Loading...
PC 02-24-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupefllno, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 24, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Roberts, Chairperson Harris Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Vera G'fl, Planner II, Tom Wiles, Planning Intern; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Charles Kilian, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 27, 1997 Regular Meeting Minutes of the February 10, 1997 Regular Meeting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the January 27, 1997 and February 10, 1997 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Hah'is noted receipt of iaformation on the Silicon Valley Prevention State of the South Bay Symposium, March 21, 1997; receipt of fax related to the implementation of the West Valley Hillside Preservations sWatogies; and a letter from Edmond Lneas. POsTpONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None Chair Hams stated that there would be an additional opportunity for Planning Commissioners to provide input on an item following the initial discussion. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: I-ASA-97 Bruce Hill 18880 Homestead Road PinnninE Commission Minutes 2 February 24, 1997 Architectural and Site Approval for landscaping and minor site plan changes on an existing office/industrial site. ENVIRO~AL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Consent Calendar Com. Roberts Passed 5-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Location: 2-ASA-97 Illuminart Signs (Don Deluze) 10745 N. DeAnza Boulevard ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff oresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the replacement of the monument sign at the former location of the Sports City Cafe, now the Santa Barbara Grill on 10745 N. DeAnza Boulevard. The proposed sign includes three aluminum palm trees as decorative features atop the sign, which exceed the maximum 8 foot height allowed for monument signs by 2-1/2 feet. Staff recommends denial of the application, suggesting that the decorative palm trees be removed or shortened to comply with the height limitations and that the overall sign area be shortened to comply with the sign ordinance. Approval or denial of the application by the Planning Commission will be considered the City's final decision and will not be forwarded to the City Council unless appealed. Mr. Tom Wiles, Planning Intern, referred to the renderings of the proposed sign which illustrated the illumination by external floodlights, and the palm trees which he indicated were the main reason for denial as they were at least 2 feet over the sign height limitations. He pointed out that the sign area which included mucli of the base also exceeded the 42.4 square foot limit. Mr. Steve Weber, Manager of Santa Barbara Grill, said he felt it was impommt to improve the image of the restaurant in the area, noting the difficult access to the restaurant. He said that as Manager of the restaurant he was responsible for the food and beverage of the location but because of the difficult visibility of the restaurant he was at a disadvantage to er~te an improved image of the restaurant and have a fair opportunity in the restaurant market in the community. Mr. Weber noted that the palm trees were an integral part of the design and the reimaging of the entire restaurant, and were inehided in the design of the restaurant logo. He explained that his request for an exception to the sign ordinance was due to the unique site of the restaurant which had no vehicle access from the main street, and the height of the sign was necessary so that it would be visible to the north bound waffle. Referring to the drawing of the proposed sign, Mr. Weber illustrated the proposed changes to be marie to the existing Sports City Cafe sign. He requested consideration of the exception to the sign ordinance in support of his business efforts in Cupertino. He said he had the utmost respect for the ambiance of the neighborhood and the community and felt the sign would lend to it, not take away from it. In response to Com. Austin's question about the color scheme, Mr. Weber said that the color scheme and the reimaging and theme of the restaurant were a result of working elnsely with a graphic artist and Planning Comm/ssion Minutes 3 February 24, 1997 a designer. He pointed out that the color scheme was used throughout the restaurant, in the menus and a variety of other areas. He answered questions relative to the use of the colors throughout the restaurant and the sigaaga. Chair Harris opened the meeting for the public input. Mr. Don Deluze, Illuminart Signs, explained use oftha colors on the various materials. Mr. Weber clarified that be was working dih'gcnfly to reimage the negative perception of the former Sports City Cafe, which included reimaging thc caltire restaurant via the images they are creating for people to get them to patronize the establishment. He said thc process included a positive visual image, good food and beverage, ami good service. In response to Chair Harris' comment that thc drawing shown did not depict what was actually at the location, Mr. Weber clarified that the base of the sign was two-tiered, and constructed of wood. He said that the proposal was to use the same base. Mr. Jim Walker, 11660 Regnart Canyon Drive, Cupertino, said that he was an investor in the business venture. He said that although thc restaurant was at an excellent location in Cupertino, thc access was very difl3¢ult. He cited a recent example of hosting a luncheon at the restaurant and the guests having a difficult time finding it. He requested that exception to the sign ordinance be granted to give the cstablishmcnt some consideration to allow the business to operate in a very difficult area. He pointed out the importance of the sign to thc particular establishment because of its access. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. Chair Harris summarized that the issues of concern were: size of the sign, colors, base, and the palm trees. Mr. Wiles clarified thc calculations of the measurements of the proposed sign. He said that the height of the existing Sports City sign was 8 feet, and the width was the same as the Santa Barbara Grill sign, approximately 9 to 10 feet. He explained the need for northbound traffic to proceed on DeAnza Boulevard past the access to Highway 280, and make U-turn and go back to Valley Green Drive as there was no direct access to Valley Green drive traveling northbound. He said that the sign would attract traffic driving north on DeAnza, however the sign did not indicate a U-turn north of Highway 280 was necessaxy to access the restaurant. Com. Austin said she liked the palm trees on the sign; the sign was appropriate; and th~ color samples, preferably the flat finish, were appropriate. She said that the site was not directly visible, and unless a resident of Cupertino, might be .nawaro of the restaurant location. She stated that the sign n~eded to be catchy to attract patrons during the day and the illumination of the sign at night would help attract people to the restaurant. Sbe suggested a directional sign on thc base of the sign to direct patrons to thc access to thc restaurant. Com. Austin pointed out that an exception to the sign ordinance would be a worthy decision for the particular restaurant because of its location and non-access bom the main street, Com. Doyle said that thc purple and yellow colors should be more muted, not high gloss, high rcflectivity, with some way to tone them down. He said he felt thc sign should remain in thc existing Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 24, 1997 sign envelope, with proportionally the same size as the exi~ing sign, for which them was already a sign exception granted. Com. Mahoney agreed that the colors should be muted, and stated that the sign should remain in the same envelope as the existing sign. He said the proposed sign appeared to be larger than the existing sign, and suggested that a drawing consisting of a comparison of the two signs would have been helpful. Com. Roberts said he felt the palm trees would stand out more than the drawing illusUated and he felt it was not an appropriate sign. He said the proportions were not suitable and he did not like the idea of the excessive height; the drawings were not a good representation of the proposal; and he was opposed to the proposed sign. He said he would be willin~ to accept the ex~ssive area if it did not exceed the height limitation, which could be redone by redesj~ning tho sign in such a way that the palm trees were offto the side and not b~'nnin~ on tho top of the sign. He said he did not like the colors submitted, but that lavender and rust would be more appropriate. Com. Doyle said he was opposed to the concept. Chair Harris said that thc access of the site was a serious problem and patrons were not attracted to the ~tanmut because thc cars in the parking lot of the restaarant were not visible, and a sign regardless of size would not rectify that. She said she was not in favor of a sign which included a directional sign because it was not tasteful or appropriate for Cupertino. Chair Harris said the flat purple color was acceptable, but she was opposed to the glaring yellow and orange. Referring to thc logo on thc materials used inside the restaurant, she compared the drawings of the palm trees to the garish trees on the outside sign. She said that the illustrations of the palm trees used on the items used inside the restaurant were tasteful, but the palm trees on the outside sign were garish and not acceptable. Chair Harris suggested that the applicant return with a revised sign, integrating the palm trees into the design similar to the stationery, dinnerware and menus used inside the restaurant. She reitemt~ that the base of the sign as depicted in the drawing was not what the actual base looked like; and suggested that a revision show what the actual base looks like, with a comparison of the proposed base with the same quality as the top of the sign. Chair Harris said she was opposed to granting an exception to the sign ordinance, and suggested the applicant return with a revised sign design. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application 2-ASA-97 to the March 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting to allow applicant to return with a revised sign proposal more in line with parameters discussed Com. Roberts Passed 5-00 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-TM-96 AND 38-EA-96 Marvin Kirkeby Tresslcr Estate 22110 McClellan Road Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.49 acre parcel into 9 lots. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Ro:ommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 3, 1997 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes s February 24, 1997 Staffvrescetation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, reviewed the application to subdivide a 2.49 acre parcel into 9 single family lots, as outlined in the attached staff~port. He noted that tho project was unique as it was a single loaded street, and that some single family homes on Linch Vista Drive would back onto a future street. He explained that part of the lot area was located on the opposite side of tho street to create a gr_~_ to.r interest on that side of the street as opposed to having a curb, wall, fence and adjoining back yards. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the major issue was the maintenance of the stre~cape on the opposite side of the street from the homes. He suggested that wording in a proposed condition would provide some degree of assurance that the property would bo rtmlnt:alned, and that staff discussed with the city attorney a type of easement and convenant to ensure that all the property owners would have the right to maintain ff one owner is not maintainin~ the area, with cests to bo rec~3uped. The underlying fee would be owned by one individual but the right to maintain would bo held by 9 owners. He said that a homeowners association would not be appropriate for the 9 lot subdivision. Mr. Cowan discussed the issues of land use and tree protection as outlined in the attached staff report, and answered Commissioners' questions. Com. Roberts expressed concern about the traffic on McClellan Road and access from Linda Vista Drive. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, explained the proposed condition for the maintenance of the strestscape. He said as a homeowners' association was not practical, the proposed solution was a provision stipulating each of the nine lots would have easement rights both for access and for use as well as for maintenance of the area, and that any one or more of the property owners maintaining the work could charge back the remaining property owners for their prorated share. The assumption is that at least oue of the property owners would mahltain th~ area. He said that the city maint~inlng the area would not be acceptable. The condition would be in the form of a covenant or easement agreement as part of the final map as well as a separate document that would bo recorded. In response to Chair Harris' question about planting trees, Mr. Kilian said that installation of trees could require irrigation lines and whatever landscaping to bo installed by the developer. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby, 2397 Forest Avenue, San Jose, said that the existing n~aining walls would be removed. He explained why the street was located on the easterly side, and that he felt confident that the 10 foot landscaping strip would bo adequately maintained by the homeowners. Mr. Kirkeby reviewed the pwposed grading and tree landscaping. He pointed out that a condition exists that the phone and electric lines be underground lines for the 9 lots. Com. Roberts reiterated his concern that the entrance and egress might constitute a threat to public saf~y. Mr. KLrkeby stated that there was no special provision being considered, and said that he had not experienced any problems. In response to Mr. Kirkeby's request that consideration be given to naming the street Tressler Court, Mr. Cowan said there is a city policy to refer street names to the Historical Society, and Mr. Tressler would meet with the Historical Seciety to negotiate the street name. Chair Harris opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 6 Februa~ 24, 1997 Ms. Chary Agmwal, 22191 McClellan Road, Cupertino, said that she agreed with Com. Roberts' concern about the traffic if tho access from the now homes was onto McClellan Road. She said that her home was diagonal to the proposed new homes, and that she had experienced at least 6 collisions between Linda Vista and the entrance of the new subdivision onto McClellan. She questioned if it was possible to have the access to the subdivision going out the other side to ease and not deadlock Ixaffic early in the morning. Mr. Matt Cheoag, 22204 McClellan Road, Cupertino, said that because of his home location, he would he the most affected by traffic each day. He expressed concern about wlg~ther the city could guarantne that cars would not he parked on the side ofilg street adjacent his back yard or that cars would not be parked on tho 10 foot landscape strip. He also requested that the developer build a sound barrier wall along the back fence of his yard and neighbors. Mr. Cheoag questioned if the speed limit could he 15 mph on the new strcet. Chair Harris asked staff to comment on the trips per day and the speed limit on thc street. Mr. Cowan explained that the estimate was 12 trips per day per unit. Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, explained that the spced limit on the residential streets and col de sacs is 25 mph. She said however, that aRer the street is built, Public Works could look at something different, but that they typically warrant 25 mph. She said that the street was wide enough to permit parking on both sides, but prohibiting parking on the east side of the street was within the discretion of the Planning Commissioa. Mr. Edmund Loens, 10717 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, said that ho would like reduction in speed on the street to be considered. He asked that the pad heights of the proposed homes be at the same elevation as the homes on Linda Vista whose back yards faced the new homes, because he felt the proposed homes would be second story and would affect the view of the existing homes. Mr. Lnens also requested that the east side of the street have a no parking restriction because of the possibility of parking on the curb. Chair Harris closed tim public hearing. Chair Harris summarized tho issues: environmental impact, trees, parking, speed, pads, safety on McClellan, sound barrier for lot 1, proposed plan for area across from homes, and approval of thc subdivision. Mr. Cowan said that staff's recommendation for the area across the street from the homes was that it be privately held, and that there he a proposal for maintenance of the area. He said that Mr. Kilian's explanation of a covenant or easement encouraging participation among the property owners to maintain the area was an appropriate solution. Mr. Kilian provided the language to be used: "Further cond#~on of subdivision that prior to the filing of the final map, that the developer install not only irrigation lines under the roadway to serve the landscaping on the other side, but in fact also plant some type of ground cover and street trees, and that further, prior to the recording of the final map there be a easement recorded over that strip of land granting to all the property owners tn the subdivision equal rights of access, use, and of the duty of maintenance with respect to that area; and that should one Or more of the property owners in fact expend funds to maintain that area. they would be entitled to reimbursement on a prorated basis from the rest of the lots." Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 24, 1997 Ms. Chary Agmwal, 22191 McClellan Road, Cupertino, said that she agreed with Com. Roberts' concern about the traflSc if the access from the new homes was onto McClellan Road. She said that her home was diagonal to the proposed now homes, and that she had experienced at least 6 collisions betweea Linda Vista and the eatrance of the new subdivision onto McClellan. She questioned if it was possible to have the access to the subdivision going out the other side to ease and not deadlock traffic early in the morning. Mr. Matt Chenng, 22204 McClellan Road, Cupertino, said that because of his hong location, he would be the most affected by traffic each day. He expressed concern about whether the city could guarantee that cars would not be parked on the side of the street adjacent his back yard or that cars would not be parked on the 10 foot landscape strip. He also requested that the developer build a sound barrier wall along the back ~nce of his yard and neighbors. Mr. Chcong questioned if the speed limit could be 15 mph on the new street. Chair Harris asked staffto comment on the trips per day and the speed limit on the street. Mr. Cowan explained that the estimate was 12 trips per day per unit. Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, explained that tim speed limit on the residential streets and cul de sacs is 25 mph. She said however, that aRer the street is built, Public Works could look at something different, but that they typically warrant 25 mph. She said that the street was wide enough to permit parking on both sides, but prohibiting parring on the east side of the street was within the discretion of the Planning Commission. Mr. Edmund Lcens, 10717 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, said that he would like reduction in speed on the street to be considered. He asked that the pad heights of the proposed homes be at the same elevation as the homes on Linda Vista whose back yards faced the new homes, because he felt the proposed homes would be second story and would affect the view of the existing homes. Mr. Loens also requested that the east side of the stget have a no parking restriction because of the possibility of parking on the curb. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris summarized the issues: environmental impact, trees, parking, speed, pads, safety on McClellan, sound barrier for lot 1, proposed plan for area across bom homes, and approval of the subdivision. Mr. Cowan said that staff's recommendation for the area across the street from the homes was that it be privately held, and that there b~ a proposal for maintenance of the area. He said that Mr. Kilian's explanation of a covenant or easement encouraging participation among the property owners to maintain the area was an appropriat~ solution. Mr. Kilian provided the language to be used: "Further condition of subdivision that prior to the filing of the final map, that the developer install not only irrigation lines under the roadway to serve the landscaping on the other side, but in fact also plant some ~ype of ground cover and street trees, and that.further, prior to the recording of the final map there be a easement recorded over that strip of land granting to all the property owners in the subdivision equal rights of access, use, and of the duty of maintenance with respect to that area; and that should one or more of the property owners in fact expend funds to maintain that area. they wouM be entitled to reimbursement on a prorated basis from the rest of the lots." Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 24, 1997 A brief discussion e~sued regarding setbacks, wherein Mr. Cowan answered Commissioners' questions. Com. Roberts said that he felt the proposed subdivision was a good use of the property. He expressed concern about the layout be~ m,~ of the accees and egre~s to a section of McClellan Road which he felt was h~,~rdous. Relative to aesthetics, he said it was advantageous to connect to McClellan rather than to Ray Lane, otherwise thc backs of the homes would be up against McClellan which would not be appropriate. Com. Rohe~ said that he was opposed to the subdivision based on thc information provided and unresolved issues relative to Lot 1, glmdlng, landscaping together with the aesthetics and safety concerns relative to the connection to McClellan. He said that he favored the ban on parking on the east side and the lower speed limit on the short street; pad heights were appropriate as the homes were 100 feet fi'om the existing homes; in favor of retaining large spruce or cedar tree, finding a replacement for the oak tree, replacing pine trees with native trees and shrubs, tied into an attractive landscape plan for McClellan Road. He said he was not in favor of a sound barrier wall as the noise was on McClellan, and suggested that a safety barrier to keep ears fi.om crashing into the neighbor's pool would be more appropriate. Com. Roberts said that Mr. Kilian's explanation of the covennnt/ensement was appropriate for the ground area across from the proposed homes. Com. Mahoney said he felt parking need not be restricted; speed to remain at 25 mph; pad heights appropriate as mentioned by Com. Roberts; agree with Com. Roberts on trees, sound barrier. Area across fi.om homes should not be grass, city attorney's wording on proposal is appropriate; safety issues should be addressed. He said that the subdivision proposal was acceptable. Com. Doyle said he felt there should be no parking on the east side; speed limit 15 mph; pad heights acceptable; retain as many trees along McClellan Road as possible for a wooded appearance rather than stark; retain cedar tree; sound barrier not aecessa~. Relative to the approval of the subdivision, Com. Doyle said he w~as not satired with the distribution of the lots and suggested they be wider rather than have narrow tall houses. He said the proposal for the area across the street was aceeptable. He expressed concern also about the safety on MeClellnn and suggested that the tra~e engineer visit the site at a peak time and provide feedback, ff there were a significant amount of accidents in the area, it would warrant a tomout for traffic. A discussion ensued regarding thc speed limit wherein Ms. Lynnugh explained thc process for lowering the speed limit, and the criteria for speed humps on streets. She said that the speed limit would remain at 25 mph, and after the street is put in, and if problems exist, the speed limit could be addressed again. Mr. Kilian explained the guidelines and justification for establishing speed limits. Com. Austin said parking should only be permitted on the west side; opposed to 25 mph speed limit; pad heights acceptable; retain pine trees, replace oak tree; no sound barrier needed; subdivision appropriate; proposal for land area aeross the street appropriate. She expressed concern about the safety issue on M¢Clellnn Road. Com. Austin said she was in favor of approval of the application. (Following Chair Harris' remarks about the parking restriction, Com. Austin amended her comments so that there would be no parking restrictions on either side). Chair Harris said she felt parking should not he restricted; speed limit 15 mph; pad heights aeeoptable; sound barrier not needed; proposal for area across the street acceptable; subdivision is aeceptable. She said that she was also concerned about the safety issue on M¢Clellnn; however, it was appropriate to allow curb cut for properties. Chair Harris recommended keeping the spruce trees, Planning Commissioa Minutes 8 February 24, 1997 which requires changing the tree protection to read trees I and 2 may be removed with issuance of permit and other conditions as listed, add 10 inch oak to bo replaced with thc 36 inch box tree. Mr. Cowan said that relative to Com. Roberts' comment, a lot of time was spent talking about the aesthetics oftbe new ~t~eet and not too much time talking about the aesthetics of McClellna. He said there have been scenic easements where the tendency is to have a greater setback between a road and a fence; it is possible theoretically to have a curb, 10 foot of area, then a fence along the entire stretch of road. He asked Mr. Kirkeby to comment about the possibility of having a greater distance back in terms of a scenic easement, perbaps to include the pine trees. He said the downside of that is that area would be behind a fence. Mr. Kirkcby addressed the issue of the possibility of hay/rig a grater setback such that McClellan Road would bo more scenic. Referring to the overhead map, he illuaha/ed the typical property line 10 feet from the face curb, and the ten foot PSE which is used for the underground utilities. He said that if the comer setback is 12 feet, structure wise it would bo 2 feet inside the dash line illustrated on the map, which potentially the two trees would bo in the structure, the walnut tree being questionable. He said that for usability of the yard, it would follow to have the fence on the lot side of the pine trees so that the pine trees would be in the streetscape. Ho said that he was not opposed to that plan. Mr. Kirkeby said he did not object to the fence going on the drip line inside of the pine trees. Mr. Cowan noted that a new condition would bo created stating "there shouM be a scenic easement recorded such that the fence be placed on the inside of the drip line of the ex~sting pine trees along McClellan Road. The scenic easement wouM be kept free of all structures including fences" (New Condition 22). He suggested that the concept bo approved, and before forwarding it to City Council the wording would he fl~aliTed. He said that the intent was that it be kept free and clear of structures. Relative to the speed, Chair Harris summarized that thc vote was 4:1 for a reduced speed limit. Mr. Cowan suggested that a Minute Order be forwarded to thc City Council. Mr. Kilian explained the method of establishing speed limits in the city. He said that there is a prima facia speed limit established for all streets of a certain type. If modifications were to bo considered, they would have to bo accomplished through the use of an engineering study and the City Council would approve the lower speed limit based upon the frequency of use, the travel speeds of the cars, and any special conditions. Com. Roberts said that he wanted to minimize the likelihood of the frequency with which cars came out oftbe street at high speeds, lamed left and hit something. Hc expressed concern for the safety at the intersection rather than the ~Ueet itself and questioned if it could bo achieved with the use of a speed hump close to th~ intersection as well as a stop sign. Mr. Cowan said that the City Council could review a traffic study and the Planning Commission could request a written report describing the access intersection, and whether or not a speed hump or other device would bo necessary to control thc speed because of the uniqueness of the intersection. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration for Application 38-EA-96 Com. Mahoncy Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 24, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 10-TM-96 according to the model resolution, and ineludin~ the following change~: (1) Under tree protection: strike tree No. 12 in second sentence; ~dd words "the 10 inch oak on Lot 9 will be replaced with a 36 inch box tree"; (2) Add Condition 22 stating "A scenic easement will be recorded such that the fence will be placed inside the drip line of the existing pine trees'; and (3) Add discussion of land area across the street, which is another Condition 23: "Prior to the filing of the map, the developer will install irrigation under the street to serve the landscaping across the street, plant ground cover, and street trees to be worked outwith staff, at a distance closer than the street trees across the street, and that an easement will be recorded to allow equal rights of access use and the duty of maintenance; and should one person maintain the easement, they will be entitled to reimbursement." Com. Mahoncy Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to forward a Minute Order to the City Council for a written report regarding controlling of the intersection with a possible stop sign and speed hump. Com. Roberts Corns. Mahoney, Doyle and Chair Harris Failed 2-3-0 Chair Harris announced that following the break, Item 6 would be discussed as there were a number of people waiting to _addr~s ~ issue. Mr. Kirkeby requested that eoasideration be given to modification of Condition 23, as he felt it was not feasible to build the landscaping before the map was recorded. Mr. Kiliun clarified that as part of the improvement agreement executed a/ter the final map is recorded, the work on Condition 23 be part of the agreement. He said the agreement was for all offsite and onsite improvements on the subdivision completed at~r the map is recorded and was with the City Public Works Department. It would then reflect that the condition on installation and construction would be done as part of the improvement agreement. Chair Harris modified the motion to include amended wording of Condition 23 to read: "Part of the improvement agreement will include that the developer install ..." Com. Austin agreed to thc amendment to the motion; Com. Roberts accepted the amendment. VOTE: The amended motion was passed 5-0-0. Chair Harris declared a recess at 9:10 p.m. Upon rcconvening at 9:25 p.m. the same Commissioners and staff were present. Chair Harris moved the agenda to Item 6. Planning Commission Minutes l0 February 24, 1997 OLD BUSINESS 6. Status report rega~ing West Valley Hillsides Plannin~ Implementation. Staff presentation: Mr. Cowaa provided aa update on the status of the West Valley Hillside Planning Implementation as outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Cowaa refened to a fax communication received from Santa Clara County Pl~ing Office Senior Planner Don Weden. Chair Hal~is reviewed Mr. Wgden's letter, noting that the City of Cupertino Plmming Commission had not received a copy of the design guidelines mentioned in his letter, and could not comment on them. Mr. Cowall explained that the guidelines dealt with maximum house sizes, colors of buildings in the hills, and height. Chair Harris summarized that the issues of concern were the maximum house siz~ restriction, ability to rebuild if the house was destroyed in a fire or earthquake, and flexibility from stalldarde when the house is rninltllally visible. Chair Hanis opened the meeting for public input. Mr. John Sehafer, 15710 Montehello Road, Cupertino, said that he had been a resident of Cupertino since 1945 and had s~m many changes in the valley. He expressed concern that the residents had not had the opportunity to provide input prior to this meeting, as it would have a t~mendous impact on them. He said that the property owners would like the opportunity to have 'input on their future. He said if they were going to he included in a particular clause or ordinance, the property owners should have input in the process. Mr. Sehafer said that the impact would he severe on the property owners trying to develop. He said in most cases, the majority of the homes eaanot he seen from the valley floor and a number of the homes have been built in a logical state. Relative to the proposal to restrict house sizes to 3850 square feet, he said there were a number of flaws identified to be addressed. He said there should be more input into the process before a de~ision was finalized. He said that they were all community minded; he was Chief of the volunteer fire department in the area; and they would like to provide Cupertino with aa area for bicycles, community and recreation, and have been asked in the past to provide trails and open space and Mid Peninsula whatever is necessary; the residents did not want to develop, they wanted to keep the area open and have been asked to participate on whether they wanted to or not. He requested that the residents he given the opportunity to participate in the function. In response to Chair HarriS' question about the process for noticing the residents, Mr. Cowan pointed out that the study boundary did not extend to Montebello Ridge. He said the initial idea was to look at commonality between the four cities and the county in terms of their policies because the county was not interested in reopening this General Plan nor the city to go into aa indepth General Plan analysis again. The idea was to look for commonality and to have a joint approach to hillside control within the new urban growth boundary area. He said he was uncertain what process the county followed for noticing residents, but that the city notified people close to its boundary. Mr. Cowaa said that the city's role was to define a growth line. The four cities asked the county to develop a different set of rules for the hillside and it was the county's responsibility to notify its constituents involving the process. Mr. Schafor said that he was notified after the County Planning Commission had passed the ordinance. He reiterated his concern that the residents had no input on the process but were impacted by the out~:}me. Planning Commission Minutes 11 February 24, 1997 Ms. Nancy Carlson, 22301 Rolling Hills Road, Saratoga, said that she was speaking on behalf of the large group of homeowners of 794 parcels. She said the main issue was that they were not notified until days before the County Board of Supervisors voted on the implementation and applied it to the parcels. She noted that the residents notified the county staff of the errors in the ordinance and the staff concurred that there were errors and omissions in the ordinance. She requested that the Planning Commission suggest to the county that they take more time in reviewing and preparing studies as there were no specific studies and sufficient research completed as to the financial and environmental impact of what the ordinance would do to the exisfinE properties and future development. Mr. Bill Bctchart, 17050 Montcbcilo Road, Cupertino, said that he had been a Cupertino residcnt in the fiat lands for about 15 years and in the Montebello Ridge for about 5 years. He said he and his wife have worked in the environmental fields for the pa.st 30 years, and felt Iris money was being misused to distort issues that are basically designed to cr~t~ as many hurdles to development in thc hillsides as possible. He pointed out that in the Monte Sereno letter, 6500 square foot maxirnnm was the upper boundary, with a graduated scale beginning at 3850 square feet including all appurtenant structure~ for hous~ cited on less than 20 acres and have a higher slope. He said there were a number of lots that were subdivided accordin~ to county rules and were approved prior to the 20 acre minimum size, and had been marketed for years as buildable lots fi.om $.5 million to $1 million. He said when someone purchases a similar lot with the idea that they are going to be able to build their dream house and spend the rest of their life doing it, they don't like that opportunity to be taken away from them. He said he felt that some young environmental planners had been assigned to this project, and had been talked to by what were referred to as environmental gladiators who are paid by the environmental groups and were fed information which is not well based on science, and were the only people who have bcen involved in thc discussions. Mr. Betehart said it has continued for 2-1/2 years, and the ordinance was passed with restrictions that prcvent a homeowner fi.om rebuilding to his current size if it exceeds the maximum if destroyed by fire or earthquake. He said they also require site review and building permits for fences over 30 inches high based on visibility fi.om the valley floor; and stated that there is a lot of unreasonable and unworkable language in the ordinaace which he felt did not come fi.om professional people on the city or county staffs, but fi.om some place else. He said that he felt the Planning Commission should insist that the city's staff'think on their own and adopt some respect for a landowner's point of view. Hc said the noticing occurred only at the end of November. Mr. Doug Lockic, 19020 Ojai Drive, Monte Screno, said hc felt there were scrious errors made in the - DI ordinance lang~,%oe and said the lack of notice referred to is thc notice of when the past ordinance was applied and there was only two weeks before the first public hearing for the landowners in the county environment. At that time the Planning Commission recommended that the supervisors pass the ordinance as worded and apply it to the +780 parcels. He said they objected at that time and were overridden by the Planning Commission but then prevailed upon the County Supervisors to stay it, and continue the exercise until May when the newly elected representative was available and by the admission of the Planning staff themselves, there were gross errors in the language in the -D1 ordinance. At the head of the list was the 3800 square foot limit on the house size, whether or not it was visible. The residents worked with the Plmming Commission and staff to point out that a small house of 3800 square feet could be a much worse visible objection than a 10,000 square foot hidden house; and out of this came the recommendations before you tonight. Mr. Lockie recommended deleting the -D 1 ordinance as it is written, and try to create a new language. He said it was done in conjunction with the landowners and the county staff and progress was eminent. He said the recommendation fi.om city staff is that it asks for rea~rmation of the basic principles. Mr. Lockie said most of the group who are landowners subscribe to those principles, but their objection is that the - D 1 ordinance as written and passed needs to be substituted with something that protects the hillsides in Plam~ Commission Minutes 12 February 24, 1997 an effective nmm~r, tlmt does not destroy property values. He said that if looked upon, it would be found that thin? are headed ill tho direction of effectively regulating and encouraging beauty in the hillsides without destroying property values and it was recommended to continue looking at that. He said it appeax~d that the city staffwas misinformexl. Hc commented that although the Mayor of Munte Screno may be an effective mayor, but not a good engineer as there were several inaccuracies in his letter. Mr. John Kolski, 10540 Santa Lucia Road, Cupertino, said that he and Bcez Jones did not find out about the process until they attended a County Planning Commission meeting on another topic when the County planning Commission approved the zoning ordinance which none of the county landowners were notified of. The first notification to the county landowners was alter the ordinance was approved and there was a meeting in order to apply it to the lands. He said it was unfortunate that during the 2- 1/2 years whea the sta~ of the four cities were working with the staff, the landowners Were not brought in. He said the Cupertino staff said that Kaiser was the only one notified and no landowners within the urban growth boundasy were notified. If the landowners were involved from the beginning, they would not be at this point today. Mr. Kolski said that the landowners want to preserve the land as they have owned large parcels of land through 2 or 3 generations and have preserved the land. They want a fair shot at being able to do something with their land and could have worked together and not been in a conflict if they were involved earlier. Ms. Beez Jones, 10398 Heney Creek Place, Cupertino, said that the ordinance has many flaws, pointing out that one is that a resident could only build a 30 inch high fence, and on the ridge there is Ridge Winery and if they loose their fence they will only be allowed a 30 inch fence to protect those valuable vineyards. She said the restriction of 800 square feet for an auxiliary building would not accommodate a three car garage and a space for a tractor and a mower, and if the parcel is a 20+ acres, the resident would need those things. She said she felt most people did not recognize how large 20 acres are. She said she would like to discuss with staff how unreasonable the ordinance is. She requested that the Planning Commission not send the letter to the County until the residents were able to provide more information. She said that the reflectivity is for 30 and illustrated the colors that would quality for the houses in the hills, commenting that people talk about the white house on the hill, and next it would be the orange house on the hill. She said that point was typical of what the landowners brought out to the planners and one couldn't help but laugh. She requested that the Planning Commission talk with the residents about the ordinance. Mr. Cowan said that a review of the colors in the city's jurisdichon was with the idea to get more muted tones. Mr. Jim BrandL 21965 Arrowhead Lane, Saratoga, said he was a landowner in the area affected by the rezoning ordinance. He said the first question "what do you want us to do?" was not answered, but the answer was simple, to have a small number of the homeowners work with the city staff to provide an education of what was happening because what they were getting now is a small sample from a few homeowners. He said there was so much at issue with the ordinance as it stands that is incorrect that the residents would like to review the ordinance and go through what already has passed and work with the city so its staff could understand what it is now and what the county staff is recommending it he changed to, which would provide a better understanding of what is going on with the ordinance as it passed and as Don Weden is recommending the changes. He said the crux of the issue was for the Planning Commission to work with the residents. Mr. Brandt said he talked with the Saratoga Planning Depamnent and they were shocked at some of the numbers from the ordinance; they did not know where the 3850 square feet limit came from. He said he heard comments from the first public Planning Commission Minutes la February 24, 1997 hearing fi.om the Planning Commission member who had worked with thc County that he had warned them not to go forward without working with the land owners, and such comments were rampant. He said the -DI ordinance had serious problems. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Brandt said that the only highlights of the Cupertino ordinance he was familiar with was that it was more liberal in terms of the -DI. Com. Doyle commented that there were elements brought up that were similar to Cupertino's ordinance, but that there were also subtle differences. He noted that the colors Ms. Jones illustrated would not have been acceptable to Cupertino. Mr. Brandt noted that Cupertino's maximum is 6500 square feet, and in the proposed ordinance, it would have to he a 20 acm parcel to permit a house of 6500 square feet. He said that the typical one acre parcels Would have 3850 square fes~ including the garage. He said his size family would not fit into the square footage if he had to rebuild the hom~ to 3850 square feet, including garage. Mr. Eric Morley, 1285 Sierra Avenue, San Jose, said that he represented a number of property owners involved in the ordinance. He said that when the County Board of Supervisors and staff acknowledged the lack of due process that had occurred in December 1996 and acknowledged to both the Planning Department staff and the County Supervisors the deficiencies in the ordinance, they directed that it ~ro to the Planning Commission for workshops and back to the public for public input, which was the status presently. He addressed a number of concerns in the staff report. He said that the staff report recommends that the City draft a letter reafflrraing its policies related to the principles related to the -D1 and he pointed out an inaccuracy contained in the staff ~ that is in the February 6 report put forth bythe Plmming Department staff, there is no modification to the original policies and original principles; there are modifications put forth by staff as a result of a number of public hearings and public workshops that occurred since December 19. He requested that the City not draft a letter at this point, obtain the information that would he provided by Clarence Stone and take the time to understand the full ramifications of the ordinance before sending a letter similar to what Monte Serene did. He said they would prefer that the Planning Commission have all the information and a full understanding to make an informed recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors; and also recommended that it direct staff to meet with the residents to clarify some of the issues involved. Mr. Clarence Stone, 16400 Bohlman Road, Saratoga, distributed a copy of the letter sent to the County plann~g Commission and County Board of Supervisors. He said that he ~presented a large group of homeowners and was a homeowner in the westside hillsides as well as a staunch environmentalist. He said he felt the ordinance did not accomplish what it was intended to do. He said that the overall policy which was to restrict visibility of the "big white house" which is offensive, and the -D 1 ordinance did not accomplish that. He reiterated that the homeowners were not notified of the design of the -D 1 ordinance even though it had been worked on for two years, and the homeowners did not hear anythin~ until 12 days before it was to be applied to his property. The County Planning Commission admitted that there were gross errors in the design of the ordinance and he recommended that they send it back to staff for changes. He said the group was working with staff to make the changes in order to accomplish what they wanted to minimize the visibility component to the westside properties. He said there were a number of problems with it, specifically the grandfather clause; there was no financial impact studies; there was no provision for pipeline exclusions; the fence height restriction of 3 feet; the limit on accessory buildings. He recommended that the Planning Commission give the residents the opportunity to work with thom and postpone sending a letter to the county affirming -D1 zoning ordinance of which the County has already admitted was grossly in error. Planning Commission Minutes x4 February 24, 1997 Ms. Joy Crough, 5220 Leesa Ann Court, San lose, said that about 2 years ago she and her husband purchased property in tho Los Caws hills, after thorough research. At the time of their purchase, they inquired about the zoning and other thin,rs and were informed what tho zoning was and purchased the property knowing what the rules were. She said they fully intended to build a home on the property. She said they were told at the time that because the prior owners had worked on site approval for almost 1-1/2 years, it would he a short process, but it took another 1-1/2 years to get site approval. She felt file present laws were strict enough to prevent building and ruin the visibility in the valley hills. She said they wanted to preserve the hills as well and designed theft home around the trees and yet have been opposed from many angles. She said that they were not aware of the zoning until shortly before the vote was to take place and were amazed such a thing would happen ai~r all the hours they had spent at the county offices and no mention that this would happen. She said they were surprised that even though they had site approval, the rug was being pulled out from their plans and if it did pass on December 17 as was scheduled, their plans would have been lost and all their prior work was invalid. She said she did not feel it was fair and that the pipeline exclusion missing from the ordinance should have been excluded. She said that the people already in process should have been notified; and people already in process should he permitted to build with the existing rules they had when starting their plans and that the rules should not he chan~ed midstream. Ms. Crough said that she felt their 5500 square foot home is not exorbitant for over 20 acres of land. She said that the rules they purchased the property with to build an ,mliraited amount of accessory structures such as barns should be allowed. She expressed concern that ff they were victims of a fire they would not he permitted to build to the s/ze even if the pipeline exclusion were perm/Red; and it was a coneem for all the residents of the hills. She said it was not fair to the residents who would need to rebuild and only he allowed to build a 3850 square feet home. She said that the current law as written could prevent farming and agricultural uses because of the limits on the accessory buildings; and the present solution which has been in Los Gates for over 15 years, the -D with the current design review has been working successfully. She said that the other restrictions were excessive and they are puRing l/mits on homcovmers, and it has been estimated by property owners and real estate people that tiffs will devalue property by 20 to 30% and no one has done any studies on the impacts to the homeowners and those issues should he addressed. She said that it should he noted that there have been no scientific studies, no visual studies of who will he hupacted and asked the Planning Commission to consider how they would feel ff they were homeowners in the same situation. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Mr. Cowan stated that there was no urgency to get the letter to the Board of Supervisors and that hearings would he held in April and May. He clarified that ~aff was not endorsing the -D 1 ordinance, just the basic principles in the joint plan that were adopted. He said he was informed there was a retrenchment from the basic id_e'os and suggested that staff work with Mr. Weden and his ~ff to determine exactly what the ordinance is and return to the Platming Commission within a month after talking to some residents. He cautioned the planning Commission about getting too deeply involved in thc county ordinance. Com. Doyle clarified that the intent is to have what is happening in the county consistent with what exists today. Mr. Cowan stated that a comparison could he done based on the draR. He noted that the county properties were larger than those located within thc city and the same rules may not apply. Discussion ensued regan/in8 the City's role in providing input into the ordinance. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the joint effort had been adopted and one of the implementation measures of the joint plan is that the cities prepare new regulations for their areas and that the county prepare new regulations for their areas. The city has completed the hillside ordinance, the boundary agreement which are the Planning ¢ommimon Minutes t~ F~bru~ry 24, 19c)'~ implementation steps, and the county is now going through the laborious process of developing regulations and applying thos~ regnlations to particular properties. He cautioned the Planning Commission aEain~ becoming deeply involved other than receiving status upa~t~s. He recommended delaying sending a letter to the county. Mr. Cowan suggested further discussion at the March 24 meeting. Mr. Kilian clarified that the residents w/shinE to be notified of the new a.t~ for the mtam of the report should indicate their desires to the City Clerk or the Pl~ning Department because no notices will go out on the issue as it is only a report and recommendation, not a public hearing. Chair Harris moved the agenda back to Item 4. Application No.: 6-EA-97 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendment of Article 17 prohibiting temporary signs on public property and in the public right of way. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE C1TY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 7, 1997 Staff oresentation: Ms. Veto Gil, Planner II, reviewed the background of the item relating to the zoning ordinance amendments regarding temporary political signs on public propeRy, as outlined in the attached staff report. Using slides, Ms. Gil referred to various illustrations of political signs displayed in public right of way. She pointed out that a drawback of not permitting temporary signs in the public right of way would bo that temporary A-flame signs for real estate open hous~ would also not be permitted. Mr. Killan explained that the ordinance is similar to the City of Santa Clara's ordinance which prohibits temporary signs on public property, notinE that it is the only city that does so. He pointed out that the City could not discriminate on the basis of content of the signs, and that a temporary commercial sign has as much litter potential as a temporary political sign. A discussion followed relating to the time limitation of temporary signs, political signs, and enforcement methods used, wherein staffanswered questions. Mr. Kilian explained that Section 17.52 contained the notification process for the signs wbether on public property or private property. Chair Harris summarized that the issues were: whether or not to implement the zoning ordinance amendments; should 6 hour signs be permitted for realtors or community events; should the political signs be permitted to remain between the primary and the fall election; if political signs were permitted, the possibility of having a controlled location for their display. Com. Austin said she felt restricting the signs for real estate, private use and community activities was in violation of flee speech and overrides the litter issue. She expressed concern that restricting the political signs was unjust, particularly for the individual who did not have fimds for mailings. She said that she was opposed to the restrictions on the signs. Planning Commission Minutes 16 February 24, 1997 Com. Doyle said he felt that political signs should not he posted in the public right of ways, but could he located on private pwperty, which would also help to get the public involved in the political process. He said that a restriction on time limitation on real estate signs was appropriate. Com. Mahoney agreed with Com. Doyle, stating he was not in favor of quazi-permanem signs. He said he was in favor of the change in the ordinanec for private property display, and an exception for the temporary 6 hour signs. Com. Robert~ said that the litter problem with political signs is severe and the signs should be prohibited along the public right of way. He said that signs for community even~ and social event~ should be permitted along the public fight of way for a limited time, perhaps 8 hours. Chair Harris said she did not like the graffiti signs a~ illustrated in thc slides, and was in favor of the community controlled signs in the public fight of way. She agreed with Com. Austin that election expenses were high and it was difficult for a candidate to walk their district for exposure; therefore she felt that the signs should be controlled, and there be community locations where people could purchase space for a fixed period of time. She said she agreed that an 8 hour period for temporary signs such as community events and real estate open houses was acceptable. Chair Harris addressed the issue of the change in the ordinance on tempormy signs on private property which now allows a political sign to be up from the primary to the November election when it was previously not allowed and questioned the reasoning. Mr. IGlian clarified that if it was the same issues, it would be permissible to continue the dialog with those issues with the candidate or a proposition during that election season. He said file existing ordinance was not strictly enforced. Chair Harris suggested that the sentence be deleted. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 6-EA-97 with changes to allow any temporary sign to remain for 8 hours per day; and to delete the sentence "ln the event the election ..... general or run-offelectiou' (No. 4 of 17.32.040). Com. Doyle Com. Austin Passed 4-1-0 Mr. Kllian pointed out that he would advise the City Council to consider not adopting the time limit for reasons expressed earlier. Application No.(s): Applicant: 4-GPA-97 and 8-EA-97 San&fill Properties (Tandem) 10741 No. Wolfe Road and 19590 P nmeridge Avenue Amend maximum height allowed by General Plan for hotel west of Wolfe Road. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 7, 1997 Chair Harris explained that Item 5 was approved by the Planning Commission but was returned as aa environmental and General Plan amendment for the issue of the hotel height. The Planning Commission had agreed that 9 foot ceilings were more appropriate than 8 foot ceilings, going from 45 to 47 feet for the entire building, which is 2 feet higher than the General Plan allows. The other issue relates to thc towers which would be permitted at 55 feet high, and flags to be discussed by the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes 17 February 24, 1997 Mr. Cowan said that there wer~ two alternatives, one to have a tailored General Plan to the particular application or a generic plan to apply to all hotels; staff is suggesting the latter approach. He pointexi out that as mentioned in the staff report, prior to 1993 ther~ was not a height restriction for hotels, because of tho uniqueness of that particular operation. The city desired to have a full service hotel which resulted in the 17 story hotel, which was approved but never built. Mr. Mike Anderson, Sand Hill Properties, ~xplained that there were 4 towers, 55 feet high. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input on the height issue. There was no one present who Com. Roberts said that he was in favor of the special provisions for the property but would prefer not to have a blanket exemption for hotels, as he would like to see the next hotel and see where it is built, and the height limit. Referring to Page 5-6 of the staff report, he said that the height limit for the potential hotel property on Stewas Creek Boulevard is 60 to 75 feet; and an additional 25% would be 75 to 95 feet, and a building that tall was not acceptable for Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said that Alternative 1 was acceptable. Com. Mahoney said that Alternative 1 for the proposed hotel was acceptable. Com. Doyle said he favored Alternative 1. Com. Austin said that Alternative 1 was acceptable for the proposed hotel. Chair Harris said that she was in favor of the change to the towers, but opposed to the flags. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on g-EA-97 Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 4-GPA-97 with Alternative 1 wording Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 NEW BUSINESS Report to Council: Application No.: Applicant: Loe~tion: 8-TM-96 and 22-EA-96 Sanahill Properties (Tandem) 10741 No. Wolfe Road and 19590 Pmneridge Avenue Tentative Map to subdivide 10 acres into 12 lots to allow 7 single family residences, 201 apartments on 1 lot, private driveways, a community center, park elements and a hotel. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 3, 1997 Staff nresentation: Mr. Cowan distributed an excerpt from a staff report submitted to City Council describing changes directed by City Council and summarizes what has transpired from the last meeting. He summarized that the 8 houses were reduced to 7; increase of rear yards for single family; increase in apartment setbacks; central parking garage for the most southerly apartment changed to a podium design. Mr. Cowan said that the action required is to adopt the tentative subdivision map, which is consistent with the approved use permit by City Council. City Council requested specific Planning Commission Minutes 18 February 24, 1997 recomme~a~tion rel~ti%o to the common recreation space. Mr. Cowan pointed out that quantitatively tho standards are met in term of the amount of space; however, the City Council wanted more information about the flm~ormlity of the space, if it met the needs of the residents. Staffrecommends approval oftbe map. Mr. Cowan clarified that the development phasing issue and the issue of the park credit were the main Chair Harris asked Mr. Kllian to co~ on the indemnification issue, No. 5. Mr. Kilia. explained that there was a dispute between the owners of the property where the existing Marriot~ Courtyard is lc~t~4 and the applicant with respect to an ingress and egress easement which is shown as the roadway that connects Marriott with Prune Leaf Avenue. Because of tho dispute, he said he reviewed thc documents and has taken the position that thc applicant is correct, that he does have an easement of thc type that will allow for certain improvements to be done on the property. He said however, that it was not free from doubt and in the event that the owner of the Marriott property elects to bring forth litigation action to contest the validity of either the easement or the CEQA analysis, that thc applicant will defend and hold the city, its employees and officers harmless from any such lawsuit. He said that the condition should include officers and employees. Chair Harris recommended adding the language "and its offcers and employees" after the "CIO, of Cupertino ' to the indemnification issue, No. 5. Mr. Anderson reviewed the major changes: The podium garage was deleted by the City Council, and changed to a podium style apartment complex; the 25 foot setback off Linnet Lane was changed to 40 feet; one single family lot was removed, which widened the remaining lots; the recreational area was changed to he more active. Mr. Anderson said that they disagreed with Condition 6 relating to the linkage issue. He said that in an earlier meeting the City Council directed that it not he a condition, but a Minute Order. Mr. Anderson said that he also objected to the language regarding the ability for Sand Hill to return to the Council to attempt to modify the condition. He requested that the language be rewritten that if there is a condition, the condition state that Sand Hill has submitted plans for the hotel to the city and not an implication that the plans have to he approved by the city. Mr. Cowan suggested that the tape he reviewed and changes would he made if warrunted. Mr. Kilian clarified that the development phasing was not meant to be a part of the map. Mr. Cowan indicated that it would he forwarded to City Council in the next week and would he corrected. Mr. Don Peterson, SNK Properties, illustrated the changes to the park area, which included the picnic area, game court area and children's play areas. He described the amenities included in each of the areas and answered Commissioners' questions. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. There was no one who wished to address the issue. Com. Doyle said that the park details were incorporated appropriately. He expressed concern that the park assets were primarily in the south end, but noted that it was not feasible for any other area. He also expressed concern about the vast amount of concrete used. He said that the issues returned to the Planning Commission Minutes 19 February 24, 1997 Planning Commission were acceptable. He suggested that a perspective fi.om ground level be used when forwarding the item to City Council. Com. Mahoney said that the changes were acceptable. Com. Austin said that the changes were appropriate. Com. Roberts said that the park areas were well incorpomtO~ but expressed concern about the hardscape. Mr. Peterson answered questions about the landscaping plan and use of trees and greenery throughout the courtyard area. Chair Harris said that she was opposed to the proposal because of the excessive hardscape. She said she wanted bike racks to be included in the community park, game courts and the community building; park benches in the inner courtyard area; lawn area around the pool; ground cover in the area of the game courts. She said she felt some of th~ podium area should also be green. Chair Harris said that she recently visited a dense d~velopment in downtown which included green areas. Mr. Cowan clarified that a condition of approval for the use permit allows the applicant to return with the final landscaping plan, and noted that the active recreation spaces were being presented at this MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved thc Negative Declaration on 22-EA-96 be approved Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 8-TM-96 per the model resolution, with a request that the landscaping plan be submitted; changes to indemnification issue No. 5; change to Condition 6 will be as requested by the City Council following review of the meeting videotape. Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Chair Harris reported that she met with the editor of the Courier to review the General Plan. She also discussed the possibility of having a reporter present on items that were of interest to the community. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan ~ported that the Economic Summit has been scheduled for April 29. He said that there will be a meeting with the retailers scheduled and he would report the date to the Planning Commission when finalized. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None