Loading...
PC 09-13-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 77%3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Hams, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Plaaner II; Vera G-il, Planner H; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of the August 9, 1999 regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved approval of the August 9, 1999 Planning Commission me~dng minutes as presented Com. Corr Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairperson Doyle noted correspondence from the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce relative to Item 4. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No. (s): Applicant: 5-Z-99, 27-EA-99 Peter and Carmel Blake-Burke 21102 Tamarind Court To pm-zone a .26 acre parcel to pre-RI-10 Tentative City Council hearing date: October 4, 1999 Request removal from calendar Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 7-EXC-99, 22-EA-99 Brian O'Grady 10645 Cordova Road (Lot C) Hillside Exception to conslruct a new 3,199 square foot residence on an existing lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of ,4ugust 9, 1999 Request continuance to meeting of September 27, 1999 ?l~nning Commission Minutes ~ September 13, 1999 Application No. (s): Applicant: Locafon: 8-EXC-99, 23-EA-99 10645 Cordova Road (Lot A) Hillside Exception to construct a new 2,869 squme foot residence on an existing lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1999 Request continuance to meeting of September 27, 1999 Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 9-EXC-99, 24-EA-99 Brian O'Grady 10645 Cordova Road (Lot B) Hillside Exception to construct a new 3,133 squ~e foot residence on an existing lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Plannmg Commission meeting of August 9, 1999 Request continuance to meeting of September 27, 1999 13. Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-99, 17-EA-99 Evershine Group (Marketplace) 19750 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit to demolish an existing 9,464 square foot vacant rasm, mmt and construct two new eaymmereial builffmgs totaling 26,159 square feet. 14. Application No.(s): Applicant: 5-U-97 (14-EA-97, 4-Z~97) Hossain Khaziri 22020 Homestead Road (and Maxine) Use Permit to demolish a vacant service station and conslxuct 7 single-family residences To rezone a .96 acre parcel from Planned Development (general commercial) to Planned Development (residential) Request continuance o Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to remove Items 5 and 13 from the calendar Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Items 6, 7, 8, and 14 to the September 27, 1999 planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Passed 5 -0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 2 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 9-ASA-97 (M) Target Homestead Group 20956-A1 Homestead Road (Homestead Shopping Center) Commission Mmutas 3 Sapt~mber 13, 1999 Request to extend for one yom ~¢hitectural and site approval to expand a restm~mat by 310 sq. ft. AppFlcadon No.(s): AppFlCamt: Location: 13-ASA-99 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Y~e 11590 Upland Way Architectural review to add 270 square feet to ma existing 3,000 sq. ft. house in a planned development. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ,4. Com. Corr moved approval of Applications 9-ASA-97 (M) mad 13-ASA~99 of the Consent Calendar Com. Hams Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-77 (M) Mike Mmasch (Alotla's Deli) 10235 So. DeAnza Blvd. Director's referral to the Planning Commission of a minor modification to a use permit to allow a green building awning on an existing building Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff ~tafion: Tho video presentation reviewed the application to install a forest green building mounted awning on the building front of Alotta's Deli, and additional signage on the proposed awn'rog. Staff is concerned with the consistency of color within the center and suggests consistency of awn'rog color with those already in the center. Staff recommends either a modification of the applicant's ofi~nal proposal or denial of the apphcation. Mrs. Jomm Mansch, co-owner of Alotta's Deli, explained that the proposed forest green and white colors of the awning were the corporate colors. She expressed concern that, because the building was locaited back from the other buildings in the center, it was difficult to see from the street, and ~uplmsized that the green and white awning would make it more visible. She said that they wanted the business to be successful and felt flint the deli needad to be discernible from the other businesses in the center. Mrs, Mansch presented an artists's rendering of the center, Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Harris said that generally she would support staff recommendation to keep the colors consistent. However, because of the location of the building, it was not noticeable from the other buildings, and passers-by might lhink it was part of the Pe~co store; therefore, the corporate colors would distinguish the building. She noted that the green monument sign was acceptable with the red monument signs. Com. Hams said that she supported the green awning for the building. Com. Corr said ~ he supported the green awning because of the location of the build'rog set back from the other shops. Coms. Kwok, Stevens, and Chair Doyle concun~d, stating flint they supported the green awning. Com. Hams suggested word'mg change to the findings: Remove Items 1 and 2 of die second paragraph of the findings; change phrase to "would not conflict" and change "denial" to "approval". Plauning Commission Minutes 4 September 13, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com, Corr moved approval of Ai~plication 5-U-77(M) as emended Com. Hams Passed 5 -0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: 3-TM-99, 14-EA-99 Judy Caen 7359 Rainbow Drive Tentative map to subdivide 14,661sq. fl. foot parcel into seven lots for an approved townhouse development. Continued frora Planning Comratssion meeting of August 9, 1999 Tentative City Council meeting of September 20, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to subdivide a 14,661 square foot parcel into eight lots for townhouse development approved in 1998. Staff finds the tentative map request consistent ~ith the already approved use lxmnit; issues concerning site drainage and tree protection were resolved end conditions were drawn up during the use pemfit approval process, with the exception of the 19 inch deodora cedar, which the applicant is proposing to remove and replace with a 36 inch box tree. Details relative to drainage mad tree removal are outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application based on the conditions of approval; a recommendation to deny or approve the application will be fonvarded to City Council for a final decision. Ms. Veto Oil, Planner II, referred to the tentative map, and illustrated the location of the tree proposed for removal. The applicant was not present Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Kevin Wit% resident, said that although he preferred that the tree ,eanain, if it were replaced, it be replaced with an umbrella tree. He questioned the drawing used at a previous meeting illustrating one tree per lot, and asked staff if the conditions for dense iendscaping for tree permit approval had changed. Ms. CAI clarified that the drawing used was an old drawing, and noted that the applicant had the period of time until the building permit was issued to fulfil the conditions. She noted that a condition required sereen'mg in the ~xea to ensure privacy. Mr. Witt said he wanted to ensur~ that trees would be planted against the back wall. Mx. Sonny Lundin, 7363 Rainbow Drive, said he did not feel it was appropriate to remove the tree as it did not pose a danger or obstacle to the proposed building. He said he felt if the tree was diseased it would have fallen down prior to this date. He also said that he felt the proposed houses were too close to the property line, which was necessitating the removal of trees. Ms. Carolyn Franklin, a Sunnyvale resident, said that she was acquainted with Ms. Caen. She noted that she was able to apply without much fanfare for a tree removal pennit in Sunnyvale to have an enormous tree removed fi:om her yard. She said that she felt it was appropriate to have the tree moved to prevent the future owner fi:om dealing with problems with the neighbors if the tree had to be removed. Chair Doyle dosed the public input poCdon of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes $ September 13, 1999 Chair Doyle snmmarized the issues: Should the tree remain or be removed; what would it be replaced with; and when would it be r~aoved? Com. Harris questioned whether the issue was if the tree was ailing, or whether it was just inconvenient to build around. She noted that the report indicated tint ~he ~xee was inconvenient to build around, md there was also the issue of cutting off the branches from 18 feet above grade. Ms. CAI noted that the orJ~.~l usu permit application had an arborist's report stafin~ thru the tree was in poor health and should be removed although it was listed to remain. Com. Stevens said flint previously a compromise was reached that the tree was important for masking of the comer and to satisfy both neighbors. He said if the tree was ailing md presenting a danger, he would not be opposed to its ~'etaoval; however, the arborist's report speculated about its health. He said he preferred to wait until aider construction to d~termine the status of the tree, and that care should be taken dining constn~ction to save the tree. He said that it was a concession to the neighbors and it should not be set aside. Com. Kwok said it was dq~ndent on how the erborist's report was viewed; and if the tree was ailing mad dea~ of the tree was ~ljl~l~in~[t~ a new tree should be planted. Com. Corr said that it was previously agreed to save the tree, ~md he concurred with Com. Stevens that if there is a chance the tree would sunfire, they should wait to see if the tree survives. Com. Harris said that she felt they should try to keep the uee and if bonded, there be a 24 month require~ant for replacement if the tree should die. She said that the bond should not be released as soon as the building permit is signed of~ and the condition should state that if the tree is replaced, the replacement tree be a 36 inch box tree with a canopy for privacy. Chair Doyle said he felt an effort should be made to keep the tree. Ms. Gil said that thc condition did not stipulate a 24 month period, but a condition could be added to the resolution stating that there will be a 24 month period and at that lime they would come back to the Planning Commission at which time the Planning Commission could specify the type of replacement tree. Com. Hams suggested the following revision to Condition 3: "The bond and use permit shall not be released for 24 months after construction ts complete& staff shall approve the tree species prior to issuance; with an eye to providing a tree with an umbrella canopy." Com. Hams recommended that thc bond amount be a minimum o f $5,000 if it was not already stated. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to approve Application 14-EA-99 Com. Corr Com. Kwok Passed 4-1-0 Com. Kwok said that he felt the arborist was an expe~ and it was his recommendation to replace the ailin~ flee, which would result in a healthy tree within tWO years, rather than wait and have to replace a dying tree. Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 13, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 3-TM-99, according to the model resolution, including the amendment to Condition 3 for tree raplaceanent Corn, Con Com. Kwok Passed 4-1-0 I0. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 8-U-99, 21-EA-99 HOK Architects 20330 Torte Avenue (for Symantec Corporation) Use permit to construct a 1,750 sq. ft. addition (Learning Center) at an existing office building Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1999 Staff oresentati0n: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct a 1,750 square foot lenming center for Symantec Corporation. Two issues for disenssion include the additional expansion of the office building space m City Center and aesthetic considerations involving the site planning and architecture. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the drafted conditions of approval. A d~ision to approve or deny the application will be considered final, and not forwaxded to City Council unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Robert Cowan, Commun/ty Development Director, referred to the site plan, and cafeteria plan drawing and discussed the proposed expansion, as outlined in the attached staffreport. Mr. Rich Dowd, HOK Architects, discussed the proposed chang~ and the nced for additional square footage over and above what has been previously appwved. He mtd~ssed the location of the fountain issue and reported that they felt the current location was the most suitable, taking into consideration the ~ree replacement and the form of the ~-aitedum. He added that it maintained adequate opening between the fountain and the existing building to allow a clear path into the back entry of the binlding. Mr. Dawd explained that they would prefer to deal w/th the elinfination of the canopy from the ori~nal proposal as a separate issue at a later date, in order to allow ample time to study all entries and come up with a similar design that would work for all conditions. He added they concurred w/th staffin terms of not going with spandrel glass in favor of vision glass. Mr. Jeff BJrdwell, Sates/Regis Group, discussed whether Symantec would be willing to make the leminng center facility available to the public or non-profit groups. He said that it had been discussed internally and it was their position to ask that the Plaxming Commission not condition the applicant to provide that space as available for the public. However, Symantec would in reality consider and be open to the idea on a case-by-case basis to make the facility available to responsible non-profit groups or the city of Cupertino. He stated for the record that the contact would be the senior vice president John Sorci at Symantec. In response to Com. Corr's question about the availability of res~ooms for omside groups, Mr. Birdwell said that those details would have to be worked out, and th_at restrooms were inside the training area. He noted that Symantec currently maintained 24 hour security. He said that parking was available in the parking structure for City Center I ~md 1I beneath the apartments. Relative to the learning center being conditioned to public use, Mr. Birdwell explained that it was unprecedented for a private company to create a facility for themselves and have a condition placed upon them to require public access. He noted that c~ct~n corporations offer such a service, but he was not familiar with the condition being imposed by a public body or municipality on a private Planning Commission Minutes 7 Septe~mber 13, 1999 property owner. He reJcterated that Symantec was prelmred in good faith, on a case-by-case basis, to make it available, but he did not feel it was appropriate from a land use and conditioning standpoint to do that. Com. Hams pointed out that the facility was located in a part of thc city designed to serve both the private and pubF~¢ interests; and that Symantec was requesting a 2 to 1 FAR which was unprecedented in thc city. Mr. Birdwell said that the building would be ADA compliant if accessible to thc public. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Corr said that relative to looking at thc amenity space location, he considered that the proposed new piece of the structure would not be considered as an amenity, but would be an addition to the building; but the cafeteria would be considered ammfity space because if it was for couuaanity use, (although he did not support a condition stating they had to do that), and would generate ~ffic, even though it is considered community traffic. He said in terms of the amenity space, he would look at the cafeteria space, and this would be new space; after which he could support the concept of the project. Com. Hams said that it is conditioned in the propo to convert the 6,000 square feet to cafeteria which will be amenity space to allow it. She said there is a need to provide space for community use and felt a condition should he included for usage for a rainimam of four times per year by non- profit ~roups or city use. Mr. Cowan said there were no formal requirements included in Hewlett-Packard or Apple agreements; however, the ability of the city to request the use of thc space existed. Later in the meeting, following research, Mr. Cowan clarified that the basic conditions of approval for Apple did not include pubF~c access, but a letter agreement existed ~T~rding; I think there was another separate agreement Com. Stevens said he supported the addition; and stated that it was unique and would blend in with the city. Coms. Kwok and Corr said they supported the addition. Com. Hams said she supported the addition if it was tied to public access, for use approximately 4 times per year by non-profit groups or the city. Without the condition for public use, she said she would not support the application. Com. Doyle said he was opposed to the addition based on prior experience and movement of amenity space. He said they have attempted for some time to put boundaries on amenity space; however, have not adopted mvj. There was consensus that the design of the addition was appropriate, as well as the landscape Com. Hams said that thc architect's opinion on thc location of the fountain should be reviewed, and he should be present to explain his jushfleation. Later in the meeting, she said that she was not opposed to leaving the fountain as is. Com. Corr said that the architect should be more specific about his opinion of the fountain location. He said he was not opposed to its location. Com. Kwok said that the location of the fountain was suitable, and later said he also wanted to he~ the architect's opinion. Com. Stevens said he wanted clarification on what the architect wanted relative to the fountain, but he was not opposed to its location. Chair Doyle said that he felt the fountain should be moved to reflect the contour, and that it should be balanced. Planning Commission M'mutes g Sepi~u~x 13, 1999 Mr. Dawd said ~at he met with Lany Cannon relative to all the issues, including the location of the fountain. He discussed the rationale for the location of the fountain and answered questions. Ms. Wordell said that the architect's concern about the fountain was that it was m an awkward position, and a pedestrian using the courtyard would need to walk around the fountain in order to have access to the outside entrance. Relative to a condition calling for public access, Com. Stevens said that he did not feel it was necessmy to have a condition require public access. Com. Kwok concurred that a condition was not necessmy; however, said he agreed as long as Symantec was receptive to non-profit and city use four limes per year. Com. Corr said that he concurred also that it need not be a condition set forth, but hoped that Symantec would follow through on their promise to allow non-profit groups mul city use of the learning center. Com. Harris said that she would not approve without a wriRen condition, and that it should move with the land, as Symantec could be out of the building tomorrow; as they never moved in the De^nT~ Boulevard building. She reiterated that if it is not a condition, it is not a commilment. Com. Hams said that it would not be considered amenity space, and the only reason she would approve it is they are converting three times that much of an existing building that is not amenity space that is currently used space to what is agreed is ma amenity which is the cafeteria for existing employees. She said she felt having classroom available to the public 4 limes a year is worth the tradeoff. Chair Doyle said that they should have some level of commitment from Symantec or at least the building owner that this will be some public good. As a result of Mr. Cowan's research, Com. Harris read the contents of a letter bom Glen Barber of Apple to the city, which agreed R) an organizational commiUnent to have the facilities of the amphitheater and central courtyard as well as auditorium available to the public for events sponsored by the city 2 or 3 times a year, and for public events sponsored by the city manager during non-working hours In response to Com. Corr's question if the applicant would consider entering into a similar agreement, Mr, Birdwell said that he felt confident that Mr. Sorci of Synumtec would sign a similar letter, and would likely broaden it to say not just city sponsored events, but bonafide non-profit groups as well. He offered his personal co,v,~vfilment to have a letter from Symantec delivered to the city within two weeks. He requested a copy of the letter from Apple as a source of reference. MOTION: SECOND: Com. Hams moved to continue Application 8-U-99 and 21-EA-99 to the SqRember 27, 1999 planning Commission m~ng Com. Sirens Chair Doyle summarized that the Planning Commission was voting to continue the application pending receipt of a letter from the applicant stsling their proposed intentions for public access, and the smnmmy fi'om thc architect that he has reviewed thc changes and any input he submits. Mr. Birdwell expressed his concern about asking Mr. Sorci for a letter in the stone spirit if the public hearing was left open. He said that if the public hearing was left open, the possibility exists thai any number of issues might be raised, end they could find themselves in a position of continuing; as they have already released their working drawings for the project with the goal to complete construetion by December 31~. NOES: Com. Corr and Cha'~r Doyle _ VOTE: Passed 3-2-0 Planning Commission Minutes 9 Soptembex 13, 1999 11. Application No.: Applicent: Location: 11-EXC*99 Apple Computer 1 Infinite Loop, Bldg. 2 Height exception to exceed the allowed antenna beight in accordance with Chapter 19.108 of the Cupecdno Municipal Code Planning Commisslon decision final unless appealed Staff ~rc~,nltation: Mr. CoFm Jung, Associate Plunncr, reviewed the application for a beight exception to cxceed the allowed amvnnA height, as outlined in the attached staff raport. He explained that the Director originally approved a temporary use pea~mit, but following finaher review it was found that the aerial height exceeded the Director's authority for approval. He reviewed thc three findings to be made in order to grant the height cxceprion: (1) That the literal enforcement of the provisions of this title will result in mstriorions inennsistent with the spirit aead intent of this rifle; (2) That the granting of the exception will not result in a condition that will be detrimental or injurions to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not bc materially detrimental to the public h~tlih, safety, or welfare; and (3) That the exception to be granted will not result in a hAT~rdons condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. He pointed out that the applicent made a diligent effort to lower the aerial height to avoid applying for a height exception; however was unable to lower the height to have aa adequately functioning antenna at this loc, atiom The applicant was not present. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input;, there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Doyle s~mnmuized that there was an existing ordinance with criteria, with a threshold to be met. He noted that the concept of placement of antennas, their appearance and their functionality had been studied for quite some time, and the technical requirement always surfaces, when the aesthetics are being discussed. He said that if the technical is going to be the driver, a set of criteria needs to be established to make certain that the technical aspects are met. Following a thief discussion, there was consensus that it was dit~ficult to constructively discuss the application in the absence of technical expertise and the applicant. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 11-EXC-99 for 30 days Corn Hanis Passed 5-0-0 Chairperson Doyle declared a recess fi.om 9:10 to 9:25 p.m. 12. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 6-Z.99, 10-U-99, 28-EA-99 Steve Saray 20655 Cleo Avenue Rezone a 10,347 square foot parcel fi.om P(R3) to P(RES) Use permit to constnact two single-family dwellings (2,446 and 2,262 square feet) on a vacant 10,347 square foot lot. Tentative City Council hearing date of October 4, 1999 St~f presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to consmmt two s'mgle family dwellings on a vacant 10,347 sq. ii. parcel, and rezone the parcel fi.om P(R3) to P0~J~S), which Commission Minutes !1 Sq~t~ml~ 13, 1999 Com. Corr said that density and zoning were appropriate, and questioned whether a duplex on the site was considered, which would eliminate some of the problems. Relative to setbacks, he said that many problems had to be resolved, which may necessitate moving the building He said he felt sound mitigation should be included, and concuned that the architectural consultant was Com. Kwok said that density and zoning were appropriate; consideration of a duplex would avoid a separation between the second level; said he was opposed to setbacks; concern about the separation from Unit A and Unit B in the second floor building; he said he would like to see it put back that way so that they would allow a bigger separation between the buildings espedally in the second floor. Building placement was discussed, sound mitigation would only be addressed by antering the other design review; architectural consultant is appropriate. Com. Stevens said that density and zoning were suitable; duplex was an excellent idc0~ The floor plan for Unit B has 7 feet from the two unit residence which was stated is a balcony with a view toward the house; if looking at Unit B that wall is composed of dinin~ room, kitchen and family room at first level; looking at the second story, he said he did not perceive a privacy problem. He suggested that the architectural consultant look at Unit B; Unit A is designed for the 8 foot side yard, which is the dlnln$ room and living room wall. He added that when looking at the floor plans, see flint the privacy issue has been addressed, but just looking at definitions of setbacks, there could be a problem. Com. Stevens said that the architect was needed to solve problems. Relative to the sound mitigation, he said whatever is legal as he was not femiliar with the area. Building placement, relative to the floor plans is appropriate. Chair Doyle said that density was appropriate; zoning moving at PD likely the best way to get it into the envelope for development of these two units; two units appropriate. Setbacks are a challenge, with creativity shown; said that it is better to say Unit B are side yard setbacks and not front and back; Unit B may not have a true 20 or 25 foot setback in front; stated that 8 or 9 feet for a second story is very tight, end needs to be addressed. Chlfir Doyle said that a way to increase the 4 and $ foot area was needed. Sound mitigation needs more details to be well understood; privacy mitigation will be a big issue when item is returned. He suggested rotating the driveway on Unit A to provide more green in the front; rotate garage 90 degrees. Com. Harris questioned why the parcel was not divided into two parcels, and also questioned how the front unit could be sold if the parcel was not divided into two parcels. Mr. Satay explained that the prior applicant attempted to build one bulk building and the neighbors complained about the ms~s. He said he was merely aUempting to break it up and reduce the mass and to break up the buildings for a broken mass rather than a solid mass. He said the owner planned to occupy the rear unit and sell the front unit. Mr. Saray said he was not awme of the requirement for a tentative map prior to the discussion, but was willing to comply in order to divide the two parcels and construct Com. Hams said she prefen~d that there be two units rather than a duplex for two reasons. She said it makes it more economically viable to the owner; and if they ere all on one lot and not subdivided and is a duplex, rental housing is being cremed; however what is needed in Cup,mino is moderately priced for-sale housing. She said it would be PD RI. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to cominue Application 10-U-99, 6-Z-99, and 28-EA-99 to the October 25, 1999 Pl~nnin$ Commission meeting Com. Kwok Passed 5-O-O Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 13, 1999 reduce the allowed density on the parcel. Staff feels two single family homes on the parcel is an ~propriatc tnmsifion between Highway 85, single family homes on Cleo Avenue and thc higher density housing along Gardenside Lane, Staff is concerned with the 8 foot distanco between the second stories of the two units; typically the minimum distance between second story side yards is 20 feet. Staff is also concerned that the exterior accent rear.als do not complement the building design end sugg~ts that the city architectmal consultant be given an opportunity to offer input on design modifica6ons. Staff supports the rezonmg end development concept of the two single family units and requests that the Plmming Commission endors~ the concept; however, recommends that the Planning Commission continue the application to allow the architectural consultant to comment on the design end have the applicant modify the plans accordingly. Ms. Michellc Bjurman, Plmmer H, said that staff was concerned with the lack of compliance with the single f~nily regulations and have suggested that a decrease in the second story is a way to achieve that; as the configuration of the parcel itself makes the design of any homes on the lot difficult. She reposed that the proposed buildings are sensitively designed in relation to Highway 85 being pulled away because of the noise impact. She noted that a condition of approval about privacy protection which will help mitigate these di~ was ~. S~ff's primary concern is the relationship of the two story elements between umt A and Unit B; thus total compli~mce on this pmticular parcel may be difficult yat grenter compliance may be achieved &rough the decrease in the second story and/or through some design modifications that Larry Cannon may recommend. Mr. Steve Saray, applicant, reviewed the property configuration and concerns relative to setbacks. He said because of the property's odd configuration; consideration was given to the neighboring properties and breaking the m~s into small segments rather than one continuous massive building. Mr. Saray said that he was willing to work with the architect on material usage. He said he felt it was the best configuration for the lot. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Cecelia Attix, nearby property owner, said that although she liked the plan for the two houses and it was the most appropriate use of the odd shaped lot, she was concerned about the privacy impacts on her two-story duplex. She suggested a redesign of Unit B to face Cleo Avenue, Relative to the tree issue, she stated that the monterey pine species was not the most appropriate ~ee for a small back yard, and shared her experience with removal of monterey pine trees from her property. Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. Chsix Doyle s~m~marized the issues: zoning, density, 2 units, setbacks, lot placement, sound mitigation, architectoral consulV,nt, mad drainage issue. Com. Hams said that density and zoning werc suitable; 2 units appropriate; but she was opposed to the setbacks. She said she was opposed to the fi~ floor setbacks of 8 feet when 20 feet is the standard requirement. She suggested a redesign moving it away from the fence line. Com. Harris said that she was not opposed to Unit B bein~ 10 feet because it is 26 feet away from the abu, ln~ property. She said she concurred with staff that the second floor 8 foot setback is too close, and suggested that the second floor be moved slightly nor& or reduced, and setbacks increased. She said also that the building placement could be moved slightly on the lots. Com. Harris suggested the sound work be completed, with a report and suggestions for mitigation. Relative to the mchitectural consultant, she said to follow staff's recommendation and refer it. Plmming Commission Minutes 12 September 13, 1999 OLD BUSINESS 15. Set a public heating to prezonc St~lling Road fight of way. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, explained that the purpose of the item was to set a public hearing to create ma option, if the city were to take advantage of possible new legislalion whereby ~mincorporated islands less than 75 acres in size could be mmexed, it would create that oplion by annexing that s~-tion of StellinE Road, thus gte.,ofinE tWO isllllld$1~ than 75 acres in size in the Garden Gate erea. The prezoning allows for that ann~xation at the oplion of City Council. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to set a public h~-ing for October 25, 1999 to pre'zone Stelling Road right of way. Com. Kwok Com. Hams Passed 4-1-0 Com. Harris said she didn't think they should do it at all because she felt it subverted the intent of the law. NEW BUSINESS Com. Harris discussed the Whistle Stop Housing Tour scheduled for October 1, 1999. Com. Harris also discussed the possibility of scheduling a tour ofinfill pockets befure the Septemb~ 27t~ Plsminn$ Commission meeting. There was consensus that the tour be scheduled for Saturday, September 25, 1999. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COM3dlSSION Com. Corr reported on recent Housing Committee meetings. He reported that the issue of affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities was brought forth by the public. He also briefly discussed the Compuc Computer site and creek development. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Cowan reported that the CiW Council approved the tree ordinanCe with the exception of redwoods ~md peppers; and that security gates must go to the Planning Commission as an exception. He noted that the City Council felt gates ate not necessary in Cupertino because it is a safe community end gates create a negative image. Mr. Cowan reported that a new Planner I was hired, effective September 27t~. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to a special tour on September 25, 1999. Recording Secretmy Approved as presented: September 27, 1999