillo Willy's on the sign and was willing to work with staff on the muted gold color for the banner sign. Mr. Cowan referred to the site plan, and explained that he had negotiated with the applicant ia an aftempt to adopt the streetscape standards for DeAnza Boulevard, including shifting the sidewalks, planting the regular ash trees, which would ia time block visual access to for the landscape plan. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Doyle snmmarized that the issues were approval of the sign, and whether or not to approve the colors for the wall banner; and should the applicant have to give up a wall sign for approval of the monument sign? He noted that it was past practice to adhere to the sign ordinance and not allow an extra wall sign. Com. Stevens said that he felt a monument sign would be more appropriate and he concurred with staff's recommendation that the colors of the wall banner be muted. He said that he felt the wall sign should meet the standard or be removed. Com. Kwok said that the colors of the wall banner should be toned down, and if a back sign was desired, the applicant would have to forfeit one sign. Com. Corr said he supported the monument sign, and expressed concern that there was no visible sign on Stevens Creek Boulevard. He concurred that the sign on the south side should be eliminated ia favor of the monument sign. Chair Doyle said he was in favor of the monument sign, removal of the wall banner, and removal of one of the wall signs, which is ia keeping with the sign ordinance. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of Application 5-EXC~99 with the amendment that there be only one painted wall sign, removal of one sign, and the color of the red and yellow "Real Texas BBQ" sign be changed to gold and white lettering Com. Kwok Com. Hams Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 14, 1999 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 4-EXC-99, 12-EA-99 Charles Williams 22770 Mercedes Road Hillside exception for a 400 square foot addition to an existing residence on a prominent ridgeline. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a hillside exception for a 400 square foot addition to the existing residence, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff feels that the addition will not create a significant visual impact and l~x:ommends approval of the application. A decision if reached will be considered final and not forwarded to City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Wordell referred to the elevations and illustrated the proposed addition. She said that because visibility is so limited and broken up by a deck, there are not significant visual impacts. She circulated photos of the residence from various vantage points. Mr. C. Williams, applicant, said that he reviewed the environmental evaluation checklist with staff and fully understood its contents. He pointed out that he attempted to take photos of the house from a variety of vantage points to illustrate that it had very little visual impact from the valley floor. He explained the need for the addition to the home, which would result in making the home a 3200 square foot home on .4 acre. He noted that because the home was located at the base of a prominent ridgeline, great care was taken to reduce the visual impact of the modest addition. Mr. Williams said that the proposed modification to the home preserves the hillside comrmmity, and does not impact the view of the hillsides from the valley floor, and requested consideration of the application. He indicated that he had formally notified the neighbors of the proposed addition, as well as spoken to them of his plans and they were not opposed to the addition. Mr. Williams answered questions relative to the construction of the addition. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that the proposed addition did not have significant visual impacts. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Corn, Stevens recommended approval of the negative declaration on Application 12-EA-99 as presented by staff Com. Corr Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens recommended approval of Application 4-EXC-99 per the model resolution Com. Corr Com. Harris Passed 44)-0 I0. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: Amendment to Chapter 1980, Accessoxy Buildings/Smactures City of Cupertino Citywide Planning Commission Minutes 11 Jane 14, 1999 Amendment to change the review for second story decks from the Planning Commission to the Residential Design Review Committee Tentative City Council hearing date of July 6, 1999 Staffpresentation: Ms. Wordell explained that the purpose of the item was to change the review of second story decks from the Planning Commission to the Residential Design Review Committee. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Com. Corr moved approval of the Amendment to Chapter 1980, Accessory Building/Stmctm-cs Com. Kwok Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan noted that the Design Review Subcommittee meeting time would be changed to 5:45 p.m. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPP]~NGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on June 28, 1999. Approved as amended: June 28, 1999 Recording Secretary