Loading...
PC 01-08-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 8, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Harris, Mahoney, Roberts, Chairman Doyle. Staff present: Robert Cowan, Community Development Coordinator, Ciddy Wordell, City planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner II, Colin Jung, Associate Planner, and Tom Wries, Planning Intern. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the December 11, 1995 meeting: Com. Harris requested the following corrections to the December 11 minutes: Page 3, 5th paragraph from bottom; 3rd line from bottom of paragraph: Delete "add" and insert "allow an addition of'. Page 4, 4th paragraph from bottom; third l~n¢: "planted" should read: "planned". Page 9, third motion: Delete "the architectural" and insert: "pending review based on the architectural". Page 10, No. 7: Delete first sentence and replace with: "Chairman Doyle explained that since Com. Roberts had served on the Environmental Review Committee for two years and because he was going to be serving as Planning Commission Chairman for 1996, and not have the time to ennfinue on the Review Committee, a replacement was needed for the Environmental Review Committee." MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of the December 11, 1995 meeting as amended. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from the County of Saata Clam Sheriff relative to Item 10 on the agenda was noted. Planning Commisfiou Minutes 2 January 8, 1996 POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 1 i-U-95 Cupertino DeOro Club Cupertino DeOru Club 20441 Homestead Road Use Permit to add a 580 square foot serving area to an existing club building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONI'INUANCE TO FEB. 12, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. HanSs moved to continue Application 1 I-U-95 to the February 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0-0 7~ Application No: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 14-U-95, 8-TM-95, 11-Z-95 and 32-EA-95 Peninsula 7 Same Peninsula Avenue Use Permit to construct 7 residential units and one second unit on a .7 acre parcel in a Planned Development Zone. Tentative Map to subdivide a .7 acre parcel into 7 lots. Zoning a .7 acre parcel to P (Res. 4.4-7.7 dwelling units per gross acre.) ENVIRONIVlENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended 'I'ENTATIVE CITY COUNCIl. HEARING DATE: February 20, 1996 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO JAN. 22, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: 9-TM-95 The E&H First Family L.P. Same 11641 So. Stelling Road Tentative Map to subdivide a .9 acre parcel into four lots. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO JANUARY 22, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-EXC-95 Janet M. DeCarli Same 11640 Regnart Canyon Drive Exception to Chapter 19.40.050 J, Residential Hillside Zones to allow an addition to a residence on a prominent ridgeline. Planning Commission Minutes a January ~, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exompt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO JANUARY 22, 1996 PLANNINO COMMISSION MEETING 12. Application No.: Applicaat: Property Owner: Location: 16-U-95, 12-Z-95, 10-TM-95 and 33-EA-95 Mary Jozovich, Don & Sue Jozovich and Viola LaTa,xen Same 10106-10132 Blaney Avenue Use Permit to construct 8 residential units in a Planned Development Zoning District. Zoning to zone an approximately one acre parcel to P (RES 5-10). Tentative Map to consolidate 3 lots and to subdivide an approximately one acre parcel into 8 lots. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 20, 1996 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO JANUARY 22, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to continue Applications: 11-U-95; 14-U-95; T-TM-95; 11-Z-95; 32-EA-95; 9-TM-95; 6-EXC-95; 16-U-95, 12-Z-95; 10-TM-95; and 33-EA-95 to the January 22, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 11-ASA-95 Citation Homes Same Comer of DeAnza Blvd. and Homestead Road Architectural review to install a 6 foot masonry wall between a proposed apartment building and single family residential development. ENVI~O~AL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Chairman Doyle requested Application No. 11-ASA-95 be removed from the Consent Calendar. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 12-ASA-95 Pacific Bell Mobile Services Bradford Liebman 10420 Bubb Road Architectural review to install a 6 five-foot panel antennas on the roof of an existing building for a personal communications service (PCS) wireless utility facility. Planning Commission Minutes 4 ]anuai3' 8, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Com. Harris requested Application No. 12-ASA-95 be removed bom the Consent Calendar. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-EXC-95 and 13-ASA-95 George McKee Same 10260 Bubb Road Exception to exceed the wall sign height as required in Chapter 17.24.060. Architectural revaew for exterior modifications to an existing building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Item 3 of the Consent Calendar Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 1. Application No.: 11 -ASA-95 Applicant: Citation Homes Staff oresentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Coordinator, referred to the overhead of the conceptaal landscape plan, illustrating the location of the masonry wall. In response to Chairman Doyle's question regarding placement of windows, Mr. Cowan responded that it was similar to the wall approved with the original use permit. Chairman Doyle expressed concern about the potential dead space between no windows area and a block wall, stating that it might present a h~,nrd. Mr. Chung Pong Ng, Citation Homes, explained that there are windows facing the wall, but no access pathways between the buildings and the wall, and stated the areas would be landscaped. Mr. Ng said that it was the request of the Portofmo Homeowners and Corsica Homeowners that the wall be a solid barrier between the two sites. Chairman Doyle opened the meeting for public comment. As there was none, the public input portion was closed. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to accept Application 11-ASA-95 per the model resolution. Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 8, 1996 2. Application No.: Applicant: 12-ASA-95 Pacific Bell Mobile Services In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Wordell stated that the application differed from the minor modification sent in the mail, in that the minor modification was to an existing use permit with a process for a director's minor modification at a different location. She noted that the subject building does not have such a use permit. Com. Harris oxpressed concern with the application because there was nothing in the model resolution about notification of the presence of the antennas to the individuals who would be renting the units. She stated that since people were already renting the units and did not have the option, nor were they notified of the meeting, that there existed no oppommity to speak on the subject. She said that because of the radiation issue, risky or not, people should be informed when renting the units that the antennas are present. Com. Harris recommended that the model resolution be approved but require notification of the present tenants and any future tenants of the presence of the an~Dn~a.g Ms. S,,Tann¢ Hook, J. M. Consulting Group, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, explained that the property owner should be notifying the tenants of any installations or activity within the building and stated she would follow up and make certain it occurs. She pointed out that because the antennas are giving the radio coverage area over the building, essentially there is no emission going down into the building. Ms. Hook stated that she had no objection to notification of present and prospective tenants being a condition of the application. Chairman Doyle opened the meeting for public comment. As there was none, the public input portion of the meeting was closed. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application No. 12-ASA-95 with the addition of Condition 2 in Section 3 that present and prospective tenants be notified of the existence of the antennas. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-ASA-95 Cupertino Village Associates Same Southeast comer of Wolfe Rd. and Homestead Rd. Exterior architectural, landscaping and parking modifications to an existing shopping center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED. Staffpresentation: The video presentation revim~xl the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. The application is to change the exterior architecture, landscaping and parking lot area of the Cupertino Village Shopping Center and to request exceptions to the sign ordinance. The presentation indicated that the project goal was to provide a strong neighborhood l~lanning ¢or~fission Minutes 6 January 8, 1996 oriented retail environment; and make the architecture more open and airy to draw more attention to shops in the rear and inside of the center. Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner H, noted that staff concerns have been corrected through the conditions of approval. Mr. Peter Ko, Kenneth Rodriguez & Partners, referred to the architectural drawings and explained that thc basic design of the shopping center is to maintain thc existing architectural style, while trying to keep the traditional building forms in tact. He noted that the proposed changes are minimal to the exterior of the buildings. Ia response to questions fi'om Com. Roberts, Mr. Ko ~at~l that the roof would be an earthtone beige color. Referring to the drawings of the building elevations, he illustrated the new entry to the courtyard, and explained the colors used throughout the center. He stated that the function of the entryway was to open up the courtyard area to make the stores more visible. Mr. Ko explained that the mature trees scheduled to be removed are in bont of the entry to the courtyard, but other trees will be added to the parking lot. Chairman Doyle requested clarification of the exterior sign program on the north sides of Building A and B and the east side of Building D. Referring to the illustrations of the building elevations, Ms. Bjurman explained the placement of signs on the different storefronts. In response to a question from Com. Austin, Mr. Ko stated that the signs would not all be like colors; each tenant would select a color. Mr. Ko reviewed the color concept to be used in the different locations of the center. Com. Harris requested clarification on the sign program, specifically Plans 1 and 3. Ms. Bjurman explained the difference between Plan 1 and 3. Com. Harris noted that Plan 3 was attractive and similar to what is present now. Referring to the ~afF report, Com. Harris noted that the staff report refers to a condition of approval requiring that the composition roof be installed so that the individual shingles overlap, cre~ting a layered look like the existing roof. She stated that the model resolution states the roof material shall have the material thickness similar to the heavy shake roof, with no mention of overlapping nature. Com. Harris questioned if staff would object to changing the text of the model resolution to what is indicated in the ~aff report. Ms. Bjurman indicated she had no objections to tho change. Ia response to Chairman Doyle's questions about the preliminary landscape plan, Ms. Bjurman indicated the tree marked for removal was a l-inch oleander. Referring to the overhead, she illustrated where the trees would be located, as well as the location of the large trees which were being removed. Ms. Bjurman stated that both the reconfiguration of the panking lot and the restriping results in the majority oftbe trees. She noted that trees marked M, V and W were to be removed. Mr. Ko stated that trees M and W could be preserved. A discussion ensued regarding signage. Referring to the sign exceptions, Com. Harris noted that the third sign exception refers to an existing monument sign that already exceeds the current sign ordinance. Mr. Ko stated that they would like to increase the size of the sign and put 3 or 4 tenants on the same sign. Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 8, 1996 Chairman Doyle asked if the neighbors were contacted regarding the change of location of the trash receptacle. Ms. Bjurman stated she had contacted the church and they had no objections. Chairman Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Mci Braun, Good Samaritan Church, said that church representatives met with the applicant regarding signage, parking, and the trash receptacle, and are satisfied with their approach. Referring to the overhead, Mr. Braun illustrated the parking arrangement and indicated it was beneficial to the church. He commented that the closure of the Homestead Road entrance will make travel safer on Homestead. Mr. Braun ~atod that the location of the trash receptacle was near the church playground and with the 7 feet wall, there should not be a problem with trash or papers flying over the wall. He stated that the proposal will contribute to making it a more effective shopping center. Rev. Kraps, Pastor, Good Samaritan Church, expressed appreciation to the shopping center owners for their cooperation and honoring the parking agreement. He explained that the parking agreement was for the use of the non-exclusive spaces in the Cupertino Village parking lot for church a_etivities. He said he felt the proposal for the shopping center would enhance its liability over the future. Mr. Braun added that following the original parking agreement, the church was granted a permit to build a sanctuary and new educational wing, and the City Council and Planning Commission approved the parking agreement in helping to meet the parking requirements of the church. Mr. Peter Pau, owner, shopping center, stated that it was his goal to bring the shopping center back to the vibrant, successful shopping center it once was. He recalled when it started twenty years ago it was very popular, and has always been an asset to the community. It has declined over the years and the hope is to reverse the trend. In response to Com. Maboney's question, Mr. Ko stated that the wall enclosing the trash receptacle could be 7 feet high. Chairman Doyle questioned if there were any businesses la the enmmunity with signs as large as 7 by 7. Com. Harris noted that the request was for the logo to be 7 by 7 and the sign to fall below it. Com. I-Iarfis asked if the parking agreement should be made a condition of approval in the event the ownership of the center ehaaged, since it was an agreement with the church. Mr. Cowan explained that the agreement runs with the land, is a long term agreement, and the plan is strictly an architectural application. In response to a question from Com. Roberts regarding the neon signage, Mr. Ko explained that the neon was inside the cabinet, not visible. Chairman Doyle summarized the issues: Color; tree removal; 3 sign changes and roofing material. Com. Austin said she didn't care for the persian green color which was used excessively. She said that she felt the heritage trees, specifically the ash trees, should be saved, and that the tree Planning Commission Minutes s January 8, 1996 replacement should be one-to-one. Com. Austin stated the roof materials were acceptable as 10ng as it was not metal or aqua. She stated the wall around the Uash receptacle should be at least 7 foot 8 inches. Com. Austia stated she was not in favor of the 7 foot signs. Com. Mahoney stated that thc colors were acceptable; retain the two ash trees; signagc was acceptable and the roof acceptable with the change recommended by Com. Harris. Com. Roberts stated that the fireproof roof was acceptable; and the color acceptable. He stated that the large sign was excessive and he preferred not to make the exception on the sign on the from of Building A; other signage was acceptable. Com. Roberts favored the higher wall around the trash receptacle. He ~ted he was in favor of preserving trees M and W, and suggested that the trees be extended on Wolfe Road, around Homestead Road, which would continue the landscape around Homestead Road. Com. Harris said she did not like the screaming orange colors, and would prefer something more subtle. She stated that relative to the roof, she would like to use the text in the staff report which states "that the composition roof shall be installed so that the individual shingles overlap, creating a layered look like the existing roofs". She said she was in favor of retaining trees M and W. Com. Harris pointed out, if the church was agreeable to a 7 foot wall, it probably would be better than 7 foot 8 inches fi'om a visual standpoint, as it would be protective, but not overbearing. She stated that the 7 by 7 foot sign was not acceptable, and that the maximum she would approve for the logo would be 6 by 6; preferably 5 by 5. Com. Harris noted specifically that the sign being approved is the one on Page 3, with the round logo and individual letters, which is tasteful and will enhance the center. Mr. Ko requested approval of the 6 by 6 logo sign. Chairman Doyle stated that thc orange color was not acceptable. The tree removal, with trees M and W being retained was acceptable; roof material being the three dimensional feature was acceptable with Com. Harris' recommended wording. Chairman Doyle stated that the fence around the trash receptacle being 7 foot or higher was acceptable at the discretion of the applicant. He said that the street sign is acceptable; banner sign aceeptable; and the large sign 5 by 5 maximum. Chairman Doyle noted that there are signs on larger buildings set back fi.om the street that don't have signs that large. In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Wordell stated that the 6,000 square foot building application would be presented to the Commission in the future. Chairman Doyle summarized the issues: The commissioners agreed on color; agreement on trees: save trees M & W, replace 20 trees; roof material: modify the wording to incorporate staff proposal; trash receptacle: at the discretion of staff, 7 foot or higher; street sign agreeable; banner sign agreeable; medallion sign: Com. Mahoney proposed 25 square feet which would make it better than 5 by 5 if it was round; three commissioners were in favor of the 5 by 5 sign. Com. Harris commented that relative to trees, it indicated 1 for 1, but 6 will be planted in 24 inch boxes. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Ma,honey moved to approve Application 9-ASA-95 per the model resolution with recommended changes. Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 Planwmg C0mm/ssi0n Minutes 9 January 8, 1996 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-ASA-95 Ehud Gordon Same 11703 Dorothy Anne Way Architectural approval to construct a new residence in a Planned Development. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: hnunry 16, 1996 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the apphcation as set forth in the attached staff report. The application is for construction of a single family home on a hillside lot. Plans for the home must be evaluated under the city's residential hillside zones ordinance, although the ordinance does not regulate architectural style. The plan will also be evaluated by the Seven Springs Homeowners Association and City Council. The application fails to meet Cupertino's residential hillside zones in certain areas: (1) Whether to allow more than 500 square feet of the proposed development to occur on slopes that exceed 30%; (2) Whether to allow the applicant tn exceed both the grading quantity maximum by 500 cubic yards and graded yard area limit by 1300 square feet; and (3) Whether to accept the applicant's color selections of light peach and fiat orange color. The RI-IS ordinance calls for natural earth tones and/or vegetation colors with a reflecfivity value of 60. The video p~sentation also reviewed other concerns of the proposed dwelling. Staff recommends architectural approval of the application. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reviewed the alXaehed staff report. Mr. Amg pointed out that the proposed home does meet the RHS zoning smadards in terms of the house size, setbacks and a number of the other standards. He discussed the areas that the home did not meet the standards as outlined in the staff report. He indicated that a full size set of drawings was posted on the wall behind the Commissioners for ease of reference. Staff recommendations are contained in the model resolution. In response to Com. Mahoney's request for clarification on the area of disagreement about what is yard area, Mr. Jung noted on the overhead the areas that applicant said should not count as the graded yard area because it is relatively narrow, and them is a slope between the terrace and it is not usable. The only area that should be counted as the yard area is the porch area at the base of the house. In response to Com. Roberts' request for clarification of the grading quantity and why the applicant had to make the house longer and visibly more massive in order to minimize the grading quantity, Mr. Jung said it was a contradictory argument. The fact that the house is long, with the fiat yard, is what makes the grading quantity so large. Mr. Jung stated that by reducing the graded yard area the amount of grading quantity is actually reduced. Referring to the geoteehnical report, Com. Harris questioned whether the roads and cut and fill slopes were constructed according to the recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes I0 January 8, 1996 Mr. Jung responded that the roads were buik by the subdivision developer with the Public Works Department supervising the construction. He stated that the other proposed cut and fill slopes could be addressed at the building permit stage. An update of the 1989 report is required before any further approvals on the site. Mr. Jung explained that all the lots in the area have been developed without any problems with the exception of the proposed application. Chairman Doyle stated that one of the reasons for the hillside ordinance was to minimize the visual impact. Mr. Jung stated that the portion of the lot being developed is on the lower part of the slope and is not visible from areas outside the immediate vicimty of the Seven Springs development. Mr. E. Gordon, property owner, explained that when he purchased the lot, the slope had emsiun problems and the city used sediment which he felt indicated that something was probably wrong with the cutting of the road. He stated that it was hoped that with the small retaining wall the erosion of the slope would be halted. He illustrated photos which he said indicated portions of the road were not stable. Referring to the porches in the architectural drawings, Mr. Gorden explained that the house has a visible mass. He discussed some possible changes by removing some porch roofs to make the appearance sot~er. Com. Roberts stated that the point raised by Mr. Gorden about the slumping hillside seems at variance with what the staff report indicates there were no problems with slope stability in this area. Fie questioned why the house needs to be long and narrow compared to deeper and less visually massive. Mr. Gordon illustrated a photo of the neighboring homes which are as large and in some eases larger. He said he wanted to take advantage of the view and was willing to spend more money to build the walls in steps, instead of building one retaining wall, which would hold the mountain better, and provide better drainage. Mr. Amnon Levy, architect, commented on the grading and fiat area. He said his calculations for the fiat area covered the area indicated in red on the overhead and he believes it is usable yard area. He explained that they were in the RI-IS allowable amount; the additional 500 cubic yards is mainly required to improve the front area of the house and make it even by filling up what was done by the Seven Springs development. He explained that the design of the house allowed each room to be facing the view. Chairman Doyle commented that the house covered about 3,500 square feet on the first floor, and in total area covered about 6,000 square feet. In response to Chair. Doyle's question, Mr. Levy stated that about 16% of the site was paving. Referring to the overhead drawings, Mr. Levy explained that the design concept was that of a village, breaking it up into small portions connected by smooth movements, which created a better visual picture rather than one large mass. He stated that there would be a waLking path following the natural ground to the gazebo and spa, with steps every 6 feet. The surrounding area around will be planted with fruit trees, trees and landscaping, creating a pleasant surrounding. A discussion ensued regarding the proposed retaining wall along the front property line wherein Mr. Levy answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. lung stated that staff was not in favor of Planning Commission Minutes 11 January g, 1996 applicant's proposal as outlined in the staff report, because the slope is steep and thc result would be a mininlum five foot retaining wall in back of the public utility easement. He said it would be unam'active and would require a substantial amount of money to construct a wall that size. Mr. Levy said he felt that staff's recommendation of landscaping alone would not be safe and that a retaining wall was needed for safety as the area is a steep sloped area. Mr. Jung addressed Com. Roberts' earlier concern about the slope stability itself. He noted that based on thc photos it appeared worse than when he last viewed it. The slope closest to the road is oversteepened; it is a 2 to 1 slope. He explained that the eroded portion is on thc over-steepened portion and is below the drainage swale that was put on the hillside to take the overland runoff from the slope. The erosion is occurring on the lower portion of the slope that is steeper, and not serviced by the drainage swale. Mr. Jung explained that Public Works' concern about the retaining wall was in the event they had to service the utilities, the retaining wall would have to be broken up at a substantial cost. Mr. Annan Sharmomiun, Engineer, stated that the question of the steep slope was handled in a sense that it is going to mitigate the existing situation. The retaining wall dlseassed is a retaiaing wall/privacy wall combination. Referring to the site plan, Mr. Sharmomian discussed the proposed retaining walls. Chairman Doyle opened the meeting for public input. As there was none, he closed the public input portion. In response to Com. Austin's questions about the fence atop the retaining wall, Mr. Jung stated that the fence ordinance states that the fence shall not be more than three feet tall within the front setback oftbe property, which is a standard requirement for all conventional zones. He svate4 in a planned residential area it can be varied. The reason for not having a tall fence in the first 20 feet of the setback was meant so that the houses wouldn't look like fenced off enclosures. The proposed application differs because it is a hillside lot. Com. Austin pointed out that if the wall was gated, the fire department would be required to retain keys to the gate. Mr. Jung stated it was his understanding that the retaining wall was a true retaining wall to retain the soil behind it, but it appeared the engineer was stating it would serve as a security fence. Mr. Levy said that the purpose of the retaining wall is to retain the ground behind the wall and indicated on the overhead where the ground would approach. Mr. Gordon indicated that a wrought iron fence would be on the fight and left hand side and said the front area does not have a fence. Chairman Doyle stated that the primary considerations were the visual impact and the slope stability on the fiat area. He stated he was unclear about the visual impact of the site. Mr. Jung pointed out that the biggest visual impact would be from within the Seven Springs development itseff. Chairman Doyle summarized the issues of concern: grading, exterior colors, retaining wall, drainage, coverage of the balcony, and architectural style. Plan~g, Commission Minutes l: January 8, 1996 A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the retaining wall. Mr. Jung stated he would reword'the eonditiun specifying it is acceptable pending approval of the Public Works Depar~ent. Staff would work with Public Works Department on the suitable base for the retaining waft. Com. Harris said that the front retaining wall/combination wrought iron fence was acceptable. She stated that she was not in favor of a 5 foot retaining wall, and she did not think landscaping alone would hold the slope acceptably. She said the rear terracing was an attractive solution. Com. Harris stated that too much of the property was built on slopes exceeding 30%, and the extensive amount of visible mass needed to be reduced. She stated that the house design was too busy and the colors too reflective. Com. Harris said she would like to see a geologists report on the plan. She noted that grading used to set a house into the hillside is acceptable; however, it is not accomplished with the proposal. There is excessive grading and the house is not set into the hill. Com. Roberts stated that the spirit of the hillside ordinance is to strive for ways to develop hillside lots that least disturb the natural landscape, and the proposal does not meet that criteria. He said it appeared that the entire lot is regraded except for the far rear. The proposal submitted stretches the building out to provide maximum views which is at odds with the objective of minimizing the mass of the building. He stated that the visible mass needs to be reduced. He stated that the colors are too pronounced, drawing attomion to the building and detracting from the landscape. Contrary to the staff report, there is a problem with slope stability. Com. Roberts said that the grading quantity was excessive. Referring to the front wall, he commented that a better solution was needed other than moving it back and having it higher. He stated that a registered geologist's opinion was needed stating that the mitigations would be adequate. Com. Roberts said that if the house were not so long, and it was stepped up into the hill in a way that others have been encouraged to do, the grading quantity would not have to be as large as it is. Com. Roberts stated that overall the merits of the design do not compensate for its faults and was opposed to making any concessions on any of the restrictions in the residential hillside ordinance for the building. Com. Mahoney said that the proposal does not meet the spirit of the hillside ordinance. He noted that in some instances the grading can be used to tuck the home into the slope, but it has not been accomplished in this proposal. The fence in front is acceptable; visual mass is too excessive; and colors needs to revert back to standard. Com. Mahoney recommended a geology report on the mitigation and leave to discretion of Public Works; grading is acceptable if it helps meet the spirit. Com. Austin said she agreed with the Commissioners. She stated that the visual impacts could be reduced by 500 square feet; the visual mass was too excessive and the building had too many different shapes. Colors should be muted. She stated she was concerned with the slope stability and recommended a geologist report with a recommendation for mitigation. Com. Austin said the grading was excessive. She said that retaining walls were necessary for stability and approved the front and hack walls. Chairman Doyle stated the front fence was acceptable; colors should revert back to hillside standards; and the visual mass should be reduced so as not to create a visible impact to the area. He said that a current geologist report is needed. He stated that grading should be a function of the way the design is implemented and not so much a hard and fast criteria. Planning Commission Minutes 13 January 8, 1996 Com. Harris recommended that if the proposal is presented later in a different form, the geologist look at the proposal and write the report on the terracing shown and the retaining walls in the plan as opposed to using the lot as shown now. Ms. Wordell questioned iftbe consensus oftbe Commission was that the size of the house should be reduced. Chairman Doyle stated that the square footage of the house did not need to be reduced but the design has to have the effect of reducing the visible mass. Chairman Doyle explained to Mr. Gordon that the Planning Commission was attempting to give input to the applicant and to staff as to what the architectural and site requirements should be for the site. He stated that the present design does not meet the criteria of hillside homes and does not meet the Planning Commission's approval. He clarified the options available: reject the proposal as it stands; or continue the application to another meeting so that applicant could work with staff on modifications and retom to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gordon explained that he attempted to stay within the design guidelines of the neighboring homes when designing his home. Mr. Cowan responded that the Commission has looked over the design of the homes anddoes not agree with the designs that had been executed. He said there are some poor examples of hillside architecture in that area which is part of the reason the hillside ordinance was put into effect and defined as they are. The way some of the designs were executed were deemed to be detrimental to the aesthetics of the community and the plmaning Commission has been given the charter to implement a different strategy that would be less intrusive to the neighboring areas. Mr. Gordon said he would work together with ~affto modify the design. In response to Mr. Gordon's question, Com. Mahoney clarified that there were many examples of Mediterranean style architecture along the Cannel coast that blend into the land forms, and stated he would not object to a Mediterranean style home with natural colors if it blended into the landscape. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to enntinue Application No. 10-ASA-95 to allow time to work with staffto resolve issues discussed Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 10. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 48-U-87 (Mod.) Joseph Franco & Florence Franco Trustee Same 20580 Home~e_~d Road Use Permit to locate a drive-through espresso pavilion in an existing shopping center and begin hours of operation at 5:30 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. The application is for a use permit to locate a drive-through espresso Planning Commission Minutes 24 January 8, 1996 pavilion in front oftbe PW Supermarket on Homestead Road. Staff recommends approval of the application. Mr. Tom Wiles, Planning Intern, discussed the attached letter fi.om the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department regarding the application. He noted that another condition of approval has been added to the resolution, dealing with three safety factors. The three areas of concern are: (l) that the structure be labeled to display that money is in the safe that cannot be opened by the clerk; (2) that the structure is secure to forced entry; and (3) that the structure be equipped with a cellular phone. The letter also adds a condition that the employees shall be trained in safety measures and to deal with police-type problems. Mr. Wiles stated that the applicant has ~reed to the employee safety training. A brief discussion followed wherein Mr. Wiles answered questions on parking and hours of operation. Mr. K. Masugi, owner, clarified that the hours of operation would be through 9:00 p.m. He stated that the peak hours for operations are in the morning fi.om 6:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Com. Harris clarified that the permit states the hours of operation through 11 p.m. which would avoid the necessity of returning to the Planning Commission to extend the closing time if needed. Com. Harris commented that there was no place in Cupertino to get coffee around midnight and asked about the possibility of extending operating hours later than 9 p.m. Mr. Masugi responded that business slows down considerably after 8 p.m. and in the two years' operation of his other location would not warrant it. Mr. Masugi indicated that the employees would be trained before they begin their employment. He explained that new employees work a training shi~ before they actually begin their regular work hours, therefore they would be trained in the safety measures before beginning their normal shift Chairman Doyle opened the meeting for public input. As there was none, the public input portion of the meeting was closed. Chairman Doyle discussed the issue that there were no drive through kiosks in Cupertino at present and referred to Exhibit A: Criteria for Review of Drive-Through Uses which indicated that in the past there was no desire to have them at this level. He stated that the application would set a precedent. Mr. Cowan explained that at one time Cupertino prohibited drive-thrus, primarily in the 1970s because of air quality issues. He stated the current General Plan, adopted in June 1993, has much less sa'ingent criteria to that policy. Since then handicapped persons and women with children have approached the City Council requesting drive-thins at fast food operations. Chairman Doyle said he felt having a drive-through entity was different than a fast food restaurant with a diive-through entry. Com. Harris stated that in her opinion drive-thrus encouraged business, and it is a goal of the Planning Commission to support the business community of Cupertino. She said she was in favor of the application, and that the citizens would benefit for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Cowan. She stated she would be willing to approve the application with a closing time of 1 a.m. Com. Planning Commission Minutes ~5 January 8, 1996 She stated she would he willing to approve the application with a closing time of 1 a.m. Com. Harris recommended that the condition of safety traininS inehid~ timelines for training the employees, and should indicate "will be trained within the first week of employment on how to..." Mr. Cowan said that in the past the Sheriff would approve a security plan for the operation that the Sberiff and the applicant can coordinate. Com. Roberts questioned why the 1983 criteria was being followed if it was no longer valid. He stated that if still applicable, he could not support the application in a sense that the criteria for exception was not fulfilled. Mr. Cowan read the 1993 General Plan which ~t~s "permit new drive-up service facilities for commercial, industrial or institutional uses only when adequate circulation, parking, noise control, architectural features and landscaping are compatible with the visual character of the surrounding uses and residential areas are adequately buffered. Further evaluate any proposed site for conformance with other goals and policies of the Plan." MOTION: SECOND: NOS: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 48-U-87 as per the model resolution with amendment stating that applicant prepare a security plan in consultation with Santa Clara County SheriffDept. Com. Mahoney Chairman Doyle, Com. Roberts Passed 3-2-0 11. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 15-U-95 Rosa Ziedelson Sarae 10140 Santa Clara Avenue Use Permit to add 256 square feet to an existing residence in a Planned Development Zoning District. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff oresentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the attached staff report. Referring to the ovcfnead drawing, Mr. Cowan illustrated thc proposed 250 square foot addition to the home. He stated that the addition was in compliance with the area requi~ments and setbacks. He noted that the existing floor area ratio (FAR) is 30%, and the proposed FAR is 41%. In response~to a question from Com. Austin, Mr. Cowan stated that the application was being presented because it is in a PD zone and is a substandard lot. Applicant, Ms. Rosa Ziedelson had no comments. Chairman Doyle opened the meeting for public input. As there was none, the public input portion of the meeting was closed. Planning Commission Minutes 16 January 8, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to accept Application 15-U-95 per the model resolution. Com. Roberts Passed 543-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 13. Selection of representative to the Housing Committee. Mr. Cowan explained that the position is a voluntary position, and noted that Com. Austin had served as the Planning Commission representative to the Affordable Housing Committee. Com. Mahoney volunteered to serve on the committee. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. I-l~Tis moved that Com. Mahoney be designated the Affordable Housing Committee representative. Chairman Doyle Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Doyle noted that the Planning Commission Chairperson would be selected at the next meeting. Com. Harris requested the drive-through ordinance be updated in the work plan and General Plan. Com. Harris noted that the Planning Commission had been randomly approving towers for phone and cell. She recommended that a policy be adopted so that the residents could benefit. Mr. Cowan noted that the City Council recently expanded the roll of the cable committee to more telecommunications. Staff will be working with the committee on policies on personal communication, antennas, receiving towers, as well as cell phone sites. Mr. Cowan said he would return with a report on the appropriate way to handle the policy. Chairman Doyle noted that the Annual Commission Dinner would be held at Qumlan Center on Friday, February 2. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at I0:15 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission Meeting on Monday, Ianuary 22, 1996. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Amended Minutes Approved: January 22, 1996