Loading...
PC 01-22-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 22, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staff present: Austin, Harris, Mahoney, Roberts, Chairman Doyle. Robert Cowan, Community Development Coordinator, Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner II, Colin Jung, Associate Planner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 8, 1996 meeting: Com. Harris requested the following corrections to the January 8 minutes: Page 5, Item 2, second sentence: Replace "presented in the packet" with "sent in the mail" Page 5, Item 2, third line: Add "at a different location" after "modification" Page 5, Item 2, last sentence: Amend to read: "She noted that the subject building does not have such a use permit". Page 6, third paragraph from bottom, first line: Delete "a condition of approval requires" and insert "the staff report refers to a condition of approval requiring ". Page 12, second paragraph, second line: "sit" should read "set". MOTION: Com. Mahoney to approve the minutes of the January 8, 1996 meeting as amended. SECOND: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 22, 1996 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Doyle noted: (1) communication relating to the rezoning; (2) architectural site approval modification; and (3) letter from Suzanne Caldwell regarding day care. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Coordinator, indicated the letter regarding day care was a code enforcement issue and has been referred to staff. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 9-TM-95; The E&i-I First Family L.P. 11641 South Stelling Road REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO FEB. 12, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application No. 9-TM-95 to the Feb. 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Sign Ordinance Amendments and 34-EA-95 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendments to Chapter 17.32 regarding regulations for off-site signs. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 20, 1996 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO FEB. 12, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Item 8, Sign Ordinance Amendments and Application No. 34-EA-95 to the Feb. 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Com. Austin noted that there was a possibility that Item 7 would need to be continued because of the lateness of the meeting and the length of the agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None NEW BUSINESS l. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin nominated Com. Roberts for Chairperson for 1996 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Newly elected Chairman Robeas chaired the remainder of the meeting. Plarm/ng Comm/ssion Minutes 3 January 22, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney nominated Com. Harris for Vice Chairperson for 1996 Com. Doyle Passed 5 -0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Roberts opened the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-Z-95 and 29-EA-95 City of Cupertino Various Hillside areas north and east of Regnart generally bounded by Upland Way, Lindy Lane, Lin,la Vista Park, Miramonte St., Stevens Creek to the urban service area boundary line. Rezoning/prezoning of 250+ acres from RI-10, RI-40, RI-60, R1-80, RI-100, AI-43, Al-100, RHS, pre-RHS and pre-A to RHS-Residential Hillside Zoning District. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: Febraary 20, 1996 CONI INUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 1995. Staffpresentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, referred to the overhead map and reviewed the background of the item as presented in the attached staff report. He stated that the purpose of the hillside rezoning for the areas north and east of Regnmt Canyon was to achieve zoning consistency with the hillside protection policies of the General Plan, adopted in 1993. The map illustrates areas with three different slope density formulas for the very low density residential hillside areas. Mr. Jung explained that the proposal was to rezone the areas to RHS zoning ordinance which also appears on the agenda tonight in terms of review and some modifications to the ordinance. Following a brief discussion whether or not to discuss Items 2 and 3 together, there was consensus to proceed to directly address the rezoning and present elements from agenda item 3 as relevant. ChairmanRoberts informed the audience that they could speak on both items if they so desired; that it would be fair to bring up aspects of the residential hillside zone and the proposed changes bearing upon the rezoning decision. Mr. Jung summarized the issues discussed at the neighborhood meeting on January 1 lth, as outlined in the staff report and answered Commissioners' questions. The issues included concerns of the neighborhood as well as the alternative measures to address those concerns. Referring to the alternative action of excluding properties from rezoning, Mr. Jung clarified that the Planning Commission must make a finding that the properties have a different General Plan designation before they can be excluded from rezoning.. Mr. Jung reviewed the staff recommendations which were: (1) Grant a Negative Declaration for Application No. 29-EA-95; (2) That fronting properties particularly along Lindy Lane and Regnart Road be excluded from rezoning consideration based on a General Plan boundary finding that the Planning Comm/ssion Minutes 4 January 22, 1996 properties are actually the adjoining designation, which is the low density residential, 1 to 5 du/ac., rather than very low density residential 1/2 acre foothill modified slope density formula. The properties are not visible hillside prcgerties but relatively flat compared to true hillside properties and the lot sizes range from 9,000 to 10,000 sq. ft.; (3) As part of the rezoning action that the lot sizes for the rezoned lots be made conforming with the actual lot sizes not equal to but conforming to the actual lot sizes, shown as Alternative 2 on the rezoning property list; and (4) Approval of Application No. 10-Z-95 in accordance with the model resolution and Alternative 2 rezoning list. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Jung explained the reason for rezoning. He stated that for a number of years, the houses particularly in the hillside areas, were increasing in size, and until now have been developed under regulations that were designed for flat land homes. He stated that the RI zone did not take into consideration the slope of the property until recently when language was included in R1 zoning about slopes exceeding 30% requiting an exception. The areas in the hills are relatively new and when new homes are built according to R1 zoning standards vs. a zoning ordinance for hillside development, they are larger and more obtrusive to the surrounding community by their size and stature. Mr. Cowan clarified that legally the property has to be rezoned to reflect the General Plan, which states the need for better controls over the intensity of development and the character of development. Discussion continued wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding rezoning and proposed exclusions from rezoning. Mr. Cowan explained that the message from the January 1 lth neighborhood meeting was that the property owners wanted a zoning designation to reflect current lot size. Chairman Roberts asked if the majority of the property owners could be assured that property under Alternative 2 would fall into the position of being non-conforming. Mr. Jung referred to the overhead map, stating that under the original alternative, all the lots shown outlined in red would have been rendered non-conforming with respect to the lot size. Following a discussion, the Commissioners stated they had no objections to the proposed Alternative 2 if it was supported by weight of public opinion. Chairman Roberts opened the hearing for public input at 7:40 p.m. Mr. John Dozier, 21996 Lindy Lane, acted as a spokesperson for the persons opposed to the rezoning. Referring to the overhead map he indicated his residence in the RI zoning area designated for change to RHS 218, or possibly PHS 80 as an alternate consideration. He referred to the lots as homes existing on parcels of land. He said that all the parcels range from 2 to 3-1/2 acres with homes and have been in existence for 16 years. He pointed out that there was only one undeveloped lot. He explained that the developer of the original subdivision had deed restrictions which controlled such things as architectural design, color scheme of homes, and size of homes. Mr. Dozier stated that the area attracts affluent people because of the schools, proximity to jobs, in lieu of the alternatives of Woodside, Atherton, and Monte Sereno. He noted that Ronnie Lott's home was built under less restrictive zoning, and pointed out that it could not be rebuilt in its present form under the new RHS zoning proposed changes. Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 22, 1996 Mr. Dozier said that the new homes have a lot of architectural design features, high ceilings, and more spectacular architecture than existed 16 years ago. Nonetheless, there is considerable value to the land. Sixteen property owners from the proposed rezoning area indicated on the map, signed a letter expressing desire to be lef~ unchanged. He noted there were already about 6 homes on the ridges with spectacular views and noted that one of the property owners with a home and an undeveloped lot there faces the possibility he won't be able to build on the ridge line, which would diminish the value of his lot. Mr. Dozier said he appreciated Mr. Doyle's asking what sense changing the ordinance would make and what purpose does it serve. Com. Harris asked for a copy of the letter signed by all the homeowners. Chairman Roberts stated that he wasn't certain that the property owners and Mr. Dozier had grasped the details of the Alternative 2, in that the staff has prepared an alternative which would in effect prevent the existing lots in the identified quadrant from being out of conformance with respect to lot size. He asked if the proposed change went any distance toward accommodating their concerns. Mr. Dozier responded that it was his understanding that the lots would conform, but there would be non-conforming structures on the lots. Mr. Jung explained that it is possible that the structures themselves may be non-conforming with respect to the setbacks, although to a lesser degree compared to some of the other smaller lots down the hill. He said another concern is that when it was subdivided, it was done in such a way to take maximum advantage of the hews, and a number of the homes are located on prominent ridge lines. The vacant lot Mr. Dozier was eluding to was in fact situated on a prominent ridge line. There are other properties in that area on fairly steep slopes, and additional development on them would require an exception. City Attorney Charles Kilian said that to the extent that buildings would be in the new setbacks created by RHS zoning, they would be non-conforming. He said it is true throughout the city whenever the rules and zoning are changed. He noted that the intent is to at least create conforming lot sizes which is staff's recommendation. With respect to the RHS rules applying, the General Plan states that hillside rules need to be applied and even though they are existing homes, if they create non-conforming situations, the non-conforming use allows those to continue and even be expanded under certain cimumstances. Mr. Kilian explained that if a property owner had to replace his home and if the present structure was non-conforming, the properly owner would have to present it to the Planning Commission. If the property was being replaced bemuse of fire, they would be permitted to replace it under the non-conforming use ordinance as it stands; if it was voluntary destruction of the house then the roles for non-conforming use state the new rules must be complied with and an application for exception would go before the Planning Commission. He said that whenever there is a zoning change, in many cases it creates non-conforming structures. Mr. Cowan commented that there are a certain amount of changes to the RI ordinance every 10 or 15 years, and noted that the homes built in Cupertino in the 1960s and 1970s are undoubtedly inconsistent with the present code. If the property owner wanted to add on they would have to be in conformance with the new requirements. Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 22, 1996 Mr. Dozier stated that the objection still exists from the property owners' views that a substantial potXion of the value of the properties is in the land itself, and when they purchased the lots 16 years ago it was permissible to build on lots to take advantage of the spectacular views; there were not severe restrictions and limitations. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Kilian explained that state law requires that the General Plan be adhered to. He said in many ways the RHS zoning is more lenient with respect to certain properties than the General Plan rules themselves because they provide for an exception process that is fairly clear and allows construction on a ridge line if it is the only place the house can be built, which wasn't true under the General Plan. Mr. Robert Andonian, 22141 Lindy Lane, said that he has lived in the Cupertino area almost 20 years in the area Mr. Dozier referred to. He expressed concern that the zoning change did not take into consideration the residents of the Grand View Estates area. He requested that the area be left unchanged at RIB0. He reiterated what Mr. Dozier said about the developer who imposed the deed restrictions, and other than the ridge line violation that the one last lot would have, all have been compliant. Mr. Andonian expressed concern that his property cannot be tastefully added onto without petitioning the Planning Commission and stated he felt that left too much to chance. Mrs. Barbara Allen, 11300 Canyon View Circle, expressed her irritation, stating that the proposed rezoning was unnecessary, and should have been done a long time ago when the lots were originally divided. She requested that the Plarming Commission withdraw the rezoning proposal. She stressed that the action was unfair to all the property owners and puts stress on them if they want to sell their home. A potential buyer might go elsewhere with such restrictions imposed. She once again asked the Planning Commission to reconsider. Mr. Phil Aramoonie, 22041 Lindy Lane, reiterated what Mr. Dozier said. He said that his lot on Lindy Lane was now zoned R160. Although the setbacks will not be affected, potentially the house would be in non-conformance. He said he could see no reason for the rezoning because of the covenants and restrictions that are already in place for that neighborhood, which are now in full compliance with the General Plan without the rezoning. Mr. Kilian stated that the covenants probably do conform with the General Plan which therefore negate the arguments about value. However, the law says the zoning must be consistent with the General plan, not private covenants be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Kilian explained that private covenants, although unlikely, can be changed by owner votes, but the zoning is a city decision. Technically the property still has to be rezoned to be consistent with the General Plan. He pointed out that private covenants are acceptable but they can be changed or invalidated under certain circumstances. Com. Harris commented that the one undeveloped site (Mr. Hanggi's property) is developable under the rules of the new zoning. Mr. Kilian reported that he had met with property owner Mr. Hanggi, owner of the undeveloped site, and informed him that under the proposed rezoning, if he met all the other criteria contained in the ordinance, he would be permitted to build and have reasonable use, which meant that he could sell the property for developing or he could build on it himself. Mr. Hanggi was reminded that one cannot guarantee what will occur in the future, things can change year by year, but if the Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 22, 1996 roles are adopted as recommended by the Planning Commission tonight, he would be allowed to build his house on the ridge line. Mr. Harold Bamlay, 22605 Ricardo Road, indicated on the overhead map where he resided. He discussed the issue of whether his area should be included in the rezoning. Mr. Barclay said he has lived in the area for 10-1/2 years and has kept the extra lot in the event he could sell the land or develop it himself. He asked that the Planning Commission consider removing Ricardo Road from the rezoning. He also asked the Planning Commission the reason for the 12,000 square foot minimum, which would prohibit him from developing his parcel as it fell in the 10,000 square foot Mr. Jung clarified that Mr. Barclay's situation was unique in that he owned two separate lots, and explained that he did not have to go through the process of subdivision. Mr. Jung said that lot line adjustments to configure two buildable lots on the site would be more appropriate. He said he would discuss the issue with Mr. Barclay further. Mrs. Peggy Dozier, 21996 Lindy Lane, Cupe~ino, stated that the parcel she and Mr. Dozier owned was one of those considered for rezoning, which was approximately 3-1/3 acres. She questioned the purpose of rezoning parcels to 5 acre minimums when not one parcel is 5 acres7 She said that at the present time the zoning restricts subdividing, which no one is interested in doing; but said that making lots non-conforming is senseless, noting that as the owner of a real estate company, it does affect the marketability of the properties. Mrs. Dozier questioned the reason for restrictions on size, height and grading, asking what was wrong with big, beautiful homes built on big, beautiful lots. She questioned what was wrong with Cupertino having affluent neighborhoods to compete with Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Menlo Atherton. She said the presidents and CEOs of Cupertino corporations shouldn't have togo to neighboring towns to purchase homes or build homes. Mrs. Dozier noted that the homes on the parcels in question are between 10 to 20 years old and are not in keeping with current design and many of the home owners may want to remodel or add onto their homes. The present day trend in homes is bigger homes, higher ceilings, and more volume. She said the RHS zoning puts major restrictions in the future for property owners and prospective buyers, and hence decreases the value of the properties; but more than the objections to the rezoning, the most impoaant one is that the rights as owners of the land are being taken away; rights of use are being restricted which is the real injustice. Mrs. Dozier stated when the property owners bought their land they accepted those restrictions that were in place then and now. She requested that the Planning Commission remove the parcels from the rezoning plan. Mrs. Dozier read a letter into the record from Mr. and Mrs. Ronnie Lott, dated January 21, 1996: "Dear Planning Commission and members: We are unable to attend the meeting this evening but would like our voice heard. We purchased this property in 1989 with the intent and right to build a home under the code established in approximately 1980. We insist that these codes continue as established. Any change would devalue the worth of our home and property as well as our entire subdivision. This subdivision is built up to its maximum except for the piece adjacent to ours owned by the Hanggi family. According to regulations of RHS, the 15% site line rule would be absurd and outlandish visually in this neighborhood. We believe that the fights of our subdivision should be grandfathered by the originally established code. We understand the needs of the city of Cupertino and we hope you will respect our needs. Sincerely, Karen and Ronnie Lott." Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 22, 1996 Mr. Meinrad Hanggi, 22090 Lindy Lane, said he concurred with what his neighbors had already said. He asked that the Planning Commission drop the RHS zoning because the property owners were there first. He explained that he was one of the first property owners and has leR the one lot empty for 14 years. He said he met with Mr. Kilian and was informed he could build on the ridge which is the only place to build. He asked for clarification whether or not he could build a 5,000 square foot home on the ridge. Mr. Kilian responded that that the size of Mr. Hanggi's house was not discussed at the recent meeting; the RHS rules would have to be complied with, whatever they may be. Mr. Kiliun said that the design professionals would determine whether or not a 5,000 square foot home could be built on Mr. I-Ianggi's property. Mr. Kilian explained that the RHS zone is intended to protect the hillside and therefore has regulations dealing with size, color, access and grading; aH things intended to minimize the impact of building in the hillside. Mr. Hanggi expressed that nobody should have the right to just change the rules to their satisfaction. Mr. John Hopkins, 11395 Canyon View, said he has lived in the Cupertino area since 1965. He acknowledged the work put into the General Plan. Mr. Hopkins said he purchased a lot in the foothills for the view. He said that the property owners do not believe that the area needs fixing; and that it will restrict them from expanding if they need to. He suggested calling the old R1 rules RHS 80 and they would then conform to the plan. Chairman Roberts requested that the air conditioning system in the council chambers be fixed because of the intense cold. Mr. John Lawrence, 21743 Regnart Ct, presented backup material with a petition signed by property owners requesting approval of Alternative 2. Mr. Lawrence said that he felt the proposal to place the homes in legal non-oompliance was disgusting. He stated that Alternative 2 would keep the property owners in legal compliance and asked that the Planning Commission eoasider it. Mr. Ed Lichtman, 21675 Regnart Road, comer of Lindy Lane, said he resided in the area now recommended to remain as RI. He commended staff on a very thorough second-round job and arriving at Alternative 2. Mr. Lichtman said he was disturbed that some of his neighbors considered the RH designation for the 2+ acres being unpalatable, as he did not understand that from the.RH specifications. He said he was in sympathy with the adage: "if it ain 't broke, don't fix it". He said he also sympathized with the hillside zoning intentions that where there are homes, leave them alone, stating he didn't see any impact now that staff recommended downsizing to be at least the minimum size of the lot of the area, therefore there is not a non-oonforming stigma. He questioned the reasoning why staff did not recommend that the fiat area in question remain as is. Mr. Joseph Sparks, 22032 Lindy Lane, stated he felt the most important aspect was property values, and expressed shock that the Planning Commission would consider reducing property values in the area. He said that they should be more sensitive to the value of the property and any amount of money the property owners would stand to lose as individuals. Mr. Sparks said that a potential buyer who knew of the restrictions would probably look to buy property in Saratoga, as would future buyers. He said he did not feel that conditions should change from what originally prevailed at the time of purchase of the property. When he purchased the property he was assured the lots were stable and the planning department staff did not reveal anything negative about the Planning Commission Minutes 9 Sanuary 22, 1996 development, leaving him to believe he had no reason to think that there would ever be a restriction on his property. Mr. Sparks pointed out that the selling market is difficult, especially for $1 million dollar homes, and when further restrictions are put on the property, it doesn't take much to lose $200,000 or $300,00 on the sale of a home. Mr. Sparks emphasized that he could not afford that kind of loss; his entire life savings was invested in his property. He said the only way to protect the homeowners in the future is to leave the zoning as it is. Any change made is opening thc property owners up five years from now when they won't be able to do what they want with the land. He said it was unfair to tell a homeowner ora $1 million home that they can't add on to it or make changes to it. He asked that the Planning Commission be more sensitive to the financial situation faced by the property owners. Mr. James Moore, 21962 Lindy Lane, corner of Lindy Lane and Lindy Place, explained that his property was included in Alternative 2. He stated that his property was zoned at R1 10,000 which is the size nfthe lot, and the proposed zoning would have required 21,000 square feet. He said he has lived in his home for 16 years, and it is on a fiat lot with a hillside behind it. He expressed concern that the RHS designation would create a financial burden in 5 or 6 years when he retired to sell the property for $50,000 to $100,000 less. Mr. Moore said that he supported Alternative 2 and hoped that it solved the problem for the property owners on Lindy Lane and Regnart Road by not putting such a financial burden of a potential loss for those who have owned property in the area for such a long time. In response to Com. Doyle's question about non-conforming lots in Cupertino, Mr. Cowan said that for accurate figures he would have to return with a staff report on total percentage of non- conforming lots in Cupertino. He stated that a great many of the lots in older Monta Vista would be non-conforming lots. He estimated that in most of the single family residential areas of Cupertino, the vast majority would be consistent in terms of lot size. Non-conforming homes would be in the range of about 50%; the houses in the 60s and 70s were built under a different set of rules than today's. Mr. Brian Vincik, 10950 Miramonte Road, indicated on the overhead map where he resided. He expressed concern about the houses on Miramonte, Pdeardo and Lindy Lane and said that at the January 1 lth neighborhood meeting there was a strong effective lobby from the neighborhood, and he could.not understand why Miramonte was not excluded with Lindy Lane. He also expressed concern that the reference map is outdated; the RHS 12 designation of 12 parcels is actually 6 parcels and RHS l0 is actually divided up into 3 more parcels on the upper piece. Mr. Jung apologized for the outdated map. Com. Mahoney said that in the beginning of the staff report, some homes are grouped together with certain characteristics of being "relatively fiat" and some were dealt with and some were not. He asked staff to clarify the grounds for the recommendation of Lindy Lane vs. Miramonte or Ricardo. Mr. Jung explained that the reason for the exclusion was based on a General Plan interpretation of the boundary between the land use designation. He said that in all good conscience staff couldn't include Ricardo and Miramonte Road in the same interpretation because the map clearly shows Miramonte and Rieardo Road being in the foothill modified slope density designation. To solve the problem there staff would have to do a General Plan amendment. Planning Commission Minutes 10 lanua~ 22, 1996 In response to a request from Com. Harris, Mr. Jung indicated on the map where the Mount Crest/North Lindy area would be if Ricardo and Miramonte were removed. He said the exact boundaries have not yet been defined. Mr. Cowan pointed out that it would be a separate action and would require the initiation of a General Plan change. Mr. Jeff Lin, 22081 Lindy Lane, said he purchased the property in September 1994 and was not told that it would be a non-conforming area. He asked the Planning Commission not to change the zoning because property values would decrease because of the zoning change and people might look for other places to live such as Los Altos Hills or some other area. Mr. Mike Akatiff, 22002 Lindy Lane, said he was one of the original owners who purchased his property in 1972. He said it was unfair to neighbors such as Mr. Hanggi who will be restricted to what he can do to his property. The zoning doesn't make sense; he may be forced to excavate a lot of dirt and build into the side of the hill to try to reduce the mass of the building. Mr. Akatiffpointed out that not one speaker was in favor the rezoning; all were in opposition. He recommended that the proposal be sent back to staff to better serve the wishes of the community affected by it. He noted that he recently went through the process to add onto his home and feels his property is developed to its maximum. Mr. Akatiff stated when he developed his property he was under the R1 zoning and it was started long before the General Plan was changed. He said under the new RHS the addition would not have been possible. Mr. Akatiff expressed his disappointment with the process, explaining that when he presented his application for addition to the Planning Commission, it was supported by staff, no neighbors opposed it, yet the Planning Commission denied it. He was forced to appeal the decision through the City Council, who approved it. Mr. Jung emphasized that he was not present to change anybody's mind in the audience. He explained that Cupertino is a "Johnny come lately" in the area of desigu review for hillside homes. He referred to the west foothill communities with hillside properties, which have had hillside regulations in place long before Cupertino even considered them. Staff has used other communities' regulations as an example and the General Plan policy guidelines to assist in drafting regulations for Cupertino's use for approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Chairman Roberts commented that the Planning Commission did not have the latitude to leave things status quo and send them back to staff. It is necessary to at least progress toward bringing the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use provisions. Mr. Kilian noted that either the zoning had to be changed or the General Plan changed; it cannot remain as is. Chairman Roberts summarized the alternatives: (1) Amend the text of the RHS zoning ordinance; (2) Amend the RHS rezoning application; (3) Exclude properties from rezoning; or (4) Amend the General Plan land use map. Mr. Dick Childress, 5630 Starboard Drive, Discovery Bay, spoke on behalf of his former neighbors. He said when he lived in the Cupertino area, he spent 2 years with his neighbors and city staff developing the original RHS zoning for the city. He also was the developer of several subdivisions in Regnart Canyon and Cupertino in general, lived in Regnart Canyon for 23 years, represented landowners in developing 16 lots discussed this evening; wrote covenants, conditions and restrictions discussed tonight. Planning Commission Minutes n January 22, 1996 He said he felt that the property owners were confused about what effect the proposed rezoning will have on them, perhaps because of lack of knowledge and fear. He suggested that staff provide more clarification of the impact of the zoning to help mitigate some of the issues discussed this evening. Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Com. Mahoney stated that the RHS zoning was created because of issues that needed resolving and what was happening in the hills and the issue at hand is how to apply it. He commented that changes do occur and some of the rules were changed to protect the hillside; some of the changes made did take away or modify things people could do with their property such as subdividing it. He commended staff on the excellent job so that none of the existing lots would be non-conforming, none of the existing houses would be affected and noted that if people do want to make changes, there is an exception process to the RHS zoning. Com. Mahoney concurred with Mr. Jung's statement about the restrictions being as strict or stricter in the neighboring communities. He said he agreed with the current recommendation from staff, with one exception on Miramonte and Ricardo which are not in the hillside and therefore the issues that drove the RHS zoning should not apply. He stated he was in favor of removing Miramonte and Ricardo from the General Plan which would require consideration of a General Plan Amendment. Com. Austin stated that the zoning for all the speakers is unchanged except for Ricardo and Miramonte, and the issue being discussed isn't going to have detrimental effects on anyone. Cupertino's hillside policy is a healthy balance to protect the beauty of the hillside and enhance the property values. Com. Austin stated she agreed with staff recommendation and that consideration be given also to Miramonte and Ricardo. Chairman Roberts said that the recommendations imply a combination of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3; the recommendations include a pipeline provision with the details specified. Com. Mahoney said he would agree with a pipeline provision. A brief discussion followed wherein staff answered questions. Com. Doyle stated that there has been a lot of General Plan activities with input; at one time people said that hillside development should be restricted; now there are the people on the other side of the coin who are being impacted by that. From the discussions of the General Plan is derived the RHS or residential hillside ordinance. Com. Doyle said he interpreted it to have a fairly minimal impact on property owners except for house size. When it comes down to how to implement it, we set a 6,500 sq. t~. home or larger for an exception process and that exception process puts a burden on the people. He stated that controlling house size is not the way to do it. Most of the items in the RHS have almost no impact on the people in those areas. Com. Doyle stated that the Ricardo area should be excluded and there should be a pipeline provision. He stated that overall he could not support it because of the mmximum house requirements; and that he did not agree with the RHS ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes 12 lanuary 22, 1996 Mr. Cowan pointed out that the General Plan states that the city should have an RI-IS ordinance. He suggested deleting the requirement in the next item. The rules can be changed with item 3 on the agenda. Com. Doyle confirmed his support. He said he would stand on principles relative to this one. Com. Harris said that the Lindy Lane people for the most part feel they should remain in the Ri 10 category, and that staffis supportive of that. Com. Harris concurred with staff. She stated she was supportive of staff recommending a General Plan amendment on the Rieardo area, and noted that she would like to see that area specifically not on the map. She said that people on Regnart Court said Alternative 2 was acceptable because it doesn't make them non-conforming. She emphasized that in her experience with property values, property values do not decrease in areas where rules were made to make the area more attractive, restrictive, less dense and more exclusive. Property values tend to increase over time. She said there may be some restrictions about how large you can build or how high you can build, and it is a question of philnsophy, but the idea of RHS is to make the area more attractive for everyone, and there will not be a particular measure nfloss in value. Com. Harris stated she was in favor of the staff recommendation. She said she was pleased that staff met with the community and reworked it because it is more effective. She said that while we are fixing things that are broken that staff has identified through this process another community that should be part of the hillside, we need to also look at that section and if it should be included in the hillside, then it should also be part of this proposal for an amendment to the General Plan because it needs to be consistent to the community. She asked that it be included in the review. She said she was in favor ora pipeline provision, the date should be January 1, 1996, and items that were already before staff for review, should not be penalized by a change if they have already submitted plans. She reiterated that her position on the Rieardo Miramonte area was to have staff review it for General Plan change. Ms. Wordell clarified the comment about the area that staffmight be interested in adding. She said it was her understanding it was mentioned as an option because it was an issue brought up by the group staff met with, and not necessarily a staff recommendation, therefore it was a Planning Commission decision whether to add the Mount Crest/North Lindy Lane area. Com. Doyle said he interpreted that the RI-IS was put in as a way of reducing visual impacts and was extended to other areas that don't have any impact on the areas. He said it was his opinion that the other area would not be a significant improvement to the hillside of Cupertino to put under RHS. Com. Harris said that the concept of the ability to subdivide being lost in the hillsides would reduce value; however, most of the people contended that they only wanted to have their one house on their one site; the one undeveloped site will be allowed to be developed to a certain extent, therefore no loss is anticipated. Chairman Roberts said he supported the General Plan's land use element and the RHS ordinance and believes it should be applied to areas of the city which fall within the categories described in the General Plan. He said he supported staff recommendations throughout, and more details such as dateline, date in the pipeline provision need to be worked out. He said that relative to the Ricardo Road Mimmonte area, there are two elements, one is slope and the other is visibility. Chairman Roberts said the area was steep enough to qualify but perhaps in terms of visibility it is Commission Minutes 13 January 22, 1996 somewhat tucked or hidden away, so if we were to restudy that issue or if we were to remove that element for the moment we would have grounds for exclusion from that standpoint. Chairman Roberts said he favored the exclusion of the relatively fiat and already developed areas along Lindy Lane and Regnart Road and complimented staff for having found a reasonable accommodation on that point. Chairman Roberts summarized that it appeared from thc responses that there is sentiment in favor of the recommendations to include most of the areas in the Regnart area apart from the excluded zone along Regnart Road and Lindy Lane to include those within the providence of the RI-IS zoning ordinance. Relative to the alternatives, there is a consensus to eccept the staff recommendation. The one issue in which opinion is somewhat divided is the Ricardo Road Miramonte issue. In response to Chairman Roberts' question, Mr. Kilian clarified that the entire recommendation should go to the City Council and if City Council concurs, staff would commence a General Plan amendment for that area. Following a brief discussion regarding the effective date for pipeline proposal, there was consensus that the pipeline date would be the effective date of the ordinance. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve a Negative Declaration Application No. 29-EA-95 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 A brief discussion ensued wherein staffanswered Commissioners' questions. MOTION: SECOND: NOS: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application Nos. 10-Z-95 and 29-EA-95 as per the model resolution which incorporates staff recommendation to exclude the Rieardo Road and Miramonte properties. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Ha~s moved to approve the minute order that all applications with building permits submitted prior to the effective date of this ordinance will be considered under the previous roles Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved send a minute order to request Planning Commission to commence General Plan amendment proceedings on triangular quadrant of Rieardo Road and Miramonte Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 14 lanuary 22, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: NOS: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to send minute order to the City Council requesting them to ask us to initiate proceedings to review the Mt. Crest/North Lindy Lane area to see if it is appropriately added to the RHS zoning. Chairman Roberts Corns. Doyle, Austin and Mahoney Failed 2-3-0 A brief discussion ensued regarding the postponement of Item 3 of the agenda due to the length of the agenda. MOTION: SECOND: NOS: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application RHS zoning and 31-EA-95 to the February 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting Com. Mahoney Corns. Doyle, I-Iards Passed 3-2-0 Chairman Roberts declared a recess at 9:23 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 14-U-95, 8-TM-95, 11-Z-95 and 32-EA-95 Peninsula 7 S~me Peninsula Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COIJNCIL HEARING DATE: February 20, 1996 CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF IAN. 8, 1996. Staffpresentation: Mr. Jung reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. He pointed out that the project was reviewed on December 11, 1995 at which time the use permit and tentative map applications were continued for further architectural design work. Referring to the architectural renderings, Mr. Jung illustrated the additional architectural/material embellishments to the houses as described in the staff report. He explained the potential difficulty of maintaining the landscape along the masonry wall wrapped around lot No. I along Stevens Creek Boulevard because of the inaccessibility of the streetside landscape strip from the lot. He discussed a technique that Caltrans uses along sound walls of using weep holes in the sound walls to allow vines to grow from the private property side. Mr. Jung reviewed the revised conditions for the use permit which included architectural and site approval of the landscape treatment for the public face on Stevens Creek Boulevard, and a condition for ASA approval of any rear yard placed on lot No. 7 because of its visibility from the roadside. The revised conditions were distributed to the Commissioners at the meeting. Mr. Jung stated that staff recommended approval of the application. Com. Harris referred to staff's comments in the staff report about the need to have more interesting detailing on the exterior of the homes, hi response to Com. Harris' question about conditions being written in, Mr. Jung said that conditions were not included in the staff report and invited discussion from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 22, 1996 In response to Com. Harris' question about the exterior siding of Lot No. 5, Mr. Jung clarified that it was plaster exterior with wood elements crossing the siding. He said the Planning Commission might want to consider in review of the application, whether the siding is consistent with the Monta Vista guidelines which does not reference plaster siding; traditionally Monta Vista homes have wood siding. Discussion continued wherein Mr. Jang answered questions. Chairman Roberts asked if any thought had been given to the wall along Stevens Creek Boulevard becoming a potential graffiti target considering its location and its fiat masonry wall. Mr. Jung said it was a possibility and pointed out that is why it was so important to work out a suitable landscape solution for the wall. Mr. Childress, applicant, addressed concerns. Mr. Childress agreed that the wall along Stevens Creek Boulevard was a potential target for graffiti. He suggested using creeping fig for the wall, which adheres to the wall and does not lean heavily into the area. Mr. Childress said that Unit 7 yard which is now located to the right of the property would have a regular fence along the railroad property, and the front half would be a landscape catch fence, about 3 feet high. He discussed the modifications made to elevations; he suggested not putting shutters on Lot 4 because the number of vertical bats on th~ house would appear too busy. He said he was not opposed to putting shutters on Lot 1, and had no objections to recommendations on Units 2 and 4. Mr. Jung clarified that it was not staff's intent to add more shutters but to look at a greater variety of design detail, in particular something that is more three dimensional than the two dimensional features proposed. Mr. Childress stated that features such as artificial rafter ends, and donners become a maintenance problem, but he was willing to consider options with staff. He said that when the houses are painted with the appropriate trim there will be a noted difference in the appearance of the houses. Ms. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Avenue, said she approved of the application and was pleased with the development. She expressed concern about the bathroom window in front of Unit No. 1 because of the location of the window in street view. Ms. Anger said she has worked with Mr. Childress on many projects over the years and has been pleased with his projects to improve Monta Vista. ·. Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the hearing. Chairman Roberts noted that the plan had been modified substantially since the last meeting and summarized the remaining issues: (1) Arehitectoral design; (2) Three dimensional textured detailing, especially on Unit No. 1; (3) Wall facing Stevens Creek and its landscaping; and (4) Landscaping treatment of triangle No. 7. Com. Austin commended the project, and said she approved of the project. She said she approved of the architectural design, but agreed Unit I needed more work, particularly the bathroom facing the front of the street. She stated she was in favor of the planting plan for the wall along Stevens Creek Boulevard. She noted that yard fencing and planting plan for area 7 would be reviewed as an ASA application and was not an issue. Planning Commission Minutes 16 lanuary 22, 1996 Com. Mahoney said he approved of the project with modifications to Unit I as discussed. He said he agreed with the plans to follow up on some of the details and supported changes to Unit 5 also. Com. Doyle stated that all the major issues were addressed and the planting plan would be rev/ewer at a later date. Com. Harris said she approved of the language stuff provided to modify condition 2 related to the wall, slab and streetscape. She said she supported staff's recommendation for more textured detail in Unit 3d, and suggested that Unit 1 be changed because of the boxy bathroom facing the street. Com. Harris stated that she was pleased with the changes to the side portion of the building, and recommended that staff work with applicant on any needed changes to the roof structure. In response to Com. Harris' concern about Unit I facing the street, ~affexplained that Unit 1 was so far back from the street that the bathroom window would not be visible from the street. Chairman Roberts stated that the development was an improvement and was the entrance to Monta Vista. He commended the architect on the design modifications and said he supported changes to Unit 1 and noted he would like to take "a close look at the landscaping" on the triangle point of Unit No. 7. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application No. 32-EA-95 Com. Austin Passed 5 -0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Applications 14-U-95 in accordance with the model resolution, and 8-TM-95 with conditions 2 and 4 and modifications to Unit 1 as denoted in the handout with continuation of detail around the entire structure Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 16-U-95, 12-Z-95, 10-TM-95 and 33-EA-95 Mary Iozovich, Don & Sue Jozovich and Viola La-anco 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 CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEET1NG OF JAN. 8, 1996 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 construct 8 residential units in a ?lanmng Commission Minutes iv January 22, 1996 Planned Development zoning district on one acre, and calls for consolidating the three lots and subdividing them into g lots in order to construct 8 single family homes. Staff prepared a chart displaying the chameteristics of the project with the Corsica Pottofino single family homes, the Coventry development and the Cupertino Classics development. The chart indicates that overall the project follows the trend of single family homes on relatively small lots. Staff recommends approval of the project. Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, discussed the contents of the staff report relative to zoning, tentative map, use permit, design and parking and answered questions. Referring to the zoning plat map, Ms. Bjurman summarized the zoning. She referred to Exhibit A (Density Map) to illustrate the density ranges in the area, pointing out that the proposed density range creates a good transition towards Stevens Creek Boulevard. Ms. Bjurman explained that the major issue of the application relates to the trees on the parcel. There are nine specimen sized trees, 5 of which the applicant is proposing to remove. The most significant tree in question is the monterey pine tree located in the center of the entrance driveway to the proposed project. Alternative site plans have been prodded to illustrate the project with the tree included and with the removal of the tree. Ms. Bjurman noted that the Environmental Review Committee recommends retention of the tree, while two arborists recommend tree removal because the tree may not withstand the construction impacts and is relatively low in ranking relative to species type. Applicant recommends removal of the tree, replaced with nine 24-inch boxed trees. Staff also recommends removal of the monterey pine tree because it may not survive construction for reasons outlined in the arborist's report. Ms. Bjurman noted that public utilities would also have to be placed in that area .and 2-1/2 inches of paving on top of that. Staff has created a condition of approval relating to the Environmental Review Committee's recommendation for protection. Ms. Bjurman explained that in recent discussions with Los Altos Garbage Company, it was noted that they would have difficulty maneuvering their trucks in the area of the back units. They are requesting a new condition requiring a depth of 20 feet of paved area, which would alter the L- shaped comer to a rounded paved area depth of 20 feet for the truck to back in and out. Alternatives would be removing more of the front yard area or having garbage service on Blaney Avenue which would mean that certain units would have to take their trash cans out to Blaney Avenue, which is not the preferred alternative from an aesthetic standpoint. In response to a question from Com. Austin, Ms. Bjurman stated that the fire department does not anticipate encountering similar problems because they can run the fire hoses up to 200 feet or can require sprinklers in the hack units. Staff will work with Los Altos Garbage Company on a resolution of the issue. Ms. Bjurman discussed staWs concern relative to large homes on small lots. Referring to Exhibit B, she compared the proposed project to other approved projects. She noted that in lot size, building size and usable rear yard area, the proposed project is larger in all of the areas noted, yet the FAR is not significantly larger than Summerhill or City Center. Referring to the overhead of elevations, Ms. Bjurman noted that staff was pleased with the design, use of the building materials, and the visual relief created by the changes to the second story as well as the variety of materials proposed. Commission Minutes is Sanuary 22, 1996 Staff recommends approval of the project with the condition to retain the monterey pine tree and the condition from Los Altos Garbage Company. Ms. Bjurman reviewed recent discussions with Los Altos Garbage Company. Com. Harris suggested that the garbage company design smaller trucks to accommodate the smaller housing developments. Mr. Cowan explained that it was not a feasible solution, noting that the trucks are custom designed and have already been ordered. Ms. Bjurman distributed the material board to the Commissioners for their perusal. A brief discussion ensued regarding FARs wherein Ms. Bjurmun answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Cowan explained that the area around the proposed project, particularly the strip along Blaney Avenue, was designated in the 1970s for higher density development. Mr. Brian Kelly, President, Kelly Gordon Development, addressed concerns, noting that the garbage truck problem surfaced recently and will be discussed further with staff. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the proposed project offers a smaller residence at a more competitive price. Mr. Kelly referred to the overhead illustrating the alternative site plan without the removal of the monterey pine tree. He discussed the two arborists' reports, and noted that because of the general trauma of construction and change of living environment of the tree, increased paving would be traumatic to the tree and might weaken the tree, making it susceptible to beetle infestation. He stated that Mr. Barry Coate, arbofist, recommended that the tree be removed. Mr. Kelly referred to the overhead of the site plan and illustrated the modifications that would need to be made to accommodate the fire trucks if the monterey pine tree was retained. Mr. Kelly then discussed the modifications to the site plan if the monterey pine tree was removed from the property. A discussion followed regarding finished floor elevations wherein Mr. Kelly illustrated the finished floor elevations for each unit on the site map. He explained that a staff condition states that the finished floor elevation cannot exceed one foot above the adjoining property's finished floor elevation. He also discussed the proposed retaining wall. Ms. Bjurman explained that staff requires the civil engineer to provide, on his preliminary grading plan, topography beyond the property line and finished floor information beyond the property line, to better understand the relationship of the final constructed properties to the adjoining existing properties. She said two different cross-sections were shown but no detail sheet was included. The topography on the grading plan did not provide the required finished floor information; therefore staff created a condition of approval to address the Planning Commission's concern about the relationship of buildings to one another. She reported that there may be other reasons why the building has to be higher but she has not had the opportunity to study the issue. In response to a question from Com. Doyle, Mr. Kelly stated that there would be good neighbor fencing, and illustrated on the site plan the fence line for the project. Mr. George Monk, resident, said he felt the proposal was a quality plan and said his concerns were adequately addressed. He said he supported removal of the monterey pine tree. He noted that if Planning Commission Minutes 19 ~anuary 29., 1996 the tree was retained the setback of lot No. 2 would be reduced from 29 feet to 22 feet which significantly reduces his privacy. He pointed out that normally he would lobby to retain the tree, but in view of the arbotist's report stating the low probability of the tree surviving long after the rigors of the development, he supported the removal of the tree. He recommended that if the vote is to keep the tree, that the plan be redrawn to reinstate the 29 foot setback. Mr. Monk conunended staff for their efforts on the project. Mr. John Alburger, 10108 Mello Place, stated that he owned the triangular shaped property located at the top of the diagram illustrated on the overhead site plan. He noted that there was a large pine tree located (on his property) next to the fence and he expressed concern that care be taken not to impact the tree during the construction phase. He said constructing a retaining wall along the back might create problems with the tree roots. He also mentioned potential drainage problems, noting that if it wasn't taken care of might become an aggravated problem. Mr. Alburger expressed concern about the proposed height of the retaining wall in the rear area of his property as it relates to privacy and appearance. He stated that he had no objections to the basic layout of the project. Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the public hearing. Com. Doyle summarized the concerns: (1) What is the maximum FAR? (2) Retain or remove the monterey pine tree? (3) Acceptable floor elevation - 14 inches or 12 inches? or 2 feet on Lot 4 (Drainage); (4) Construction hours, dust control, etc.; (5) Setbacks in rear of houses - 22 foot, 25 foot, or 29 feet? Com. Doyle said he felt a more accurate comparison for the project would be the Summerhill development. He said he supported ~aining the monterey pine tree as it may still live another 15 years; he favored a one story unit on Unit 4; FAR - 2 inches above the allowed is appropriate; setbacks: 20 feet for the first floor with some flexibility for the 25 feet on the second floor; if the FAR, is reduced Units 3, 5, 6 and 7 could be modified to get 25 feet. Drainage: elevation of the back lots need to be raised. Com. Doyle pointed out that it was typical to have a 2 foot by 12 inch retaining wall. He said care should be taken not to damage the tree on Mr. Alburger's property. Com. Mahoney said he supported removal of the monterey pine tree. He stated that there is a scaleability issue on the house size. He said he was not comfortable with the rationale that because there are other projects with high FARs, it justifies the present project. Higher density means more affordable smaller homes, and these are not smaller homes. The developer did a good job under the constraints, but smaller homes would be more appropriate. Drainage: grade the area. Retaining wall: make sure the tree is not destroyed on either side. Setbacks are acceptable. Com. Austin supported removal of the monterey pine tree for a number of reasons including safety. She sugges~l replacing the tree with cedar trees because they are impervious to beetles. She expressed concern about drainage and flooding and said she wasn't certain the retaining wall would solve the problem or if drainage pipes were needed. She said she supported the retaining wall. Com. Austin stated the floor elevations in the back had to be accommodated. She said that the tree on the Alburgers' property should bo tagged and handled with care so as not to harm it. Construction times should be reasonable, between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. or similar. The FAR - 60% is too high; she suggested that they be scaled back to at least 55%. She said she would approve the Pl uming Commission Minutes $ nu ry 22, 1996 application iftbe FAR could be scaled back to at least 55%, with tree removal and setbacks as is and the plantings. Com. Harris supported retaining the monterey pine tree as both arborists suggested methods for construction that could be written into the conditions; the Environmental Review Committee also recommended saving the tree. It is a 100 foot tree and is a community resource that could be used as a focal centerpiece for the development. Drainage issue: proposed method was reasonable. She suggested changing or deleting Condition No. 7 grading page 6-9, because it says there is a maximum of 12 inches and we have had comment that there has to be 14 and 24. The tree on tbe Alburgers' property should be protected also. Conditions of construction including hours, dust control etc. should be included. Setbacks: 20 feet from the first floor and 25 fi.om the second as in a standard residential is reasonable and acceptable; FAlls: She stated they are too high. In this development several of the units are .577 which is the maximum they should be. Chairman Roberts said he concurred with Com. Mahoney's position on high density dwellings. He said he favored higher density and would like to implement the General Plan provisions in that respect but not the idea of the houses of this size at unit densities this high, which might lead to problems. He said the design was appealing. He discussed the possibility of a .6 FAR maximum which would lead to scaling down of about 200 sq. f~. Drainage: the problem can be handled by staff. Chairman Roberts said care should be taken to preserve and protect the Alburgers' large pine tree, which may require special design of the retaining wall. He stated that if the large monterey pine in the development can be saved, it could possibly serve as a focal point for the development; but if removed should be replaced with another tree which will grow to a large size as well. He said he favored preserving the tree. Construction hours: Ordinance provisions will cover. Setbacks: He stated 20 feet for the first floor and 25 for the second floor. He said it appeared that he was the only Commissioner concerned with the garbage collection access, but that more attention should be devoted to the issue. He suggested that in the future more attention be given to that element of access at the staff level before applications. Following a brief discussion, there was a consensus that the maximum FAR be .6 and the average FAR be .55, with the recommendation to downscale the largest ones to .6 and leave the smallest ones as is, to determine an average. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that the application be continued to accommodate the suggested modifications relative to house size and FAR. Mr. Brian Kelly, Kelly Gordon Development Corp., explained that taking the Commissioners' recommendations under consideration, the houses and the lots would need to be downsized. He stated that if retention of the monterey pine tree was a major consideration, he would request that the Planning Commission allow some flexibility relative to the rear yard setbacks, trying to maintain the 22 foot setbacks as opposed to 25 feet, which would necessitate redesign of the homes. He said that if there was some flexibility relative to the rear yards then applicant could work to accommodate the Planning Commission's recommendations and return with a modification for a lower general square footage in the houses, and in turn a lower FAR. Following a brief discnssion there was consensus that the setbacks be 20 to 25 feet. Mr. Kelly said that the retaining wall design will accommodate any seepage of the adjoining property. He stated that care will be taken not to damage the Alburgers' pine tree. ?lannin8 Commission Minutes 21 hnuary ll, 1996 Ms. Bjurman added that if the focus was to save the adjacent neighbor's pine tree, an arborist should examine the grading plans to see if it can be accomplished. Following a brief discussion, there was conscnsns from the Commissioners that an arborist's report was not necessary for the neighbor's pine tree. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Application No.(s) 16-U-95, 12-Z-95, 10-TM-95 and 33-EA-95 to the Februa~ 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-EXC-95 Janet M. DeCarli Sarae 11640 Regnart Canyon Drive Exception to Chapter 19.40.050 J, Residential Hillside Zones to allow an addition to a residence on a prominent ddgeline. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 1AN. 8, 1996 Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staffreport. The application is for a 537 sq. ft. workshop/utility room addition to the first floor garage and a 1544 sq. ft. second floor living/deck addition. The video presentation outlined the visual impacts, geologists' reports, and fire protection measures. Staff recommends approval of the application. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the site plan and the floor plan. She noted that the major issue is visual impacts. She said staff recommends approval of the application. Ms. Wordell responded to questions about the proposed additions and the visual impacts from the valley floor. She noted that the edge of the second story addition would be visible from the direction of the valley floor, but the face of the addition is toward the interior. Ms. Wordell clarified that the face of the existing residence faces toward the valley and the face of the addition faces toward the interior of the hillside. Mr. Ken Trasini, representing the applicant, thanked Ms. Wordell for her cooperation on the project. He explained that they have attempted to tuck the expansion over on the interior edge of the property. Referring to the site plan, he illustrated the location of the proposed additions. Mr. Trasini said he concurred with staff's recommendation with the exception of the condition pertaining to the electro magnetic field disclosure on the deed, and the need for fire sprinklers to the entire unit. He said he felt neither of the requirements was necessary, nor did they serve any public benefit. He explained that the homeowner is a licensed real estate broker and if the house was sold she is obligated by law to disclose the potentials for the electro magnetic fields. Mr. Trasini explained that the house currently has wood siding with a shake roof, but plans are underway to Platming Commission Minutes 22 Sanuary 22, 1996 convert to stucco siding and concrete tile roof which will greatly enhance the fire protection of the unit. In response to Com. Mahoney's concern about the visual impact of the second story addition, Mr. Trasini stated that the visual impact from the valley will be minimal and insignificant. Com. Harris requested clarification ora 1544 square foot addition to a 1200 square foot garage. Mr. Richard Foust, architect, explained that the second story addition is projected 12 feet into the front of the existing garage, as well as 10 feet into the north side of the garage. Discussion ensued regarding the condition calling for a sprinkler system throughout the structure. Mr. Trasini explained that the capacity of the water tank was recently doubled in order to improve fire flows in the area. He expressed his frustration that because the home is so dose to the water tank, the fire flow is not improved to Ms. DeCafli's home. Com. Austin suggested installing sprinklers in the addition only. Mr. Trasini said he offered to do so. He said it is cost prohibitive to retrofit sprinklers into the existing structure. Mr. Cowan clarified that he recommended that the building and fire codes suffice; an option exists for a waiver process for City Council. Mr. Cowan pointed out that staffis not prepared to deliberate on the proper fire flow for this particular project. Ms. Wordell stated that the fire district has requested the sprinkler requirement remain in the condition. Mr. Trasini clarified that Exhibit E was a view fi.om the hills on Canyon View Drive. He noted that the trees in the background were existing pine trees, and that they have been requested to provide additional landscape screening. Chairman Roberts opened the bearing for public input. As there was none, the public input portion of the hearing was closed. Com. Harris stated she was opposed to the application. She said it was in the RHS zoning and questioned the purpose of the role of ridge lines, if not to protect them. She said that looking at the picture it is not an intermediate ridge line, it is the top of the ridge line. Com. Harris said she could not imagine the addition being constructed without being visible in both mass and height. She recommended the provisions for the fire protection and electro magnetic fields remain, especially since this is 5.5 millignss projection and many communities have taken a stand at 2. Com. Harris said the potential buyer should be aware of that. Com. Doyle said he was also opposed to the application, not on principle alone, but because looking at the information could not get a vision of exactly what the project will look like. He slated that from Foothill Blvd. it looks like the structure will sit on top of the hill and the addition will be very visible. Com. Doyle said he remained flexible on the milligoss issue, and felt the fire protection recommendations should be adhered to, and modify them at City Council or fire department request. Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Doyle. He pointed out that the proposal doesn't present an accurate picture of what the structure will look like and he is not prepared to act on faith. He said he concurred with the fire protection recommendations and did not agree with the electro magnetic field requirement. Planning Commission Minutes 23 January 22, 1996 Com. Austin concurred with staff recommendation to approve the application. She stated the home was not offensive and having it set in was acceptable. Chairman Roberts said that he felt the addition will be much more visible than anticipated, and on those grounds would look for an addition that is truly tucked away into the hillside, less visible from the valley, and doesn't raise the height of the building. Discussion continued wherein the Commissioners suggested that the applicant consider a modified proposal to reduce the visibility of the structure. The applicant was asked whether he would prefer a vote taken at this meeting, which at this point would be negative, or a continuance. Mr. Trasini said he would prefer a continuance and suggested the Planning Commissioners drive the area of Bubb Road, Kennedy Road, and Stevens Creek Boulevard to better acquaint them of the visual aspects of the structure. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application No. 6-EXC-96 to the February 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Harris requested staff to work with Public Works Department on the air conditioning system in the council chambers. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting on Monday, February 12, 1996. Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved as Presented: February 12, 1996