Loading...
PC 05-12-97CiTY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 12, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staff present: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Roberts, Chairperson Harris Robert Cowam Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Vera Gil, Planner 1I; Efleen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 28, 1997 Regular Meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the April 28, 1997 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Hams noted correspondence received relative to changes in John Way, and a letter ~om the First Baptist Church relative to Item 3. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-97, 2-TM-97 and 14-EA-97 Hossain Khaziri 22020 Homestead Road Use Permit to demolish a vacant sexvice station and construct 10 townhomes on .96 acre site. Tentative Map to subdivide a .96 acre site into 11 lots (10 townhomas, one common lot). Zoning to rezone a .96 acre parcel from Planned Development (General Commercial) to planned Development (Residential). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 2, 1997 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Item 6 to the June 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Roberts Passed 5 -0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 12, 1997 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Properly Owner: Location: I-iNT-97 David Pemg Chat-Yuan Chang 1066 Colony Hill Lane Setback area interpretation on an existing residence and proposed addition in accordance with Section 19.08.030 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to approve Consent Calendar Application No. 1-INT-97 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Location: 11 -U-95 Cupertino DeOro Club 20441 Homestead Road DIRECTOR'S REFERRAL OF A MINOR MODIFICATION for a change of color regarding the roof material in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff px~sentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a minor color modification to the roof material of the DeOro Club. The addition to the DeOro Club was approved by the Planning Commission on May 20, 1996, and subsequent to the approval, the architect learned that the approved roof material was no longer available. The proposed material is a darker material and meets with staff approval. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City planner, passed the material boards, photos, and samples of the proposed material to the Planning Commissioners for examination. She said that staff recommends approval of the proposed roofing material. Mr. Mike Horton, architect, 1033 Willow Street, San Jose, explained that the ofi~nally approved roofing material or a comparable color were no longer available, and the proposed weathered wood material was the most appropriate. He pointed out that only the roof material and color would be changed, and not the trim on the structure. In response to Chair Hams' question relative to consideration of similar materials used on the housing development across fi:om the DeOro Club, Mr. Horton explained that the proposed composition shingle roof was best suited for the structure as its appearance was similar to a weathered wood ~hake or shingle, which the structure oti~nnlly had, and he felt that the proposed darker shade gave the building closure at the top and presented a more elegant, richer appearance, as well as being more versatile if the color of the structure was changed. · Planning Comm_tssion Minutes 3 May 12, 1997 He added that the roof would not withstand tile as it was m poor condition and had to be reinforced to withstand the composition shingles. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. As there was no one present who wished to speak, the public heating was closed. Com. Roberts said that the proposed material was appropriate and he felt it more closely resembled the original historic structure. Com. Doyle concurred with Com. Roberts. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 11-U-95 Com. Roberts Passed 5-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: Historic Demolition Ordinance and 12-EA-97 City of Cupertino Various Locations Consideration of an ordinance to protect structures fxom demolition on 31 potentially historic sites. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 2, 1997 CONI'INUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 28, t997 Chair Harris announced that there would be a recommendation to continue the item as there were changes pending by the City Council to meet with the requirements for the item. She said that pubhc input would be heard, but that technical changes were required by law, and the item would not be able to be approved in the form presented. She noted that there would be another public hearing on the subject and the public could comment tonight or at the next meeting. Staff presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, explained that the City Council elected not to adopt a Historical Ordinance last winter, but elected to appoint an ad hoc committee to evaluate the historical resources in the community and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and eventually to the City Council regarding the need for an ordinance. The Council has selected a 5 member panel who will begin meeting in early June and conclude in September and prepare a recommendation tO the Planning Commission and City Council whether or not to adopt a new ordinance, and what form it would take. He noted that until the ad hoc committee reaches a decision, the City Council directed that an ordinance should be adopted to prohibit the demolition of a historical structure. Mr. Cowan said that the purpose of the historic demolition ordinance is to define the term demolition and develop a procedure to allow the Planning Commission and City Council, if appealed, to consicler a request to go beyond the 50% demolition il'warranted by economic hardqhip or some other factor because it is not known if the ordinance protects the structures that are listed in the General Plan as well as the structures that were advanced by the Heritage Commission. He said that staff defines demolition as "a situation whereby 50% of the building is removed: anything greater than 50% wouM be demolition". He said that those attending the meeting about three months ago may have left the meeting thinking that demolition meant the entire demolition of the structure, but staff recommends that if you take away 50% of it, or the fxont facade, it is tantamount Planning Commlusion Minutes 4 May 12, 1997 to demolish the building. Mr. Cowan explained that there is an appeal process and criteria used by the Planning Commission should there be an appeal of a denial of a demolition permit, and that it was proposed to have an expiration clause. He summarized that the purpose was to adopt an ordinance as an interim measure to protect those historical resources until a decision is reached whether or not to adopt an ordinance, which decision would be made in the September/October timeframe. In response to Com. Roberts' question if the 50% demolition was consistent with other cities, staff explained that Cupertino's was more generous, and noted that Los Gatos' policy was that if any work is proposed on a house in a historical district, the application would have to be presented to a special board; and that Palo Alto had the same provision. Chair Harris recommended changes tO Appendix B, Page 3-10: "Historic Sites" should be changed to "Historic Sites Listed in the General Plan"; and "Historic Resources" should read "Other Historic Resources". There was a brief discussion about Items 8 on the Sites list, and Item 14 on the Resources list. Mr. Pat Allen, 10191 Vista Drive, said that the City Council rejected a number of items in the interim plan, and their intent was to identify and return to the Council with specific or historic homes. He said that while he did not object to continuing with the temporary ordinance, no part of it should be considered consent for the final ordinance without final discussion. He pointed out that many things in the temporary ordinance were thrown out before, with direction to return to the committee for rework, and they appeared back in the ordinance. MI'. Allen clarified that relative to historic merit, the national registry placed few if any places on the list that would meet any of those criteria, and in the national criteria of historic registry of historical places, the guidelines were fairly broad and addressed specific districts. Mr. Cowan said it was an important consideration. He explained that one approach would be to have no demolition and no ability to appeal. Staff is tp/ing to allow some flexibility for the homeowner during the 4-5 month period that if they did want to proceed, there would be some criteria to evaluate the request to be removed from the list even though it would only be good for a maximum of 180 days. Mr. Cowanwelcomed suggestions for other criteria that would be helpful. Rev. Michael Mitchell, representing the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, said that St. Joseph's Church site did not meet the criteria in Appendix A, and noted lkat the second page further defines it and exempts it. He said it was a site and 4 buildings on the site were not designated; therefore one would not. know which of the buildings is affected by the ordinance. He said he appreciated stat~s efforts but based on the criteria used, none of the buildings on the site should be considered for the ordinance. Chair Hah'is clarified that the fast 15 items were listed because they are in the General Plan to be reviewed and are required by the General Plan to be reviewed. She said that she had the same questions "Is it a site, or is it the structure being discussed?" and she said it would be helpful to include such a comment as a footnote to the appendix when it is returned, so that it is known exactly what is being affected. Mr. Rodney Baetu, Union Church, 10340 Cherty Tree Lane, elaborated on Rev. Mitchell's comment, and said that in his opinion, designation of the Union Church as a historic site was absurd. He said it was his understanding from the City Council meeting that these were merely recommendations and would be investigated, sites looked at, and people interviewed. He said that Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 12, 1997 the majority of attendees of Union Church objected to the historical site designation as there was no historic architecture, only a few historic names assocmted with some of the buildings. Chair Hams noted receipt of the letter from First BapUst Church of Cupertino, relative to Items 10 and 11 on the Resource list in Appendix B. Mr. Cowan sqxmmarized that the Church had future plans to remove both buildings from the site and rebuild. He said that during the interim period there was a mechanism for the churches to make an application, stating that they did not feel the sites applied, and would like to appeal the ordinance and consider it on its own merits. He noted that he did not recommend removing 1 through 15 on the General Plan items without going through a General Plan change; but there was the option to remove with the interim ordinance, the Historic Resources Items 1-16, which are recommendations fxom the Cupertino Historical Society. Chair Hams recommended identifying the Historic Resources in alphabetical order, for ease of reference when comparing to Historic Sites. She suggested that the committee receive a copy of the meeting minutes, and the letter from the church, as well as any other written material received specifying staffs thinking on the subject, which would provide the committee with a history of what has transpired. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. A brief discussion ensued regarding the upcoming agenda items for scheduled meetings, in order to accommodate the continuance of the iteaz MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue the Historic Demolition Ordinance and 12-EA-97 to the May 27, 1997 Planning Commission meeting Com. Roberts Passed 5-0-0 Chair Haxris commented that there was no section in the report coveting the biographical information of the reviewer as well as other properties they have reviewed. She suggested that such a section be included in the report. Chair Harris moved the agenda to Item 7. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 3-TM-97 and 16-EA-97 Mary Kirkeby 11354 and 11350 S. Stelling Tentative Map to subdivide 2 existing parcels totaling .83 acres into 5 residential lots, ranging from 6,619 sq. fl. to 7,745 sq. fl. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 19, 1997 Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan and illustrated the location of the proposed 5 lot subdivision. She explained the background of the application as outlined in the attached staff report. Using a slide presentation, Ms. Wordell illustrated the location of the proposed subdivision relative to the surrounding uses. She said that staff feels that the shapes of the lots, sizes, and configuration of the flags were compatible with the surrounding area. Plann'mg Commission Minutes 6 May 12, 1997 Ms. Wordell discussed the drainage issue as outl'med in the staff report. She explained that the proposal is to connect the drain system through storm drains to hook up to the church property to the south and through an existing easement involving two lots. She said that at the time the staff report was written there was no evidence that any of the property owners had agreed to the easement, and staff suggests that if the easements are not confirmed, the item be continued to assure that there is a storm easement possible; otherwise if it is conditioned on getting that easement, staff would have to proceed with condemnation procedures. She said staff would prefer to get it up front, but felt the system would work, and that it was a matter of getting permission. Ms. Wordell discussed the lot size and design as outlined in the staff report. She said that staff feels that the pads created are as low to the existing grade as possible, even though there is a higher grade difference because there is a natural slope in the land. Referring to the site plan, Ms. Wordell illustrated the plans for nee removal and tree retention. Staff recommends that the future property owners be able to remove any of the protected trees, provided they be replaced by 24" box natives. Ms. Wordell clarified that if the application is continued, there is not a need for the applicant to request an extension because the 50 days do not expire immediately as it is attached to a negative declaration which runs longer. Staff ll.n:ommeads that the item be continued unless the applicant has verification of storm drain easements; otherwise approval is recommended. Mr. Marv Kirkeby, 2397 Forest Avenue, project engineer, said he felt the issues were the storm drain and the street. Referring to the site map, Mr. Kirkeby illustrated the various driveway accesses and reviewed the histoxy of the item. He said there was an offer of dedication of 8 feet for future street width purposes which was not yet accepted by the city. Mr. Kirkeby explained the drainage system which was outlined in the staff report, gating that the church had a catch has'm system at the rear of their lot piping out and hooking into the pipe built by Bass Homes, which applicant proposes to hook into and utilize the same system on the property below Lee. He said it would not require consmaction work on the two lots. Mr. Kirkeby said that the church as well as the two Lees verbally agreed to grant the easement. He proposed a solution of conditioning that the applicant get an easement. He said that the lay of the land is such that the only way to properly drain the property is that it must have some kind of release through the existing residential lots, and said he felt it was impossible to bring the drainage to Stelling Road requiting that there be a drainage system of some sort out to the Crest one. He summarized that the alternatives were to condition the approval that applicant has to do it; continue the application to such a time that the applicant returns with all the paperwork; and he proposed a third alternative that if agreement is reached, that the application is approved subject to the applicant getting an easement, if not this one, another workable solution; and in the event they are not successful, they would return and seek help from the City at that time with an order or procedure by the planning Commission that the applicant return and request condemnation. He said he felt that they could secure all the rights of way within three days and requested that it not be delayed for another 30 or 60 days, holding the project up. Chair Harris requested that the slide illustrating the driveway entrance, and the two streets going into the cnl de sac, be shown. Mr. Rupi Sekhon, 11342 So. Stelling Rd., ilhtstrated the location of his property on the site map and said that he was not previously aware that 8 feet of his property was dedicated to the city; he was not informed by the builder, developer, or real estate agent that the easement existed. He said that he found it in the documents, but was not informed about it and commented that the next time he ~lamfin~ Commission Minutes 7 May [2, [997 purchases property, he will consult an attorney to review the documents. Mr. Sekhon said that his letter provided detail of his objections. He said subdivision development would be devastating to his family. He illustrated the location oftbe front door of his home, the garage, and the proposed 8 foot fence and explained the proposed access to his property if the application was approved. In response to Com. Mahoney's question about the width of the street, Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, said that the width of the street was the standard width for a cul de sac street. He said that the fire department prefers to have 23 foot clear width. Mr. Garold Pugh, 11360 So. Stelliag Rd., questioned if there would be any condemnation of his property, which was on the fight side of the road. Ms. Wordell said at this time there was nothing required; however, if it were to subdivide in the future, two additional feet would be needed for the cul de sac and the turning movements. She said that they would have right of access as it would be a public street. Ms. Ad6anne Hofer, 1175 Crestline Drive, expressed concern about the PG&E and drainage access. She said she had experienced problems with drainage in the past 18 years and was concerned with the excess flow passing through She said that her retaining wall had flooded several times in the winter. Ms. Hofer pointed out that her property was at the end of the PG&E line and she experienced problems with power surges, and questioned if the lines would be upgraded so the surges would not continue. She said that a line was also broken at the storm drain last summer. Ms. Wordell illustrated on the map the path of the drainage, which went down the back of the property into a pipe, which continued into the storm drain system, as described earlier. She said she was unable to address other utility problems. Referring to the site map, Mr. Kirkeby illustrated the location of the power poles and said that presently the properties were served from the Stelling end electrically, and he felt that would not change. He explained that the proposal was for the pipeline to pick up the street water as well as the two rear yards, and that there would be a concrete valley gutter as part of the emergency overland release system. Com. Maboney questioned if the city had streets which were less than standard. Mr. Chong said that they were the city's stalldalrds. Mr. Cowan respoilded that the standards were the minim~tlll Cul de sac width, 30 feet of pavement with a few feet of right of way. He said that because the Central Fire District's equipment is bigger, they require wider streets and it may be necessataff to recommend to the Planning Commission that in lien of having parking on both sides of the slxeets, parking may be restricted to only one side of the street with a 28 or 30 foot street, which presents other problems. Mr. Kkkeby said he was not aware if there was a deferred agreement on two of the properties; and illustrated where he was proposing to build the curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Relative to the north lots, Ms. Wordell pointed out that there was a condition of approval stating they may have a 3 foot high fence within the 15 feet al the south property line of Parcel B which is the second lot back; therefore 15 feet back from the new line, there could be a 3 foot fence within the 15 feet. Mr. Tony Wong, 11346 So. Stelling Rd., said he was the owner of the lot facing So. Stelling Road, and stated with the widening of the driveway, his home would be adversely affected, as his bedroom would only be five feet from the sidewalk; and subjected to traffic noise. He ilhisWated the location of his garage on the site map, and said that his front door and driveway were facing So. Stelling Road. He explained that when he remodeled his home he encountered problems, wherein the city approved the plan and then said that an error was made because of the street dedication that in the future would turn his lot into a comer lot with a different setback requirement. He said that since it Planning Commission Minutes g May 12, 1[}~'7 was approved and the excavation was done, the city indicated that it would be a known non- conforming code violation. Mr. Berk Simonds, 1171 So. Stelling Road, asked what impact the development would have on the lot to the right of the street. Ms. Wordell indicated there would be no changes to the lot; however, in thc future if the lot was proposed for subdivisinn, there would be additional requirements at that time. He said he was in favor of the project if it did not prevent the referenced lot fi:om being subdivided at a later date to tie the area into suitable homes. Chair Hams said that the lot was currently net 17,364 sq. ft. and appeared to be sufficient for two lots; however, the commitment could not be made at this time. Com. Austin said she felt the subdivision was well planned, and ffthe drainage plan was solved, she was in favor of it. She requested that staff clarify why they did not recommend approval contingent upon approval of the drainage being able to go through the south property. Ms. Wordell said that staff did not want the city to have to condenm should anyone not agree to the easement, therefore they requested the agreement prior to approval. She explained that if it is a condition of approval that applicant must have the easements, then even though people don't agree to it, the city would have to condemn in order to achieve that, unless the third alternative is feasible. Com. Doyle said the drainage was appropriate and lot height was appropriate. He said he felt Wee removal should be minimized as much as possible, and attempt to minimize the easement to the 8 foot dedication to reduce the impact. Com. Mahoney commented that it appeared the street wasn't in the center of the development. He suggested centering the road, noting that he did not understand why the people on the north side of the street had to pick up the burden of the two feet. He questioned if5 and 5 could be utilized. Ms. Wordell said that it was not a condition of approval of previous maps, therefore the previous map would need to be emended. Com. Doyle reiterated that an attempt should be made to minimize the 8 foot setback and the impact if at all possible whether it is a balancing act of the center line or not. He said that possibly there was need for only one sidewalk. Com. Austin concurred with Com. Doyle. Com. Maboney said he concurred with Com. Doyle except for the trees. He said he would like to center thestreet, which meant giving up the 3 feet and recog~izlng it could be cloned on the other side, it could still be subdivided. Com. Mahoney said he felt it would minimize the impact. Com. Roberts said he felt the drainage issue alone convinced him more time was needed before a decision could be made, and he agreed that Com. Mabouey's suggestion of centering and leveling out the dedication should be explored. He said that he was in favor ora continuance. Chair Harris said she was in favor of a continuance because it was a nmall enough amount of lime for staff to review the easements. She said that Com. Mahouey addressed an issue that would be appropriate for public works to review and comment on in consideration of the fire deparmaent's requirements. She said she felt different than the other Commissioners, and stated that both properties were developed with an eye to the cul de sac being developed in the manner proposed. She pointed out Planning Commission Minutes 9 Ma~ 12, 1997 that the 8 foot dedication was in their deeds and it was unfortunate that they did not read such an important document. She commented that it was the choice of the homeowner to continue with the addition after he was aware of the problem. Relative to having one curb, she said that it would be an attractive completed area to have the curb and gutter fully developed at this time. She said that if it works with the 5 feet making the roadway 3 feet smaller, she was not opposed to it; but she said she was not in favor of doing only half the cul de sac, the curbs on one side and only half way around the cul de sac. She said that she preferred to complete the entire development, especially as there was a developer who was willing to do it at this time. She reiterated that she was in favor of a Com. Mahoney clarified that his suggestion was not to make the street smaller and not to eliminate any curbs; and the main issue was to make a sidewalk. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to continue Application 3-TM-97 and 16-EA-97 for 30 days. Mr. Kirkeby requested that the continuance be for a maximum of two weeks. Chair Harris explained that the next planning Commission meeting agenda was already full and staff needed to work with applicant on the item, and staffrequested 30 days. SECOND: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 6-EXC-97 Joal Morris (Luchessi Residence) 11621 Regnart Canyon Drive Hillside Exception to construct a 632 sq. fi. addition, and locate a propane tank and emergency generator on a prominent ridgeline in accordance with Chapter 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Cdl, Planner Ik reviewed the application for a 632 sq. · addition, location of a propane tank and emergency generator on a prominent ridgeline, as outlined in the attached staff report. She pointed out that the addition will not have a sJEnificallt visual impact on neighboring properties as it was barely visible to the neighbors or is screened by large trees. The screened porch is located in the rear of the residence and is not visible from neighboring properties or the valley floor; the generator will be located behind an existing gazebo and is not expected to pose any noise or visual impacts; and the propane tank Io~ated at the front of the residence will be painted green to blend in with existing foliage and several large trees will screen it fi-om view. Staff recommends approval of the applicatiom Mr. Joal Monis, 107 Las Ondas Ct, Santa Cruz, applicant, noted that the roottine of the proposed screened-in porch already existed; explained that the single hatched area presently exists and the double hatched area is what is being added which would not alter the silhouette of the house. Com. Doyle asked if the applicant would object if part of the application was mention of some of the trees; Mr. Morris said that they would be amenable to that. Planning Commission Minutes l0 May 12, 1997 Mr. Mark Cambra, Cambra Constmchon, 255 Summerhill Dr., Scotts Valley, said that the U'ees referred to were eucalyptus trees, and at some point at 150 feet tall, could be determined more of a fire hazard than a shield looldng at the pros and cons of what might be acceptable on a property for safety. He suggested that not p~mtitling the owners to remove the trees might be something they should have the option to do as opposed to setting a requirement that the trees remain. Chair Harris noted that part of the applicant's testimony was that the central addition was screened by the trees which implies the intent to keep screening there; if not by the present trees, perhaps others. Com. Doyle expressed concern that the present residence was well screened and questioned what the precedent was for a landscaping requirement to minimize the impact. He said he was in favor &the application with a condition relative to the tree screening. Mr~ Cowan explained that if the planning Commission felt that the application could only be approved based upon maintaining a screen, it could require that the eucalyptus be maintained forever which may be difficult to track; or it could be conditioned as part of the building permit, that some additional more permanent trees be planted along the one elevation, perhaps two or three oaks. When the p~lmit is issued, there shall be a certain number of new trees and the eucalyptus trees could only be removed in the future. Com. Austin said she was in favor of the additions and her main concern was the visual impacts. She said she was not in favor of preserving the eucalyptus, but that a screen should be maintained possibly with the planting of large native trees. Com. Roberts said that it was a pleasing project that conformed to the hillside ordinance guidelines and commended the architect and the designer. He said he felt the removal of the eucalyptus trees should be p~lmitted, and encouraged, to be replaced by oak trees, which grow better with less water. He suggested that a enndition be drafted to that effect. Com. Mahoney said the epplieation was appropriate and he did not feel a condition relative to the trees was necessa~, but he was willing tO agree with it. Chair Harris said that she normally would not approve 600 sq. ft. on a prominent ridgeline, but the remodel was well designed. She said that the argument that it is screened needs to be an argument, which means there needs to be a screening in the long term. She said she was in favor of conditioning the approval on the planting of five 36 inch box large native trees to be so placed that when the eucalyptus are removed, if removed, the replacement txees would provide the screen which the eucalyptus now provides. Com. Doyle said he would propose 24 inch box trees as they are not getting rid of the eucalyptus and 36 inch trees were more expensive. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 6-EXC-97 with the stipulation of pirating of five 24 inch box potentially large native trees, with the intention of providing a scre~ to the addition where the eucalyptus presently screens. Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Chair Hams moved the agenda back to Item 4. Planning Commi~.sion Minutes 11 May 12, 1997 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-EXC-97 Emily Chert TheE & H 1st FLP 2100l Seven Springs Parkway Fence exception to locate a fence 6 inches from the side property line instead of the required 5 feet, and the required 12 feet next to a key lot in accordance with Chapter 16.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the application for a fence exception for the lot on the northwest comer of Stelling Road and Seven Springs Parkway as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the fence exception because of the strange offset situation in terms of the retaining wall and because the net effect will be the same as if it was a conventional arrangement in terms of distance from curb to the fence. He noted that a wrought iron fence existed. He said that because it was an important entry into Seven Springs Ranch, it was suggested that a requirement that landscaping be installed and maintained be a condition to ensure that the landscaping is maintained adequately. Chair HanSs opened the public heating for input; as there was no one present who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Hams stmamarized two proposed conditions that the fence on the Seven Springs Parkway side is to be wrought iron and the landscaping is to be installed and maintained along the Seven Springs Parkway frontage. Mr. Cowan showed slides illuslxating the retaining wall and wrought iron fence. A discussion ensued regarding the fence design and landscaping. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 7-EXC-97 according to the model resolution with the addition regarding the landscaping, if not presently in the model resolution, landscaping to be installed and maintained along Seven Springs Parkway, and including the stipulation that the fence be wrought iron. Austin Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Mahoney reported that the Diocese property environmental review was completed, and that in terms of gnidelines, architectural questions were raised. He said it was conditionally approved with certain mitigation. Com. Mahoney commented that the May 17 field trip was well timed. Planning Commi~siOll Millutes 12 May 12, 1997 Chair Hams reported that the Economic Summit was well attended by the community and business owners. She said it was an excellent presentation, well facilitated, with meaningful issues brought forward for discussion. Chair Hams recommended that a planning Comrmssioner be assigned to participate, as it validates the statement to the public that the city is dedicated to economic development. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan reported that he would respond to the letter from the three individuals who wrote concerning John Drive. He reported that the comm~mity is concerned about the building of large houses and neighborhood meetings will be held in the Garden Gate neighborhood to discuss prezonmg and annexation. He said that the County Board of Supervisors will be conducting a study using Cupertino as a pilot for annexation and prezoning as this is a countywide issue. He said it was a reco~tmiTed issue from residents of some areas about tearing down older structures and rebuilding larger structures. He said the R1 ordinance would be reviewed but the General Plan would take preference. Chair Hams announced that there was a Mayor's breakfast scheduled for Thursday, May 14 from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and asked that a replacement attend in her place. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Com. Austin questioned the recent article regarding Santa Clara County's adoption of the hillside ordinance. Mr. Cowan said that the question remains as to what the Planning Commission's involvement should be in the nuances of the ordinances. He said that staff recommends that if the site is not visible, a larger home would be permissible, but some of the environmental groups are saying they want control. He said he felt there would be an individual design control, an ASA process for all facilities based on some guidelines, which is the approach discussed about 3 months ago. Mr. Cowan announced that Michele Bjurman's replacement for four months is Debra Ungo- McCormack, whose primary responsibility will be to work on the design issue for the Planning Commission's consideration, as well as the historic ordinance. There was a brief discussion regarding the May 17 field trip. Chair Harris suggested that the field trip include a visit to Saratoga to visit single family homes limited to single story. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to the field trip at 8:30 a.m. in the City Hall parking lot on Saturday, May 17, relative to the Diocese development project. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary .~pproved as presented: May 27, 1997.