PC 04-08-96CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANN~G COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 8, 1996
ORDER OF BUSII~ESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Harris, Chairman Roberts.
Staff present:
Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner; Ms. Lynaugh, Public Works; Charles Kilian. City
Attorney.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March 1 I, 1996 meeting:
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to approve the March 11, 1996 meeting minutes as
presented.
Com. Mahoney
Coms. Austin, Doyle
Passed 3 -0-2
Minutes of the March 25, 1996 meeting: There were no minutes for the March 25 meeting as it
was cancelled due to a lack of quorum.
WRI'I'I'EN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Roberts noted correspondence from the law firm
of Jackson and Abdaliah relative to Item 10; revised staff report for Item 10; supplementary plan
for Item 8; letter fi.om Harold and Cheryl Babb relative to Item 3; pending agenda for upcoming
meetings; and letter regarding rare and endangered plants.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
13-Z-95, 11-TM-95 and 34-EA-95
Rodger and Ronamae Wooley
11593 Upland Way
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Corm Austin moved to remove Item 6 from the calendar.
Com. Doyle
Passed 5 -0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 8, 1996
11.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
Historic Preservation Ordinance and 4-EA-96
City of Cupertino
Same
Citywide
Consideration of creating a historic preservation ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TEbrl'A'IIVE CII ~ COUNC1L HEARING DATE: May 6, 1996
12. Request fi.om Tandem Computers, for interpretation of Housing Mitigation Manual.
13. Proposed Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District presentation.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE!
Com. Austin moved to continue Items 11, 12 and 13 to the April 22,
1996 Planning Commission meeting.
Com. Mahoney
Passed 5-0-0
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
16-TM-88
Noomdin Billawala
Same
Westerly terminus of Rainbow Drive
Request for an extension of a two lot parcel map.
ENVIRONMENTAL DlzII:RM1NAT1ON: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DEC1S1ON FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
CONTINUED F'ROM PLA/NNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 25, 1996
Com. Harris requested that Item l be removed fi.om the Consent Calendar for discussion. Com.
Mahoney requested that Item 3 be removed fi.om the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
6-U-66 (Mod.)
Thu Ha Tiff Nguyen
Richard Messina
10073 Saich Way
Administrative approval of a modification to couslxuct window panels on the facade of an existing
retail store with a recommendation from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter
19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
5-ASA-96
Syd Jacobsen
St. Jude the Apostle Church
20920 McClellan ~ Stelling Road
Approval of a site-wide landcaping plan.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 8, ~996
ENV1RON MENTAL DI: 1LRMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALEI)
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 6-U-66 as per the model
resolution.
Com. Harris
Passed 5-0-0
1. Application No.: 16-TM-88
Applicant: Noorudin Billawala
Staff presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, reviewed the
background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report and answered Commissioners'
questions. Referring to the tentative map, Mr. Cowan explained that the request for final map
extension would allow applicant to obtain financing required to complete the final map.
Mr. Noorudin Ballawala, applicant, explained the mitigating circumstances which prevented him
from proceeding to develop the properly previously and noted that he was now in a position to
develop the parcel.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Mr. Kilian, City Attorney, clarified that the applicant
could apply for a subdivision on the property with the permission of the property owner.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 16-TM-88 for the extension to
the approved tentative map.
Com. Doyle
Passed 5 -0-0
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
5-ASA-96
Syd Jacobsen
St. Jude the Apostle Church
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the proposal for the site-wide landscaping
plan as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff supports the proposed plan with three added
stipulations: (1) The dead orchard trees be replaced within 3 years of the issuance of the building
permit for the parish hall; (2) Architectural review will be required for any "stations of the
resurrection" structures should they exceed the height of the shrub screen; and (3) The installation
of an additional shrub screen must be provided at the south end of the garden path area.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan illustrating the areas under
consideration and reviewed the proposed landscaping plan.
A discussion ensued regarding the letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Babb, residents, which
implied that the project was not carried out in a manner consistent with the approved plan. Ms.
Wordell explained that the neighbors said that they were initially presented a different plan from
what was shown later. The 28 foot height was approved and the plan showed it slightly elevated,
but was not called out as indicating the effective height would be higher than 28 feet. Ms.
Wordell pointed out that a possibility for confusion existed.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 8, 1996
Mr. Sid Jacobsen, representing St. Jude the Apostle Church stated that the neighbors were invited
to the meeting and did not attend. He pointed out that the original plans have not been modified.
He indicated that a problem does exist with the property sloping down in the back; the original
plans were to keep it level with the existing building so that everyone would have access. Mr.
Jacobson said that the church is making every effort to comply with all the regulations, and noted
that he invited the Babbs to meet with him to discuss alternative shrubbery and flees for the rear
area~ He noted that trees exceeding 20 feet in height would probably be trhnmed by the utiliW
company because they would interfere with the power lines. He discussed the various types of
shrubbery and trees being considered for the area, and the planting schedule.
Mr. Hal Babb, resident, explained that approximately two years ago when he learned that there
would be a single story parish hall he was not concerned; however, he did not view the plans and
therefore was not aware that the building would be 30 feet high. He requested that consideration
be given to the planting of more mature trees or foliage to screen the view of the church building
from his property. He said that in the last week on several occasions the entire second floor of the
building was brightly illuminated and shone over his entire backyard; and during the daytime
hours, the glare from the glass windows casts a glare in his backyard. He noted that because of
the raised grade on the church property, when occupants are walking around the church building
they can see into his properff, eliminating any privacy to his family. Mr. Babb suggested a higher
fence and more mature greenery would help alleviate the lack of privacy for his family.
Ms. Wordell noted that a condition of approval stipulated that the church building install and use
shades in the windows.
Com. Harris stated she was in favor of the application. She recalled that when the application was
initially addressed there was no discussion about raising the grade, but the issue was the
construction of the 28 foot high building. A requirement for window shades was stipulated. At
that time there was no discussion about the power lines to limit the height of the trees. Com.
Harris stated that she would like to use the opportunity as part of the landscape application to
remedy the situation, and suggested moving the Ixees closer to the power poles so they could be
higher. She noted that the adjacent homes were entitled to privacy and that the problem needed to
be remedied.
Com. Doyle concurred with Com. Harris that a solution was needed relative to the privacy factor,
whether it'be with trees or some other method.
Com. Mahoney said that special attention was needed to the planting in the rear area and would
favor looking at the landscape application in that light.
Com. Austin said that the application was ~Br the entire landscaping plan. She stated she was in
favor of replacement of the dead trees by 1998, architectural review for the stations and additional
shrubs for the south east section. Com. Austin pointed out that she was in favor of a higher fence
or planting of coastal redwood trees for rapid growth.
Chairman Roberts said that examples probably exist in the city of power lines along property
lines. He noted that a condition of occupancy was approval ora suitable landscape plan prior to
occupancy.
Mr. Kilian stated that the issue raised in the correspondence involved a possible amendment to
the landscape plan previously approved, and suggested that the topic be set for future discussion
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 8, 1996
to allow the applicant to address the concerns raised this evening. Mr. Kilian explained that the
plan could be amended.
Mr. Jacobsen said that he was willing to plant trees within a reasonable cost as funds were limited.
He said he was also ameniable to building a higher fence or planting more trees. He noted thta
the landscape plan should be complete within two weeks.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the possibility of increasing the fence height to provide
privacy to the adjacent homes· The use of lattice fencing atop the 6 foot high fence was
suggested. Different types of foliage was also discussed.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application No. 5-ASA-96 site-wide
landscape plan, with final occupancy of the structure not approved until staffhas
worked out a viable solution for the landscaping along the rear wall, including the
possibility of a two foot fence extension and the appropriate selection of trees,
not limited to 24 inch box trees.
Com. Austin
Passed 5-0-0
Ms. Wordell clarified that staff has the ability to make the decision if agreement cannot be
reached between the neighbors and the church. Chakman Roberts reiterated that the shielding of
the windows as a condition of original approval was a requirement.
ARCHITECtu'RAL REVIEW
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
13-U-81 (Mod.)
TCI West
CATV Facility Company
10041 Imperial Avenue
Administrative approval of a Use Permit Modification to locate an exterior emergency generator
on an existing office building site with a recommendation from the Planning Commission in
accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLA2qNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
CON'I'INLTED FROM PLANNING CO'MM1SS1ON MEETING OF MARCH 25, 1996
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to locate an exterior
emergency backup generator on the TCI Cablevision office building site. The generator would
be enclosed by a concrete block wall on three sides, with a chain link gate.
Staff recommends that the applicent add landscaping to mask visibility from the street. The
generator will produce a noise exceeding the city's noise standards by 10 decibels if activated in
the evening. Nearby property owners were notified of the possible noise problem and did not
raise any objections. Staffrecommends approval of the emergency backup generator.
Referring to the site plan, Ms. Wordell reviewed the location of the generator and the location of
the txash receptacle. She addressed the noise level concern and reported that the noise
enforcement officer provided notices to the neighbors about the noise level and will grant a noise
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 8, 1996
exception. She noted that there were no residents in close proximity to the location of the
genermor.
Com. Hanis expressed concern about appropriate notification to the neighbors regarding the
testing of the generator.
tn response to Chairman Roberts' question about potential residential development, Ms. Wordell
stated that the possibility of residential development in the future existed because of allowed
mixed use.
Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. There was no one from the public who
wished to comment.
Mx. Dennis Sharer, representing James M. Throne, Architect, explained that the generator testing
would be conducted on Saturdays, between 9 mm. and noon, and not conducted under load, which
meant testing would not emit the same noise level as normal operation. The generator would be
operational in power outages, thus providing TV service during power outages.
Com. Harris recommended the addition of a condition requiring daytime testing. She
recommended that Condition 4 read: "All testing will take place during daytime hours."
tn response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Wordell stated that the Plan referred to the generator
with the lower decibel rating, which was recommended by the noise enforcement officer.
MOTiON:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved approval of Application No. 13-U-81 (Mod.) with the
addition of Condition 4 relating to daytime testing.
Com. Mahoney
Passed 5 -0-0
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
2-ASA-96
Jerry Franco
Joseph P. and Florence E. Franco Trustee
20620 Homestead Road
Modification to an approved landscaping plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 25, 1996
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for removal of 21 trees from
the Homestead Square shopping center. Thirty eucalyptus trees were previously removed from
the shopping center parking lot because the property owner believed their presence endangered
shoppers and employees. The video presentation outlined the tree replanting plan. Staff
recommends approval of the application.
Referring to Exhibit A, Ms. Wordell described the replanting plan, specifying the types of trees to
be planted and the location of the replantings. She noted that staffrecommended removal of the
eucalyptus trees because they were considered tmreliable trees and did not contribute to the current
landscaping.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 8, 1996
Chairman Roberts questioned why the applicant did not submit an arborist report. Ms. Wordell
responded that the high cost of an arborist report may have been a factor in not submitting the
report as requested by staff
Mr. Dwayne Baker, representing the landowners, stated that it was felt the arbodst report was not
a necessity because 7 trees had fallen in the parking lot during a storm and they considered them e
unsafe and pos'rog a danger to customers and employees. Mr. Baker noted that two cars in the
parking lot were destroyed by fallen trees also.
Chairman Roberts clarified that the issue was the type of trees to be used for replacement of the
trees in the parking lot.
Mr. Baker explained that they had considered the suitability of different trees to the shopping
center parking lot and had visited other shopping centers for ideas.
Ms. Wordell clarified that the arborist's report was requested for clarification on whether the trees
should be removed a~d also what the best replacement trees would be.
Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. As there was none, he returned to the
Commissioners for comment.
Com. Austin said she was concerned with the type of replacement trees being considered.
Com. Doyle expressed concern about a possible trend, recall'mg that in the last five years the
Planning Commision had approved many changes such as approval of a drive-through, 24 hour
copy center, removal of trees, resulting in higher density and more traffic flow. Addressing the
specific tree issue, he pointed out that the trees were gone and said he was not optimistic about
replacement considerations.
Com Ma. honey stated that current landscape plan was appropriate and he was in favor of the grape
myrtle and ash trees.
Com. Harris said that the eucalyptus trees presented a problem and was in favor of them being
replaced with different types of trees. She said that the grape myrtle was an attxactive, showy
plant, the other trees match existing items on the property, and she supported staff
recommendation to add the three plums trees. Com. Harris recommended a modification of
similar planting around the Drinks building, with some low shrubs around the building itself.
In response to Chairman Robea-ts' request, Ms. Wordell reviewed the scope of the application. She
clarified that it included the entire shopping center parking lot with the exception of the Payless
store area. She said it was appropriate to include supplementary landscaping around the Drinks
drive-through site, but recommended it be referred to staff as it was not known how amenable the
foundation would be to have foundation landscaping, depending on the drive-through setup.
Com. Mahoney suggested the use of whatever is appropriate given the condition of the site.
Chairman Roberts said he noted that the trees were in poor condition and would have liked to
have seen an arborist report relating to the poor condition of the trees to know the reason for their
poor condition. He asked if there was a provision for watering the replacement trees similar to the
Planning Commission Minutes 8 &pril ~, 1996
requirement for street trees. Chairman Roberts stated that there have been complaints about trees
in parking lots obscuring commercial property and asked if a way to help that would be to chose
trees that can be limbed up so that there remains a clear view while the trees still provide shade.
He said it was not clear that these trees are of this type, especially the grape myrtles, and asked for
comment on the viability of the commercial center. He expressed concern about planting trees
and shrubs that future owners might neglect in the future.
Ms. Wordell stated that she did not know what the irrigation plan was. She explained that in
discussions with Mr. Baker he indicated that the trees would be trimmed for visibility.
Mr. Baker explained the use of a deep well watering system for the ~ees. He noted that the
applicant had spent over $4,000 on trimming the eucalyptus trees.
Com. Doyle said that the staff report indicated that the applicant would trim the trees so that they
would not interfere with the visibility of the center. Mr. Baker explained said that the applicant
visited a tree farm with the project landscaper for instructions on the correct trees to plant and how
to trim them. He indicated they planned to trim the grape myrtles to 12 to 15 feet on the bottom,
with a 25 to 30 foot cap.
Ms. Wordell indicated that the general note about the deep watering system would be incorporated
into the conditions of approval.
Mr. Cowen clarified that the city sets zaroscape standards to apply, end the final landscaping plans
have to be approved by a landscape architect; therefore the watering system would be approved by
them and would be in compliance w~th the mty s landscape reqmremen .
MOT1ON:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to approve Application 2-ASA-96 with the addition of
Condition 4 specifying that staff will review the landscaping plan around the
Drinks drive-through and that some landscaping will be provided, talcing into
consideration the Drinks building and its foundation. The general notes firom the
landscaping plan will also be incorporated as Condition 5.
Com. Austin
Passed 5-0-0
PUBLIC HEARING
6. Application No.(s):
Applicant:
13-Z-95, ll-TM-95 and 34-EA-95
Rodger & Ronaman Wooley
Item removed from agenda.
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 8, 1996
PLANNING COMM1SION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ME'E-I'ING OF MARCH 25, 1996
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the
attached staff report. She explained that the applicant did not modify the plan as previously
requested by the Planning Commission but submitted a video tape and photographs attempting to
prevail upon the Planning Commission that the visual impacts were not significant.
Referring to the site plan and floor plan, Ms. Wordell reviewed the proposed project.
Mr. Ken Trasini, 11640 Regnart Canyon Drive, representing the applicant, noted the two major
concerns discussed at the last meeting: the visibility of the proposed expansion and were there
alternate locations on the site where they could accommodate the expansion? He stated that in
order to address the concern on visibility a video tape and photos was submitted of various views
and an attempt to present an accurate portrayal of the views from various surrounding areas. He
stated that Exhisit E was not an accurate reflection of the visibility or the location of the proposed
expansion.
Mr. Trasini explained the use of the color coded flags depicting the proposed roofline of the
proposed expansion, and noted that the flags were left out for a month to dei~,dne what, if any,
neighborhood or comm~mity concerns there were about the prominence of the fidgeline. He said
that although it was deemed a prominent ridgeline, when you look at the house from a number of
different perspectives, the house as constructed, is tucked low into the ridgeline, with a knoll
coming up behind the house. As requested by staff applicant will provide additional landscaping
screening mitigation as staff deems suitable.
Mr. Trasmi stated that the applicant has worked with staff and applicant's consultants to find the
best location for the site and are aware of the city's concerns. He noted that if the addition was
timber down the hill it would require additional grading, the removal of existing txees and would
be more visible than the proposed addition. At the south end of the site there is a power pole
concern, septic tank coneem and it is the most visible perspective of the property. As requested
by previous staff, applicant has moved the expansion back without jeopardizing the fimcfion of
the balance of the home. The expansion cannot go timber west because it would run into existing
trees and would get offthe pads which would require existing grading and would be impacted by
the existing water line easement. He noted that options are limited for the expansion.
In response to Com. Harris' request, Mr. Trasini discussed the photos taken and how they
represent the its existing configuration t~om those locations. Com. Mahoney said he viewed the
home through binoculars and stated it was on the ridgeline but because of the shrubbery was not
visible.
Coms. Doyle and Austin had no comment.
Chairman Roberts expressed concern that similar deliberations occ~trred with the Diocese on a
previous application and the visual impact was under-represented. Mr. Trasini concurred that the
techniques used were not as reliable as the naked eye and recalled that he had reqnested the
Planning Commission members to visit the area and view how visible the site actually is.
Planning Commission Minutes 1o April 8, 1996
In response to a question fi.om Com~ Doyle, Mr. Trasini explained that the first floor goes out
toward the valley about 9 to 10 feet, single floor height There was a brief discussion about the
color of the home, wherein Mr. Trasini said that the colors woald be ofbeigeforown origin.
Chairman Roberts noted that there was concern about the visual impacts from the neighborhing
homes below. Mr. Trasini noted that in order for applicant to view the homes below, they would
have to go out to the end of the existing deck. He noted that from the houses that are directly
below, looking np the ridge, very little of the profile, if any, is seen.
Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment.
Ms. Lynn Foust, 11033 Canyon Vista Drive, referred to Com. Doyle's comments in the January
22, 1996 Planning Commission minutes, referring to his comment that from Foothill Blvd. it
appeared that the structure will sit on top of the hill and the addition will be ve~ visible, and
questioned where on Foothill Blvd. he was. She also questioned Com. Mahoney who said he
drove around various neighborhoods. She said that becanse they look np at Mr. LoWs home,
sometimes called "the box," they were vexy sensitive to being one of the homes on the other side
of the hill looking up. and was not clear as to whether this home projects into their view line.
Com. Doyle responded that when viewing fi.om the intersection in the area of Stevens Creek and
Foothill, Mr. LoWs home was in view, and the tower could also be seen. He noted that there
were larger trees on that side of the property; and as it stands now, the house was not visible.
Com. Mahoney said he stopped at the vantage point shown in Photo 10, and indicated he was not
worried about the impact.
Ms. Foust thanked the Commission for their careful consideration.
Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Com. Mahoney said that after viewing the photos and viewing the area, he felt the power pole
dominates the area, breaking the natural silhouette of the ridge line. He said he was comfortable
with the plans as there was ample shrubbery and trees to mask the area now and in the furore.
Com. Doyle said that as it stands right now, the current house is not an issue, and the proposed
height will not be an issue.
Com. Austin said that she originally concurred with staff's recommendation to approve the
application and felt the same way. She said she visited the area and the home is set into the hill
and is the least offensive, and felt the proposed addition was located in the best visually
acceptable area.
Com. Harris expressed concern that she was having difficulty visualizing the addition, as Exhibit
E was not an accurate depiction, as the applicant stated that the addition was not as shown
correctly in the exhibit. She noted that it was a large addition, and according to the video and
photos is shown as a house on the crest of a hill, with no indication that the addition would be
tucked on the inside, that the mass isn't going to be expanded and the height isn't going to be
noticeable. Although nothing can be done aboat the power pole and the water tank, it is possible
to change the ridge line if it will be significantly visible. She stated that she was not comfortable
Planning Commission Minutes It April 8, 1996
with the proposal in that the information presented did not indicate that the addition would not
create a visual impact.
Com. Harris also noted that the staff report refers to the requirement of additional landscaping and
that a condition was included to require additional landscaping, but the landscaping condition says
a landscaping plan shall be submitted and implemented, not that it shall be approved. She
recommended that the condition be changed to indicate that the landscaping plan for screening the
new addition be approved by staff, not just submitted.
Chairman Roberts concurred with Com. Hams that the information presented does not satisfy him
that the house addition when completed will not have a significant visual impact on the valley. He
stated that as commented on previously, it is unwise to rely on vegetative covering screening to
obscure the view of houses in the hills because of the conflict with fire prevention policies which
argue against having vegetation, especially tall trees w/thin 30 feet of the hillside. The area is a
fire danger zone. He expressed disappointment that Exhibit E was presented in some way
unrepresentative of the project when in fact it was the applicant's exhibit and there was ample
time to revise it if necessa~. He stated that he felt the conditions were not fulfilled to grant an
exception in favor of the application and stated his opposition on those grounds.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOS:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 6-EXC-95 per the model
resolution with the change in Condition No. 6 to specify approval by staff prior to
issuance of the building p~'mit.
Com. Austin
Corns. Hams, Roberts
Passed 3 -2 -0
A brief discussion ensued about grading concerns, wherein Mr. Cowan stated that it be noted that
the approval of the application was based upon the statement of the applicant that by pushing the
wall plain out 9 feet there would be a 10 foot difference fxom finish grade to top of the eaves, and
it does not involve the new fill.
Application No.:
Appicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
2-U-96
Charles Schlecik
Charles Schlecik
20425 Silverado Avenue
Use Permit to construct a 1,758 squqare foot addition to an existing family residence in a P (CG)
zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL LTNLESS APPEALED
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell reviewed the application to construct a 1,758 square toot
residence addition as outlined in the attached staff report. She explained that staff deems it an
appropriate use for the parcel and that the application be approved. Staff recommends that two
of the three pine trees in the front of the parcel remain.
In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Wordell explained the setbacks. A brief discussion
followed wherein Ms. Wordell answered questions about the location and purpose of the storage
shed.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 April g, 1996
Mr. Dennis Burrow, architect, 23895 Summit Road, Los Gatos, noted that the tree that is
proposed to be removed poses a hazard to the existing structure. Mr. Burrow requested that the
engineering requirement for the placement of a sidewalk be deferred to such time as the property
is used for commercial or other purposes primarily because the use and traffic patterns on the
street are not being changed. Staff explained that the addition of the sidewalk was a standard
condition for any addition to an existing residence when looking at 25% or more.
In response to a question fi.om Com. Harris regarding placement of the sidewalk, Mr. Burrow said
that the driveway length would not be affected.
Discussion continued regarding the existence of sidewalks wherein Mr. Cowan explained that
within the county there was an attempt to build sidewalks in neighborhoods that do not have
sidewalks, particularly in the industrial areas and school areas. The Public Works Department is
taking the position that whenever there is an opportunity to install sidewalks, they will pursue it.
Com. Doyle asked about the possibility of making it a condition of approval that the homeowner
be responsible for the sidewalkx. Mr. Cowan explained that there are 5 year time limitations for
deferred-type agreements which makes it difficult to enforce and track.
Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input.
Mx. Andy Kasick, 11496 Lhidy Place, Cupertino, stated that he owned a residence close to the
property in question and constructed a similar addition. He stated that his addition received
neighborhood support and noted the neighbors presently support the proposed addition.
Com. Harris stated that she supported the application and that it would be an enhancement to the
area. She recommended that the 18 inch ash tree be replaced by a tree of si~nflicunt size,
preferably a California native, in a 24 inch box, and placed in a similar area behind the addition,
adjacent to the Chamber. She said that because the the building was adjacent to the Chamber, she
would approve a sidewalk as it makes sense to extend the sidewalk. She noted that the owner
knew the building was located in a P zone and in time the house may be converted with that use to
commercial and it would be appropriate to have the sidewalk.
Com. Mahoney said he approved the application and would like to have it treated as a residence.
He indicated he was in favor of installing a sidewalk, but did not favor any particular restrictions
on the trees.
Com. Doyle said he supported approval of the application, with no restrictions on the trees. He
said he was not in favor of forcing the sidewalk issue.
Com. Austin concurred with Com. Harris.
Chairman Roberts said he supported the application and favored retaining the condition to put in
the sidewalk because of the land use classification. He said he did not place any restrictions on
the trees.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to approve Application No. 2-U-96 per the model resolution.
Com. Mahoney
Passed 5 -0-0
Planning Commission Minutes t3 April 8, 1996
Chairman Roberts declared a recess at 9:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:23 p.m. with the
same Commissioners and stalTpresent.
OLD BUSINESS
Repor~ to Council:
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
RI-tS Zoning and Definifons Ordinance Amendments and
31 -EA-95
City of Cupertino
Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside (RHS) zones of the Cupertino Municipal
Code related to exception findings, house size, grading quantity and other subjects to be
del~mfined by the Planning Commission. Amendment to Chapter 19.08 (Definitions) of the
Cupertino Municipal Code related to definition of basement.
TENTA-1TVE CTI'Y CUUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 6, 1996
CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 25, 1996
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell discussed the four Residential Hillside Ordinance issues
presented to the Planning Commission, as outlined in the attached staff report: (1) Legal
conformity of existing homes built prior to June 1993; (2) Implications of the clustering
requirements in the Foothill 5-20 slope density area; (3) Design Standards; and (4) Applicability.
Chairman Roberts suggested structuring questions of staff point by point.
Legal Conformity
There were no questions of staff on the legal conformity of existing homes built prior to June
1993.
Clustering Requirements
In response to Com. Austin's question about staffs recommendation relative to the 8,000-10,000
sq. ft. minimum parcel size, Ms. Wordell said that staff was not recommending a change; but if
the Commission wanted to change, the 8,000 to 10,000 sq. ff. minimum parcel size was
appropriate.
Design Standards
Chairman Roberts said that, keeping in mind what is aimed for in the provision of the RHS is to
assure the building fits into the hillside forms and to minimize the visual mass, he could envision a
situation where a person would want to have part of their home facing the hillside and want to
have a part that is more into the hillside and less visible; and from the standpoint of minimizing
visible mass, then it would make sense or serve the public interest to have the main building's
mass down slope shielding some of the other building mass upslope. He questioned why would it
be opposed?
Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 8, 1996
Ms. Wordell responded that it could be considered a trade off, because Chairman Roberts'
example indicates that you would want to see a lot of it facing down slope.
Chairman Roberts explained that if the part of the building that was facing down dope obscured
another part of the building going into the hillside, he could envision some designs where it would
make sense for the applicant to hide part of the building mass behind a major mass down slope,
and he would consider it an innovative solution and would favor it. This policy would preclude it,
and he said it would be unfortunate if applicants and architects found a way to hide part of the
mass behind what is facing downhill. He said he would not object to part of the building being
hidden by the part of the building that is facing the valley floor because overall the applicant could
get whatever square footage they wanted and if they don't want to have the view from every
window they would be obscuring part of the building and people would see less of it
Coms. Austin, Harris and Doyle said they disagreed with Chairman Roberts.
Discussion ensued regarding the design standards wherein staff answered Commissioners'
questions.
Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. Jim Jackson, 22325 Regnurt Road, spoke on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Regnart
Ridge Homeowners Association. He said he recognized the limitations placed on addressing the
issue as a report back to the council. He expressed concern that what the city is contemplating
will cause a major headache to staff and a major nightmare to the existing homeowners in the
foothills. He pointed out that the application of the RHS standards is a lot easier on a lot where
there is no existent house. He said it was unfortunate that as a practical matter the language states
that the houses won't be called legally non-conforming, but for all practical purposes they are
legally non-conforming and have to meet the standards as if they were called non-conforming.
He said it was his understanding that the Council said that because there were some problems with
disclosure on existing homes that it caused problems to existing land owners who want to sell
their property and have to disclose that these are legal non-conforming and non-complying
facilities. Therefore the Council wants to solve the problem and not have those homeowners have
to say that, and he said he was not sure that makes any difference as far as disclosure is concerned.
Mr. Jackson said that staff clarified that if there is an existing slracture within the RHS zone and if
there are parts of that structure that violate any one or more of the site development conditions, a
landowner can structurally alter or modify that existing structure unless the modification causes it
to become non-complying, or it causes a non-compliance to become even greater. With the
exception of homes that are within the 30% slope or more that is proposed to be enlarged more
than 500 sq. ft. would have to meet the conditions Mr. Jackson said the problems that slill exist
are: (1) How to determine whether the individiual homes do or do not violate these restrictions
and (2) If they do, the homeowners will have to meet what they believe to be a yew onerous set
of conditions in order to make what may be an emxemely minor change to individual homes. First
of all how does the homeowner ascertain whether or not they apply? Most of these homes were
built without regard, for example to the 30% slope determination. The only way to determine the
slope of the home is to have a civil engineer do the calculations. Mr. Jackson said he has gone
through the ordinance both the way it exists now and the way it is proposed to be changed and
does 'not know how many of those individuals things do or do not apply to my own home. He
said that the situation with No. 3 is indicative of the problem many of the homeowners will have
Plaani~g Commissien Minutes 15 April 8, 1996
where the homes were built without regard to these words and take the existing structure that was
built without regard to the words and try to apply to the words.
Mr. Jackson stated that it is going to be very difficult and expensive for the homeowners to
determine whether or not they are in conformance with the ordinance. It would be a major
expenditure to determine who does or does not apply and no one wants to attempt the effort to
determine whether or not they apply because probably very few of them have specific plans in
mind, and in the event one decides to sell their home, they have no idea if it is in compliance in
part or in total. He said if he determined that his home does apply and there is a violation, he
must then prove by substantial evidence that 13 different conditions do apply. Mr. Jackson
suggested that in the hearing held earlier regarding the ridge line problem, it might not have been
necessaw to have 12 other conditions with evidence that the applicant has to present to prove that
the addition to the home that intrudes into the ridgeline is entitled to exception. He reiterated that
the element of proof is going to be extremely onerous to comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Jackson asked that if the Planning Commission felt his points had me*ih that they indicate to
the Council that there are some potential concerns rising and that those concerns might be
addressed by some future modifications to the ordinance. He suggested that existing homes built
legally before 1993 be allowed to develop under R1 standards unless they fail to meet certain
critical elements that are felt to be the essential elements as to why the PHS zoning was
implemented in the first place. The critical elements suggested were: (1) It exceeds the
maximum height; (2) If it exceeds maximum size, and (3) If it add to a home that is on the
prominent ridge line and causes an addition to the ridge line. Other suggestions included: If it is
on a 30% slope and it requires additional grading, it may be an area that should come before the
exception process. Certain restrictions might be placed on homes which have too high a floor area
ratio. He said the major thing is when an applicant comes before the commission for an
exception, the standards being looked at should be related to the condition that is being violated.
If you find that the condition is not violated, then at that point you should find an exception. You
should be able to be specific in your conditions as to the violation you are looking at. Mr. Jackson
reiterated his concern about problems with applying the words to new development, and stated
that if there are problems on new development, they are going to be even greater on existing
problems..
Ms. Kathy Nellis, Regnart Road, said she felt it was an awkward situation because of the position
the homeowners association (HOA) found themselves in with the revelation that this is going to
affect their existing homes. She said that the HOA thought the discussions were about new
devalopm~nt. Ms. Nellis said she was a member of the Regnart Ridge HOA, the company who
developed Regnart Ridge, which is 20 lots, 18 of which have been built. She expressed concern
about the t~xm legal non-conforming, and stated that there were different items in the ordinance tht
will affect many of the homeowners. She noted that the development already had 4 or 5 homes
that would be on a prominent ridge line that are already consm~cted, and questioned if they would
be considered non-conforming or non-compliant homes. She said the homes were one story
homes and challenged the commission to find the homes when looking up on the hill even through
they are on a prominent ridge line. She said the areas from Prospect to Rainbows End, Upland,
Regnart Canyon, Lindy Canyon, are all basically developed with only a few isolated lots not built
on. The area is considered developed and would have thought the way that the city would be
looking at this property is basically an infill situation at this point; that the character of the area has
been set. She said that she did not object to addressing problems when they arise, but said she
felt it unfair to put the entire area that is 10 years old into the same category.
Planning Commission Minutes 16 April 8, 1996
Ms. Nellis said she had even though she has sat on the architectural committee for the subdivision
for 17 houses, she found it difficult to understand the ordinance and recommended that it be
written in terms a layperson could understand. She said she did not understand how the offset
issue reduces mass. She explained how the Regnart Ridge HOA addressed the issue by stating
that there should be a domineut floor versus a floor that is not dominant; if the upper story is the
dominant; the box effect is not permitted. The second sto~y cannot be more than 50% of the
upper story in that particular case. if there is a 3,000 sq. fL building envelope on the top you
could not have more than 1,500 underneath; which allows the house be built into the hill rather
than a box efffect or a two story effect.
Mr. John Michelle, Ricardo Road, expressed appreciation to the Community Development
Department staff for their availability and helpfulness Referring to Exhibit B, he addressed the
issue of cluster housing in the Ricardo Road and Rancho Deep Cliff area~ He requested that a
minimum lot size for cluster housing be considered to eliminate the possibility of Corsica homes
adjacent to homes that average one-half acre. He also requested that development proposals be be
considered the same as staff recommends. He recommended a 12,000 square foot per lot
minimRm lot requirement, which is consistent with the minimllm lot size of RI-IS. He noted there
would be some discussion as to whether Ricardo and Miramonte areas that are already developed
should come under the RHS zoning. He said he was pleased to have the oppormulty to have staff
look at that by visits and consultations with the landowners but it is still not clear whether or not
that area should be RHS or RI. In response to Chairman Roberts' question, Mr. Michelle said
that he was not proposing the shaded area be R1.
Mr. Michelle stated that the area was the area in part of the General Plan that was to be RHS but it
is already developed and having the same problems that the Candy Rock Mountain people did;
about the potential for being legally non conforming. The other portion of the area is
undeveloped land. He noted that the lots on Ricardo r~mged from 12,000 square feet or 1/2 acre.
Mr. John Dozier, Lindy Lane, stated that Mr. Jackson articulated the problem. He said there was
concern about the issues Mr. Jackson discussed, specifically the limitations brought on by the
RHS zoning and the 30% + slopes and the second story setbacks in relation to the first story. He
noted that neither the cities of Saratoga or Los Altos Hills have this in their zoning ordinance, and
if txying to fall in line with Saratoga and Los Altos Hills as a guideline, perhaps some of the
spedfic items in the RI-IS zoning should be reconsidered.
Mr. Dick Randall, 22348 Regnart Road, said when he worked on the RHS zoning issue, he
misunderstood that it was applicable to new development. He said his home would not conform
to the new zoning. He stated he had two undeveloped lots and requested that some consideration
be given to the regulations applicable when the subdivision was approved. He said he was not
certain he would conform to the 13 exceptions outlined when he is prepared to build on the
undeveloped lot. He said he was not comfortable with the non-conforming term and requested
they be left as is.
Chairman Roberts said tht the city attorney and staff would assure everyone that the law assures
reasonable use of a person's property and the Planning Commission is obliged to assert its best
judgment to help do that.
Mr. Cowan emphasized that the exceptions that were designed were the Planning Commmission's
intent to add some reasonable assurance that every single property would have some major
development.
Planning Commission Minutes 17 April 8, 1996
Mr. Kilian pointed out that 7 of the 13 findings are directly t~om the General Plan and their
language is required by the General Plan for development, including as the Council previously
determined, remodeling, or additions. The other five findings are standard findings made with
respect to any type of general use permit or variance. The test of substantial evidence is no more
than the test that is always provided for; it is the lowest burden of proof for any actions by the
city; the same test is applied for all use permits; variances, and tentative maps. With respect to the
exceptions, the findings for exceptions, at least 5 of them are standard, broad exceptions. The
other 7 are from the General Plan and they specifically describe the sections in the General Plan
that applies to it, so it may be a number but were intended 1 think to provide some objective
standards with has been a more subjective process.
Mrs. Peggy Dozier, Lindy Lane, presented a proposal to put existing homes in compliance with
the RHS zoning and the ability to update and remodel without going through the exception
process. The proposal would require an amendment to the RIdS ordinance as follows: All
structures built prior to 1993 would have to comply with the following guidelines:
· There would still be the lot coverage;
· There would be no requirement, which is the case with the RHS in new deveipment;
· The minimum lot width 70 t~. would be the same;
· Maximum building FAR would be the same;
· The first floor setbacks would be the same for the existing stmctares;
· The second stoW setback; instead of this which makes us non-complying go back to the 25
feet and most homes would comply;
· The side yard is aecaptable;
· The building height is acceptable;
· Building colors--the earth tones are acceptable;
· The gr~ng quantity, unless it is cumulative which is understood that it is not; if this is in
addition to, it is acceptable, could still add on and still have the grading requirement in the
RHS; the prominent ridge line-there are homes on the ridge line; so to conform could go
along with the maximum building height which is 20 feet.
· The 30% slopes, no requirement; again because we already have 30% sloped homes all those
that are in 30% are non-complying;. These homes if they were to be developed would still
have to comply with all these other requirements and could still fit all these requirements if
wanted to add omo a home that is more than 30%·
Ms. Dozier pointed out that as far as the RI-IS goes, they are non-conforming. She said her
proposal is with those exceptions there, they will still fall within the RHS. The existing homes
could be added onto and would not have to go through the exception process but there would be
strict limitations on buildability and there would still be limitations on building.
in response to Chairman Roberts' question, Ms. Dozier stated that the proposal was not presented
to the City Council when the issue was heard. She said the Council instructed them to find a
solution to the problem of non-conformity
Ms. Wordeil explained that grading was not cumulative prior to 1993. It would be cumulative
from 1993 on.
Planning Commission Minutes 18 April 8, 1996
Mr. Cowan said that an issue with the Council was to eliminate the stigma of the words "non-
conforming." In response to a question regarding number of General Plan changes over the years,
he said that they weren't so much General Plan changes as ordinance changes. 'Ilaere was a
significant change made to the RI ordinance in 1988 which required greater side yard setbacks.
He estimated 30% changes over the years.
Discussion continued wherein staff answered questions about the interpretation of the language.
Corn. Doyle summarized the issues: (1) the term; (2) what are the trigger points when this applies
to my house ill live in this area; and (3) once it does apply the complexity of that application; we
have addressed the idea of getting some different terminology. He said that it could be debated
whether or not we agree with the trigger points. He indicated the last slide was the best example
of the three key things; do we support changing it or leaving it as it currently is the 30% slope with
the other items, and finally how do we reduce the complexity of its application'?
Mr. Kilian commented that he felt Mr. Jackson overstated some issues. He suggested the most
inocuous example that would requite an exception, such as adding a bedroom or deck. When
going through the findings, probably 3/4 of them are irrelevant to that and would not need to be
considered. He said the 13 findings were meant to be catchalls for all types of different
applications and the ones that are irrelevant simply would not need to be be considered; most
relate back to the General Plan specifics.
Mr. Cowan pointed out that if a person owns property in the R1 area, they would have to go
through a variance application which is more rigorous than the exception process.
Discussion continued regarding variances and exceptions wherein staff answered questions.
In response to a question from Com. Harris asking why it was a variance in an RI and an
exception in an R~-~S, Mr. Kilian explained there could be an exception process in an R1 zone;
however, it has fewer regulations; therefore when people buy in the flatland it is fairly easy for
them to see the setback issues a little more than in the hillside where they would have to determine
whether they had a 30% slope.
Com. Austin referred to Page 3, paragraph 2 of Mr. Jackson's letter and staff's recommended
wording on Page 9-2 and requested clarification.
Com. Harris clarified that the language in the proposal states that the Planning Commit, sion will
not call the property legal non-conforming, but will call it legally conforming if it was built in a
conforming way at the time it was built. However, any addition, enlargement, or remodeling, you
need to comply with the RHS. Whereas Mr. Jackson states the opposite, that if it was built in the
R1 zone prior to 1993 you could alter it using the R1 standards as opposed to the RHS standards,
and it is conforming.
Mr. Kilian clarified that it would be conforming, but it is treated as a stmctare that is under the R1
standards and will always be treated as a structure under the R1 standards and therefore would be
able to be built according to what the RI standards are or were at a certain time. He pointed out
that what Mr. Jackson asked for orally tonight was slightly different than the contents of his letter.
He clarified that he felt that what Mr. Jackson was saying now is that there are certain specific
concerns that the City has with respect to the impacts of remodeling in the hills; and those are
height, grading, and mass, and he is suggesting a remodeling ordinance to relate to those concerns
Planning Commission Minutes 19 Apdl ~, 1995
rather than a general concern. Mr. Kilian said the present language would not accomplish that,
and it would be up to the City Council to decide whether they want to consider something
different for remodeling situations than for new development.
Com. Mahoney pointed out that the proposal is to use the RI for the people that built prior to
1993. If the RHS is the appropriate zoning for this area for new additions and new homes, then
the RI is a counter proposal. Mr. Kilian clarified that it would mean 20 years from now there
would be some houses that would have to have an RHS standard applied to them and other houses
would have an R1 standards applied to them depending upon when they were built.
Com. Doyle said that it was a valid point that as things were in place, more complexity entered
into the application and some of the concept and some of the ideas brought up were valid and
there needs to be an opportunity to try to have staff and these people come back with some
potential alternatives that we may use in the future. He said he felt there should be some
oppommity to modify some of the original exception criteria. He said he didn't feel that the
complexity of application should be addressed at this time.
Com. Mahoney said he was comfortable with the wording with the possible expansion of setting
some kind of trigger limit.
Com. Harris said that the language written by the Council was worthy, and stated that the PHS
came out of the General Plan det¢,,ninafion to change the character of the community in the
hillsides. Basically people will be entitled to have and enjoy, but if they want to expand or build
new, they need to meet the new rules or come forward for an exception. She said she took to task
the staff interpretation that everybody gets the grading plus the other 2,500 feet. It puts an
interesting standard on those lots. Anyone can grade 2,500 feet on their lot even if they have
already graded 50 houses. She said she would tend to grant exceptions on the grading issue
because she favored setting into the hillside, and that is where the issue arises but the concept of
allowing fixed grading is not to change the contour of the hill. so if every single existing
developed propemy can now have another 2,500 feet of grading, she said she did not feel that was
the spirit of the role on that Separate from that it is reasonable language and everyone has a right
to come forward. It also gets rid of the stigma of the words legal non-conforming.
Chairman Roberts said he favored the change in t~r,,,inology that the Commission was asked to
review, and that if the Council wanted them to consider separate classes of applicability for the
residential hillside ordinance, then they are free to do so. He said he was not prepared to do so
this evening, but would be prepared to send that change in wording forward.
Com. Austin said she felt that houses built prior to 1993 should not be covered especially when
they had their own hillside policies before.
Clustering Requirements
Chairman Roberts pointed out that the clustering requirements referred specifically to the property
on Ricardo Road, Rancho Deep Cliff area. The major issue is the matter of whether or not we
want to impose a minimum lot size and the neighboring residents have urged us to do so. Staff
recommends retaining the present approach.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Ms. Wordell said that if a minimum lot size is
stipulated, they can't go lower, but could go higher and it would be subject to exception.
Planning Commission Minutes 20 April 8, 1996
Mr. Cowan suggested language that basically says that the resultant development pattern for the
clustered unit shall reflect the surrounding residential densities or pattern.
Com. Mahoney said he was in favor of adding something in there.
Com. Hun'is said that larger lot developments are needed, not 4,000 square foot lots.
Com. Doyle on commented on clustering, stating that once you set a minimum, you set a set of
expectations for what size lots you can put on those properties and originally the clustering
concept was to apply to fairly large parcels that were being subdivided into large acreages. There
was a lot of debate and community input, and it was determined that a forceful decision couldn't
be made about the specifics until the specifics of that situation were seen, and it should remain
consistent. He stated he supported no minimum lot size.
Com. Mahoney said he supported a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size.
Ms. Wordell clarified that lot size is not subject to exception, nor is variance available for lot size.
Com. Mahoney questioned if setting a minimum lot size requirement would set some kind of
expectation.
Mr. Cowan said that the marketplace would support a higher lot size; it is in the developer's best
interest to have a larger lot size.
Com. Harris stated that she was in favor of minimum lot sizes on all properties, particularly the
clustered ones. The issue rose before and 10,000 is appropriate.
Com. Austin concurred that a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size was appropriate.
Chalm~an Roberts said that he supported the 10,000 squ~e foot minimum lot size.
Design Standards
Com. Mahoney said that this was primarily to help staff clarify their; staffunderstunds the spirit of
what we l~y to do and if this change of language helps them to interpret that spirit as they are
going through their work, I would be happy to support it.
Corns. Harris, Doyle and Austin concurred with Com. Mahoney that staff's recommended
language was appropriate.
Chairman Roberts stated that he disagreed on the change in the language as articulated previously.
Applicabilil~
Com. Harris said that the wording dislxibuted in the supplemental sheet meets the need, and
suggested using the deadline date of April 8, 1996. She noted that the language allowed people
two years if they are in the process but after that need to conform.
Planning Commission Minutes 21 April 8, 1996
Chairman Roberts noted that staffmcommended against the minimum lot size and the Planning
Commission is choosing the alternative of 10,000 square foot minimum lot size.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved that staffprepare a report with the findings to be forwarded
to City Council
Com. Mahoney
Passed 5-0-0
Report to Council:
10.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
10-Z-95 and 29-EA-95
City of Cupertino
Various
Hillside areas north and east of Regnart Canyon generally
bounded by Upland Way, Lindy Lane, Linda Vista Park,
Miramonte St., Stevens Creek to the urban service area boundmy
line.
Rezoning/prezoning of 250+ acres from RI-10, R1-40, R1-60, R1-80, RI-100, A1-43, Al-100,
RHS, pre-RHS and pre-A to RHS-Residenfial Hillside Zoning District.
TENTATIVE CH'Y COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 6, 1996
CON'IINUEI) FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEg I1NG OF MARCH 25, 1996.
Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan presented a brief review of the application to change the General
Plan Designation of certain areas north of Regnart Canyon and three lots on Regnart Court. He
explained that the Planning Commission and City Council previously agreed to deleting a number
of lots along Regnart Road and Lindy Lane from the RI-IS boundary. Mr. Gary Stokes submitted
a request that three more lots on R%tmart Court be deleted based on findings outlined in his letter
of February 28, 1996. Mr. C0wan recommended that the Planning Commission modify its
position by recommending no change in zoning for 21723, 21724 and 21744 Regnurt Court in
accordance with the model resolution.
The video presentation reviewed the background of the application for rezoning of 3 lots on
Regnart Court to remain under the current residential single family zone. Currently the lots are
part of 250 acre hillside area that the city plans to rezone and prezone under the new RHS zoning
ordinance/
Mr. Gary Stokes, P. O. Box 621, Cupertino, referred to the overhead, and illustxated the slopes of
the lots in question, noting that the average slope of his lot was 21%. He said that his request was
based on his belief that the lltree lots were more closely conforming to the lots that were
exempted.
A brief discussion ensued wherein Mr. Cowan answered questions regarding the application.
Com. Doyle expressed concern for the need for uniform criteria to apply to this change and said
that there needs to be some clarity because there is advantages for other people to do the same
type of activity. He stated on the specific case he was not concerned about rezoning the three lots
in general, but concerned about the criteria for defining the line.
Planning Commission Minutes 22 Apr/l 8, 1996
Mr. Cowan said that a decision was made a month ago about the Ricardo/Miramonte application;
it was basically a single family neighborhood. He pointed out that his objective was to reduce
complexity and reiterated in terms of the character of the community it would not make a
difference if it is RHS or RI.
Com. Austin stated that she was in favor of the application.
Com. Hah'is said she felt the people were not being properly served when the time was not taken
to make the determination on the individual lots. Com. Harris concurred with Com. Doyle for the
need/hr a unitbrmly applied criteria_ She said she was concerned about acting piecemeal on one
case without guidelines.
In response to a question fi.om Com. Mahoney, Mr. Cowan stated that if anyone chose to return,
the change could be made on a case-by-case basis. Com. Mahoney said there was a need to
move ahead with the rezoning and based on the criteria, exclude them and if there are other
exclusions, deal with them later in a consistent manner. He said he was in favor of deleting them
fi.om the rezoning.
Chairman Roberts said that he felt second story additions would be visible and even though they
were low on the slope, they are high enough to be seen by tho neighbors. He said he was in
favor of retaining the three lots in the RHS zoning.
Com. Doyle stated that since there wasn't a clear criteria for the division of the lines going
forward, the one used in the past was somewhat 10% slope and these are in excess of the 10%
slope and should apply as in the past and as such would be part of an RHS.
Com. Austin concurred with Com. Doyle that a need for criteria existed.
Mr. Stokes clarified that the lots exceed the 10% slope.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOS:
VOTE: .
Com. Doyle moved that the recommendation of rezoning for 21723, 21724 and
21744 Regnart Road to R1 be denied and that the three lots remain in the RHS
zoning until more definitive criteria has been established for exclusion fi.om RHS
have been defined.
Com. Harris
Com. Mahoney
Passed 4-1-0
REPORT OF THE PLANNlNG COMMISSION:
Com. Harris requested that staff agendize the topic, and publish a resolution on videos presented
to the Commission not to exceed 10 minutes in length. She requested a report on the recent
conference attended. Com. Hams asked for an update on the legal summons for the June
meeting. She also requested the Director's Report fi.om the March 25 Planning Commission
meeting as there were several items she wanted clarification on.
Mr. Kilian clarified that the Planning Commission need not be concerned about the summons.
It was noted that Item 13 was inadvertently placed in the agenda packets. There was consensus to
remove the item fi.om the agenda_