Loading...
PC 10-14-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 14, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, I-lan~, Ivlahooey, Chairman Roberts. Stmq~prescat: Robert Cownn, Director of Community Development; Ciddy WordeH,City Planner; MicheHe Bjurman, Associate Planner; Elaine Murray, Deputy Counsel APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the September 25 Study Session and Regular Meeting: It was noted that Chairman Roberts was not present at the Study Session, and Vice Chair Harris conducted the Study Session. Com. Harris requested that the first sentence of the Study Session minutes b~ changed to read: "Individuals who spoke regarding the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance ..." because aH who spoke were not homeowners, and aH were not opposed to the ordinance. She added that cena~ructive conunents were also given at the me~ting. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the minute~ of the Planning Commission Study Session and Regular me~ting of Septemher 25, 1996 as amended. Com. Doyle P~sed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: 4-EXC-96 LLM Investments (Larry Miller) Same Lot 2 - Upland Way Hillside Exception to construct a residence on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 19.40.050J of the Cupertino Mumcipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMlVlISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO OCT. 28, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Plan.l.i ¢ommimon Minu~ ~ 0ctob~r X4, 1996 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: 5 -EXC-96 LLM lnvestm~ts (Larry Mille0 Same Lot 3 - Upland Way Hillside Exception to construct a resi&a~ce on slopes grater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 19.40.0501 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: C~_t~rically E:~mpt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO OCT. 28, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Over: 17-U-96 and 27-EA-96 Chester M. Itow Vallco LLC 10123 North Wolfe Road Use Permit to Io~nt~ a restaurant/bar, billiard tables and arr~ in Vallco Fashion Center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TI~NTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 4, 1996 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO OCT. 28, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application No. 4-EXC-96, Application 5-EXC- 96 and Application Nos. 17-U-96 and 27-EA-96 to the October 28, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING Application Nos.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-U-96, 3-EXC-96 and 16-EA-96 Unocal Service Station (Robert Lee & Assoc.) Stephen T. Carlson, Stevens Creek Cupertino Associates 20755 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit to replace an existing service station with a new station and car wash. Exception to permit more than one wall sign in accordance with Chapter 17.24.040 oftbe Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1996. Staff oresentation: The video presentation reviewed tbe application for the replacement of the existing service station with a new station and car wash, as outlined in the attached staff report. Discussion will include issues relative to security, noise, design, signs, a kiosk and landscaping. Staff has P/arming Commission Minugs 3 Octolgr 14, 1996 reviewed the proposed changes to the project and support the changes except for the proposed berm along the street. Staff recommends approval of the application. The determination of the Planning Commission will be final and will not be forwarded to the Ci~ Council for a decision unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy WordeH, City Planner, reviewed the applicant's responses to the issues of security, noise and &sign concerns as outlined in the staff report. Color boards were shown, illustrating the color and &sign changes. She explained that the number of tubes on the car wash and front of the building were reduced to only one non'illuminated on the front of the canopy. She said that the propos~ monument sign me~s the sign ordinance. She discussed the mitigation to the kiosk. Ms. Won/eH explained that the service station would he operating 24 hours, but the food mart and car wash hours would he Mr. Barry Watkins, Managing Parmer, Stevem Cr~k Cupertino Associates, reported that following the September 9 Planning Commission meeting, a meeting was held at the Unocal home office in Costa Mesa to address concerns raised. He explained that in an effort to reach a solution on the noise coocern, the service station was moved 4 feet further back from thc street, a custom &sign panel was &signed for the air drier to reduce the noise at the street level so that thc 65 dBA will he achieved, complying with the Cupertino noise ordinance parame~rs. He reviewed the color changes to the food mart and the car wash, revisions to the exterior of the food mart, revisions to the car wash elevations, substantially better materials relief, landscaping has been provided; a new canopy with support columns, revised signage program; modifications to screen the kiosk and substantial landscaping improvements. Mr. Watkins said that a Unocal survey was completed on the detriment of the proposed car wash to the adjacent serf service car wash and results indicated that only 2 to 3% of their customers come from self service car washes, the biggest impact it effects are those done at homes. He said it was the owner's objective in partnership with the city to create something of value for all concerned, to tie in the westerly properties across Saich Way and develop those projects and upgrade them. He summarized that the present station was a station built in the 60s and the opportunity is now present to do something. He said it would be the most attractive gas station in the Unocal chain. He said that the proposal would maximize the sales and total generatable tax and revenue possible for the size parcel, anythinE else would impact the parking. The customers come and go and do not impact the ~mainder of the center. This development would also solidifi/a small portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard so that the streetscape plan would he what is desired. Mr. Watkins said it would also open the door for the expansion of Target and the three phase development plan. Mr. Tom DeLuca, Unocal 76 Project Manager, 76 Broadway, Sacramento, stated that Unocal undertook a major effort to respond to all concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the September 9 meeting. He discussed the letter from Unocal dated October 3 which was part of the staff report, which addressed the areas of security, noise, color scheme, construct/on materials, food mart &sign, east elevation of car wash, canopy support columns, kiosk landscaping, and competition He noted that the food mart would be closed 7 days a week, from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. in response to security concerns raised. He explained the changes to the car wash which would alleviate the noise concerns, and were previously discussed by Mr. Watkins. In addition, he noted that a condition of approval ~t~ that a building permit will not be issued until staffis satisfied that the noise levels have Planning Commission Minugs 4 October 14, 1996 Mr. Andrew Pawlowski, R. H. Lee & Associ~t,'s, architect, answered questions about the height of the canopy and the food mart. He explained tlg design changes to th~ kiosk and the food mart. Referring to the perspective drawings, Mr. Pawiowski explained the reason for the inclusion of the berm, stating that the berm and the landscaping on it does not in it,serf pmvi~ an acoustic barrier, but rather a psychological perception. The proposed b~m is coofin~l to the area immediately in front of the car ~ opening. Ch~ir Roberts o~ the h~rin8 for public input. Mr. lohn Station, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, rec~n~ i,~d that Mr. DeLuca from Unocal has spent a lot of time in the Cupertino community becoming familiar with the community, attending Chamber functions, and ~e~ling meCdngs in a good faith ~4fort to achieve the plan pr~a~cl to the Commission. Ho said that the Chamber supports tim plan, that it ex__,x~__.s the Stevens Creek Boulevard guidelines, in that tho guidelines for a retail establishngat r~luiro only a single row of trees, and the plan has a double row along the front of Stevem Creek Boulevard. He said that the building materials are excellent quality and it will he one of the mo~t attractive stations in tl~ community. He said it contributes to the upgraded appearance of Stm, ens Creek Boulevard as a whole and for this community provides a seoum customer use site because of the way th,~y have &-alt with the hours of operalion and have worked at addressing the noise mitigation concerns. He said that the sales tax continue~ to he one of tho most important elements of the commuaity and an upgraded station will generate ~,t~fional sales tax to the city. He asked that the Planning Commission support the application. Ms. Joan George, owner, Raindanc~r Car Wash, 10115 Saich Way, noted that the staff report includes the background of the application and the concerns ,,la,essed by Unocal. She said however, the staff report did not mention that there were now ~ur car washes within a one mile radius of the proposed operation. She said that no sales tax is generated from car washes, and if it is only a convenience for the new operation, she suggested they do without it. The gas customer does not really ~ it; many of the customers are used to using her facility. She pointed out that the Heart of the City Specific Plan is supposed to include a pedestrian m mall-type feeling along that portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard. She said she felt the facility would not lead to a friendly pedestrian area as it was a large, noisy, unattractive gas station and car wash, with auto exhaust, and would not he conducive to pedestrian walkers. She said for personal reasons and for reasons of community she was opposed to the project, and felt it ~ not an added blessing to the commumty. She thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak her opinion. Chair Roberts dosed the public input portion of the hearing. Com. Austin said she felt Unocal did an excellent job ~lressing concerns raised at the Septomher 9 meeting, and she was in favor of the application including the berm. She said that the berm did not present a problem in that specific section. Com. Doyle expressed concem about the 24 hour gas station operation. He said the current stations are restricted to areas near interstate access and it was apparent they were working their way across town. He said the noise mitJgntioR, siglgS, landscaping hemh wore appropriate. Com. Mahoney said that Unocal had appropria~ly addressed the issues. He said that the berm issue could he referred to staffto reconcile to the spirit of the Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minugs Octo N, 1996 Com. Hams said the changes w~re appropriate, but that she did not like the canopy towering over the food maR; the canopy should he the same height as the food mart b~-~ it was too prominent a feature. She said that the c, eater would look better without the tubes and would like to see the one removed along the canopy because it is prominent as well. She said that the berm was an attractive feature, especially in light of the 100 foot frontage. The other Planning Commissioners said they were not coucemed about the tuhes. Chair Roberts said he felt it was an attractive project and would help to further the Heart of the City Specific Plan. He said the herm was attractive. I-le said he felt the height of the canopy was standard and unavoidable for the functiou of the structure. In response to Com. Doyle's co, nero about the 24 hour service stafiou operation, the remaining Planning Commissioners said they were not couc~med. Com. Doyle said that in the past, Cupertino had a tradifiou of not encouraging 24 hour activities and it has been slowly eroding that policy, with Com. Doyle asked what the guiding principles for 24 hour operations should he. Com. Mahoney said he considered them on a case by case basis. Com. Doyle suggested further discussion on the issue. A brief diseussiou ensued regarding guidelines for 24 hour operations; Mr. Cowan said it was more of an issue of proximity to resident/al, and the idea was not to have disruptive activities next to residential areas. Com. Doyle referred to the justification for the station at Homestead and Highway 9, storing it was appropri~t~ because it was nex~ to the/nterstate and the residential area nex~ to it. Mr. Cowan stated that it was a function of to what degree it is felt the 24 hour operation would adversely affect the immediately surrounding area; that is the primary criteria, because there is no absent General Plan policy. He smd it has to he considered on a case by case basis. Following a brief diseussiou, there was con~nsus that the 24 hour issue he agendized for furore discusisou. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration on Application 16-EA-96 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Applications 10-U-96 and 3-EXC-96 Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Prope~y Owner: Lo~t~,m: 18oU-96, 6-TM-96, 8-Z-96 and 26-EA-96 Chalet Woods, Inc. (Lily Chang) Charles ,ir Palma Crantham 1187 Gardenside Lane Use Permit to construct 5 single family daached resida~xs on a .66 acre parcel in a Planned Development Zoning District. Tentative Map to subdivide a .66 acre parcel into 5 lots. Zoning Angadmemt to rezone a .66 acre parcel from RI-6 to P(RES) or other appropriate zoning district. Piaill~ Cofllil~ioil MilIiR~ 6 October 14, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL D~-i'~RMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended 'I'BNTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 4, 1996 Staff oresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to build 5 single family homes as outlined in the ~__n_~hed staff report. Staff feels the lot oricotafion of 2 lots along Gardemide Lane and 3 lots on Kingsben3, Place is appropriate. Staff also approve~ of the window placement and limited number of windows for the second story which ate intruded to avoid problems over privacy. The tree protection/landscaping was discussed. Staffsuppo~s the project, and if pln,,in~ Commission concurs, it will be forwarded to City Council for final review and approval. Refemng to an overhead oftbe Cupertin~ land use map, Ms. WordeH reviewed the density and zonln5 of the proposed project, noting that it was 5.8 d.u/gr, ac which is at the iow cod of the allowed range. Ms. Wordell discussed the site design, architecture and floor area ratio as outlined in the ~n~hed staff A discussion ensued wherein Ms. Wordeli answered questions about the rezoninE requirement RI-6 to planned development. Mr. Mark Kirkoby, civil engineer, said that be concurred with the conditions set forth and said the project meets the guidelines; it is a transition pwject between the higher densities nnd the existing RI- 6s. Hc said that an effort will be made to ~ as many of the specimcn trees as possible. In re~ponsc to a question from Com. Doyle about the gra~ of the site, Mr. Kirkoby said that the site is a fiat piece of prope~y, sloping gcofly to the northeast; the townhouscs to the south have their own was noted that lots 1 and 2 were the same house, with 2885 square footage. Mr. Kirkoby answered questions about the first floor and second floor setbacks. Mr. Singh Yalamanchili, 1182 Ruppell Place, said his home was located next to the proposed project, and he expressed opposition to the project because the second sWrys look down into his home affecting his privacy. He said that the second storys would also block the sun to his home. He said he strongly objected to the high density development and would prefer to have one story homes. Mr. Yalamanchili submitted a letter to t he Planning Commission listing his objections to the project. In response to Chair Roberts' question, Ms. Wordell said that there could be 5 foot setbacks on RI first story; but at least l0 feet on an R1 second story was needed; therefore a shortage existed of 3 feet. She said there is a condition that requires that the second story windows be either obscured or at 6 feet height to ensure privacy. Mr. 'Shishir Mukherjee, 1174 Scotland Drive, said he was an immediate neighbor of the development. He pwvided a brief history of the lot, stating that it was an agricultural farm before the city was inonrporatcd. He said he objected to the largc 2 story structures in an arca with mostly single story homes. He expressed concern about the number of trees that would be destroyed from thc arca and the traffic through C-ardcoside Lane. He said there would be a loss of privacy bccausc of the proposed second story homes. He said he would like to see a less dense developmcot on the property, and pointed out that be did not understand the logic in the transition of the zoning. Chair Roberts closed the public input portion of the beating. Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 14, 1996 Com. Harris said that she was opposed to the lots fr~n 6,000 square foot lots and changing the FAR from .45 FAR. She said it was a single family development and thcrc a~e single family homcs across thc street and next door and it is different than the higher deasity adja_c_,mt, and thcrcfore should be the same. She said she did not feel that it was always m~c__~sary to build the largest house and changc everythin~ to P to accomn,,oda~ that, tho example~ giv~l of where it was previously done were infill do~lopmeats of 84 units and 24 units. Com. ~ said that it is a residential neighborhood and it will be a residential deveiopmmt, and she agreed with the community that it is too dense, too high and there arc privacy violatioos. She said that 5 foot setbacks ou thc ground floor are thc absolute roininlllm alld they should Ilot becomo the norm. She said she did not agree with the 5 foot first flour setbacks for each house in the proposed development. Sbe said she was not opposed to developing thc site as residential at 6,000 with .45 FAR. Com. Mahoney said that he agreed with Com. Harris. He said he could see either 5 lots with smaller homes or 4 lots with homes of the proposed. Where the higher FAR has be~n approved, it was done with smaller homes on smaller lots and he said be was opposed to big homes on small lots. He said he would not _~___~_sarily hold to the 6,000 feet and the .45 although that would work, if fl~, were 6,000 feet it would automatically come out; if going with 5, he said he would not stretch the FAR. Com. Doyle said he agreed with Corns. Harris and Mahoney. He said the infill developments seen ~tly have been above the zoning requirements as stated initially. He said direction was needed for looks reasonablc but as you look at each one specific case, some of them are in City Center, some of them have differcnt requirements for parks and othcr mitigations or requircmcnts they had to meet that didn't fit into that FAR number and yet it being used as a standard. It is very deceptive in many cases. Com. Doyle said he could sec a trend moving from the RI, 2 and 3 types of zoning which have a lot of history and background and trying and push it to PD, and whco going to PD trying to use it as a blank check to changc the zoning mle~ of Cupertino. Hc said that he felt it necessary to makc sure that the same talcs wcrc in effect on those parcels cvcn if they do migrate to thc PD. He said hc fcit that the zoning requirements that the parcels arc originally pan of should he uscd and used as setback requiremeats. Also he rccommended that the developer notify the neighbors and hold an informational meeting prior to coming to the Commission, because the developer trics to use the Commission as a way of skirting the input of thc community and reflecting thc people. It would also hclp thc Planning Commission know what thc concerns are. Com. Austin said she agreed with Com. Doyle. She questioned how the FAR got to 60 % when 45% was normal for a house. She said that she felt the house sizes were too large for the area and it is way too dense and agreed with Com. Harris' and Doyle's concerns, and we ought to have some criteria that would ,1~! with Pds. Chair Roberts said he agreed with all comments made and felt that while one can make a comparison with a previous development, the circumstances were different. He said be was opposed to the rezonin~ and th~ project. A discussion ensued about what the options. Mr. Kirkoby reiterated that the proposed project's front yards meet or exceed the neighboring houses, rear yards exceed thc existing neighborhood, and the existing neighborhood has 5 yard setbacks, both l'lanning Commission Minu a 0ctob t4, t996 sides. He ask~ for clearer definition on the high density of tl~ project. He said applicant would be an~nable to IonginE at smaller houses with 5 lots. Chair Roberts sa~d that there was not sentimont m the Commission's pa~ to divide the property into lots and perhaps a continuance of the item would not be appropriate. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 26-EA-96 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to deny Applications 18-U-96, 6-TM-96 and 8-Z-96 based on incompatibility with survoumtin~ areas to th~ north; lookin8 at the fi~din? the Commission doubts the change in ~ is adequate in size and shape to conform, and thc new zone enconrages thc most appropriate use of land as compared to the majority of other parcels in this same district. Austin Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Historic Preservation Ordinance and 4-EA-96 City of Cupertino citywide Consideration of Historic Preservation Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: N~utlve Declaration Reconmgnded TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 21, 1996 Staff oresentation: Ms. Michcllc Bjurman, Plaaner II, explained that the staff report contained a detailed overview of the ordinance and its woddngs and sununarized the items from ',he last study session. The ordinance has been modified to reflect those changes discussed at thc study session. She said that the re~,iew process for Category I and 2 were reviewed. She explained that if there was a historic buBdin~ in Category I and changes are proposed in thc future, a conditional use permit would be required and ffthere is a Category 2 structure, architectural and site approval application would be required. The difference between the two is cost, time to get to a hcaring, and it is a non-noticed public hearing. Corrections were identified in the ordinance itself and will be reviewed if desired. Staff has reviewed Mr. Monk's proposed draR ordinance and believes there may be a blend between staff's ordinance and the single family homeowners'. She said that staff had concerns about various aspects of that ordinance which will be reviewed. Referring to Page 2 oftbe ordinance, Ms. Bjurman said that there was leftover language from Category 3 and 4 and Category 4 would be removed, which should be deleted on Page 2 of the ordinance. Page 3, Section 19.82.040, Item 1 .. "Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission designate historic .. should say "historic landmarks"; Page 4, Section 19.82.080, last line should read "...upon recommendation by the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee conduct the following:" P~J/~ C001mJ~$Jog MJaut~ 9 October 14, 1996 Page 5, first line (following brief discussion) line should rctrmJn a,s is. Page 5, Section 19.82.090: first line should begin "Category I historically desfgnated..." Com. Harris suggested changes Io Page 4, Item g: change to r~ad '~hich jusffies its designation and shall spe~t.~ its location and boundaries." A Icug~y discossion msued r~arding Appendix A, Historic Ranking System, wherein staff answered questions. Com. Harris recommended that under Section 19.82.040, appeals be included in the fimctions of the City Council. She also recommonded that Appointments Pursuant to Section 19.82.050 be included Section 19.82.080. Referring W the overhead of Mr. Monk's proposed dra~ ordinance, Ms. Bjurman reviewed the diifermces between the staff ~ ordinance and the alternative dra~ ordinance. She commended the homeowners for the amount of time they worked on the ordinance. Referring to Sectiom 19.82.010 and 19.82.020, Ms. Bjurman explained that the ordinance was driven by demolition permits and there ex/sts a need to discuss the current city process for demolition permits. She sa/d interpretation of the ordinance sta~s ~ those properties protected only at the demolition perm/t stage would be tril~ered ~ preservation, and demolition permits are currently issued only for the complete demolition of a structure down to its fonv~6on. This would not meet the intent of the ordinance as a whole and would be too l~te in tho process te protect the structure. Section 19.82.0~0: Ms. Bjurman said that the homeowners would prefer that no one on the comm/_tt_~ have expertise in historic preservation and staff suggests that there should be no need for this particular committee if thore was no one with cxpcrtisc; and then forego the historic preservation group as a whole and refer them directly to the Planning Commission if that is the intent. Staff's recommendation is that with figs type of ordinance and the level of expertise on staff, there needs to be a committee with experlise on the subject m~i/or the Planning Coram/ssioners be willing themselves to begin t~dng classes on this issue. Section 19.82.060: The ordinance calls out for a 50% score in order to gain significance and staff' felt that with this particular method, if yon apply the 50% criteria you begin losing what about the particular structure is si~onificant; there may be aspects of the designation process that you begin losing if you have a simple cutoff of 50%. Section 19.82.090: Thee were some blanket statements on what could be exempt and what could be desig~t~l and staff felt that there should not be something in an ordinance that would be prejudged prior to revie~ving the designation of the structure. Only through that process and studying the facts ~md information could yon know what should be exempt ~md non exempt. Appe~dlx A: Staff appreciated ~e numerical summary put to~ther but it lacked conclusion on how these numbers pulled into Category 1, 2 or 3 and it was not clear how any of these rankings would then be totaled to i~lp focus later on what aspect of the structure that was important. Planning Comn'6s$i~ Minutes to 0ctober 14, t996 Ms. Bjurman summarized that tbere were aspects of tho ordinance that could be merged with staff's draft ordinance and said they would merge the two together and bring them back at a future meeting. She said those mentioned were si~nificant areas of enncem. In respouse to Com. Mahoney's questiou, Ms. Bjurman said that through the designation process and with the evidence presented, staff would identify specifically what is significant and develop a resolution or ordinance from that saying what about that historic site or building is protected specifically; and subsequent to that when people came into do modifications to that building or site, staff would cross reference to that orai,~,,ce and if there was no relationship between whatever they were doing and what was protected, it would be hamtled ~ any other buiMing permit or whatever zoning required and allowed them to make the change, ff it related to the ordinance then stsff would look a~ whether it was a Category 1, 2 or 3 and handle it accordin~oly. Discussion continued regarding the designation process. Mr. Cowan said that thc issue of economic hardship was of merit and should be discussed. He noted that Ms. Bjurman changed thc section to reflcot what happens if them is a disaster that occurs on the property that was not thc fault of the owner. ' He said the other aspect was rel~_t_~ to the concept of functional obsolescence or obsolescence that is e~nsed by a new laws or perhaps institutional changes, such as changes in the mass at the Catholic Church, which would affect the shape of the building. He questioned if there should be a section of thc hardship to deal with such an aspect. Com. I-Ian/s suggosted removing the term "economic" and define hardship. Discussion continued about the defufitiou of "hardship" in the alternative ordinance. Chair Roberts opened the public hearing for public input. MS. Sharon Blaine, Cupertino Historical Society Board of Directors, said the process was a long, but good process. She reiterated the four concerns from the Cupertino Historical Society Board: (1) The need for an ordinance to preserve what is leR. The ordinance should not require that the property owners ~ to give their approval for designation; that designation can be done by Council through thc process in thc proposed ordinance. (2) There should be a committee formed to identify and review thc properties for designation. (3) There be some form of ranking or rating system to help determine significance and whether there should be some designation. (4) There should be incentives to the owners. The proposed ordinance even with some of thc modifications today still would meet those criteria ofthe Board has recommended. She reiterated that she felt it was agood ordinance, it is agood beginning for the City to take a look at what they have and try to preserve some of those things that are Cupertino's history. She said she felt that thc draft ordinance should have been made available to the public, not just thc workshop attendees or thc persons on the mailing list. Mr. George Monk, 19985 Price Avenue, referred to the chart of the DraR Ordinance Requirements, and reviewed the draR ordinance, stating that he felt it ieR a lot of control to the Planning Commission. He said there were two significant events in the ordinance. The listing oftha historical resource on the inventory, in the current dmR is a relative trivial event put on the list. In the proposed ordinance, it is a similarly trivial event but is there to stop an imminent demolition. It gives you a strong trigger at the start to make sure you can stop what is happening. However, the bigger hurdle is the question "Is this really a historical structure worth retaining?", and it is at this time it is asked why is it being designated, where does it fit on the listing? or should it even get on the inventory? If yes, you can put it on the inventory and keep it on the inventory without the owner's consent; we are really giving carte blanche to stop any demolition you don't like and you have already demonstrated through the development process that you can control development when you want to and this gives the mechanism Plann Cmmissi0a Minut 14, 1996 ~o do that. TI~ so. md ol~nent is fl~ designation of a historic landmark, to g~t it on th~ landmark list. That is whe~ there is more consol; when you say I don't ILk~ tbe way you ar~ cha.~n~ tbe windows, tbe ~din~; l~lscap~ ~. ~ ~wi~'wed tim ~pmval process and noted the inducement that if the homeowner followed thc advice of the plannin~o Commission when on thc historical resource inventmy, bewould not pay any of the permit fe~; if ignored, the fe~ must be paid. Since the Planning Commission has the right of veto on tbe second one, un permit fees are paid. Referring to th~ standards for review fled to the Secretary of Interior Guidelines, Mr. Monk said that the wordin~ is to encourage development that in harmonious with the character of the structure. A number of discussions have cmtered around what do the regulations say, people have said that it has been suggested that you make the addition as different as possible from thc original structure to make sure no one mistnkes R from the original. We are saying any changes have to be extremely harmonious and we have tried to pull it out in thc regulati~s as wc say it has to be clear to an ordinary person Mr. Monk said that Appendix A, the rating scale, was changed to match thc criteria with thc criteria for listing that is in thc body of thc ordinance. If anyone wants to change the criteria listing, we will change the append/x. Mr. Monk recapped the I/sting on the resource inventory. He said the act/on is to key Off demolitiOll permits as ~ have beell agnin, st ~ restri(~tiop, s from the beginning. Mr. Monk respoaded to staff's listing on historic resource iavenmry ~ commented. Cha/r Roberts asked if thc community group wanted the Planning Commission to take their draft as point of departure. Mr. Monk said he felt that the groups have been so far apart sinc~ May, and they ordinaaco was compiled to submit what items thc community wanted. In respon~ to a request for clarification on demolition, Ms. Bjurman said that the counter person in thc planning depammmt only issues demolition permits for the total destruction of buildings down to its foundation. However, thc Uniform Building Code definition of demolition states technically that demolition permits can be issued for interior wall removals, cte. but staff fcels it is redundant to do that and issues TI or Interior Remodel permits for changes like that, so its clear that there is a departure between the two. Com. Mahoncy asked Mr. Monk for a clear definition of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Monk said that the inteation of the ordinance is that if sorr~one comes to demolish a building, it can be instantly put on the list and the applicant told that the building cannot be demolished. It then goes to the historical preservation advismy committee who then has to go through the hurdles of why decide should it be on the list on the first place. Mr. Monk said that in the DeOro Club example, it would trigger Item 1 and then you would have the ability to advise, lead, guide, to get them to do songthing appropriate. If someone wanted to replace siding, they would not have to go to the Planning Commission. Ms. Patrick Allen, 10191 Vista Drive, said his home, the Will's home was on the historic list. He said thc home has close proximity to a position on thc Gct~ral Plan. He sa/d the home is located on thc comer of Chavoya and Randy Lane. Tbe home is on a lot that will be subdivided and the home is listed as a "scraper" which means the home is considered insignificant and is being considered to be tom down. He remarked about the committce not having any experts, and as a jury has no experts, but it rp~ae up of peers, and adv/sad to by experts, is thc intent of the comm/ttce. Any property that was P~II~ C0111111~i011Mill~ 12 October 14, 1996 proposed would be judged according to the criteria set forth in Appendix A. He said ahc was living in home that had no a~ehiteetural value whatsoever, but was considered historical value because a famons person lived there. He reminded everyone tt~at thdr home could be on that list if a prior person attained historical si~ifieance or if a eurrem member of the family or the residence becomes of historical si?ifieance, and th~ they t~o would becom~ burdened with having to come forth and look at the Ii,rig as pr'-~ated by the homeowners or the list presented by the city with micromanagement. Mr. Fidol Chavoya, 10210 Randy Lane, said that the property is for sale but his hands are tied beem~ge of the committee. He said he has had prospective buyers but is not able to make a decision. Mr. Chavoya said that ho did not feel that the comnfi~'s inteagiens were good. He read the following statement: "What are the Historical Presorvation Ordinance resolved regarding that property? In 1947 my dad StephenAlvisoChavoyahoughtabovepropet~. In 1955 ho built a lmger home next to tho old ono. In 1978 ho sold the back orchard and kept two lots. H-e donated to the city all the street improvements around the lots, sidewall~, streets, driveways, sewage, lights, etc. at a cost of $8,000. He was very proud that they named the street Chavoya Drive, but like ho used to say, "that sign cost me $8,000" andthatwas alot of money back in 1978. Dad and mom have passed away now and left this property to five brothers and two sisters; we all lived there. We all live in the a~a. He le~ eveq~aing to wills and trusts. We have decided to sell the property; we have a buyer ready to build two new homes that will ,,~1 to the neighborhood. The old house is infested with termites; it is beyond repair. It should ho demolished. There is no historical factor in the house and nothing is Imown about the prior tenant o~r than the nam~ en the title papers when my dad bought it, Mr. Yuenm. Who is Mr. Yuenm? we never heard of him; we lived there all our lives and never heard of him, except for the title papers. Please do not tie up the sale of the property with historical ideas flust have no merit to the community. In addition to that, my daughter wro~ %t/hat happened to property ownership rights; people with prol~r~ pay their taxes and then an advisory board tells you can't do anything about it. I want some gnidanee from this board. Thank you." Ms. Mary Lou Lyons, County Historical Heritage Preservation Committee, commended staff for the excellent work on the ordinance. She said she agreed that it should not be diluted until them is no reason to have one. She said there is no need for a weak ordinance that does nothing. She said that she has seen examples of historical homes being mined by removing the original siding and replacing it with slate shingles and garish trim; colors and siding do make difference. She said she felt a historical person should be on the Commission, maybe with aa agenda, as would the property owner. She eongratul~_t~ the Commission fur holding the line against more monster houses that makes Cupertino look like downtown San Francisco, instead of suburban Cupertino. She said that she was available to help in any way and hoped that the ordinance would get started as there is not much leR in Cupertino. Father Michael Mitchell, Diocese of San Jose, read a portion of the letter submitted to the Planning Commission, staling "Policy 274 of tho 1993 General Plan states that the city should undertake an active partnership with private owners of landmark structures to rehabilit__n_t¢ the buildings for public or semi-private occupancy and retain their historic character." He questioned whether the proposed ordinance does that, and said it was coercive, non-volunta~. He said the city was planning to have a historic property zoning c_~t,~gory that is not an active partnership in the generally accepted meaning of the term. With respcet to staff's suggestions about Scefion 19.82.100, it partially addresses the Diocese's concern; and the language still needs to be further perfected and asked that it read "If a buildin~ is substantially damaged or destroyed, and in addition, the language needs to be Planning Commi~ion Minutes l:~ October 14, 1996 ConC~rnln~ the nmision without exp~mse to the propen'y owner of the historic ordinance and historic zoning affec6ng the property if ~here is thin o*t--trophic dema~". Fr. Mitc~ll read the five objections contained in tho l_,~t._~r a,t~ Octoher 12, 1996, and said he felt the ordim~ was bad policy for the city. Iris. Kathy N¢llis, r~idmt, said that it should be undemoud how the ordinance got to ~ point it is at. She said thai the Gonexal Plan which wns adopted in 1990 is b6%o implemented and six years later an ordinance is being prese~ed to address historic pre~:~ation. She said that the DeOro Club application to modify g~Ar structure brought up the fa~t that the community has been remiss in imple~o.e~ting and adopting an ordinance. She commended Ms. Bjunnan for her work ou the ordinance. The approach that was ud~m is to review all th~ ordinano~_ __ which ~6st in fl,~ county of Santa Clara, kcepins in mind lhat the City of Cupertino and Mountain Vi~v do mX have ordinances. She pointed out that Ms. Bjurman methodically re~mutimt all county ordinance~ to com~ up with a comp,~c,~se ordinance. She said that the DeOro Club application would have been approved under this ordinance. She cited the example of the Amierson house on the Phil property which came forward, and the landowner developed Plan is not a definitive list; it is only a list brought forth so that a committee can use it to determine by a process the ordinance has been an ~-ompt to take a subjective subject and put some objectivity to it. She said she agreed with the ranking system; it is a way to look at property to determine what sort of historical si~nificance it has. Ms. Nellis said that as a member of the Cupertino Historical Society Bcar~ she enc~raged the Commission to adopt the ordinance presented. Mr. Charles Newnmn, 10050 No. Wolf~ Road, said that he spoke in favor of the city proc__~:~l_ in~ with an ordinance several months ago. He said he concurred with the position of the Cul~rtino Historical Society and comments made by Ms. Neilis, and was in favor of proceeding with the ordinance. He commended staff and the Commission for working with community groups to get to this point. Mr. Mike Ure, 1051 $ Phil Pla~, said his family lived in the Miller hon,~. He spoke about his wife's frustration. When they purchased the home thcy understood it had po~ntial historical significance. He said thcy inquired as to what the sisnificam:e wns and was told the facade had to remain intact. Lair th~ learned that under the proposed ordinance all exterior modifications would require application; and now it is apparent that not only the exterior of the appearance of the structure, but the ~ntire site, includin~ the landscaping falls und~ the historical significance category. He said it was not a comfortable $i_~_Lnfion to be in. He said under the modified staff ordinance there may be some latitude in that things not related to the reason for the property designation may he exempt. According to the alternative ordinance proposed by the homeowners, landscaping would categorically he exempt. Otherwise staff ordinance should he modified to say "landscaping is exempt ns otherwise provided in the designated ordinance. Mr. Ure addressed the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee and the _neea__ for expertise. He questioned who they were trying to please with the ordinance, the experts or the people of Cupertino. Under the homeowners' ordinance, there would he no historic experts on the conm~_"_~, likewise no historic property owners. The intent is for that body to be representative of the people of Cupertino because that is who the ordinance is for. Relative to the standard of review, he said the current standard of mvi~w under the proposed staff ordinance is basically that the Planning Commission will decide each application on its merits as it sees fit. He said that if that is the standard the Planning Commission wants, they should say so. He said that his compliance would be more grudging than it'there were a more objective standard. Pial~ C0fllmJ$$i01] MJBu~ 14 Octobor 14, 1996 landscaping and the physical historical buildinE. There was a condition of approval rega~tin?, tree removal and replanting. Mr. Ute clarified that he did not try to make that connection; that under the proposed ordinance, landscaping is covered just as any other modification. Chair Roberts ~t~ that if the landscaping had spec'file historic value then it would be covered spec'dlcally under a use I~mit; if it didn't yon would not he subject to that. Mr. Ure said that the Mr. Mike Yonmaus, resident, said that he has lived in Cupertino since 1960 and that his involvement has been long and deep on a heartfelt level. He said that he was speaking with a certain amonnt of emotion but also a practical sense of experiencing Cuperth~o through its transition within a single generation, and speaking of a single generation, when driving around with his children, speaking with alumni and off,rs who drive around and see nothing that is original Cupertino. He said that the Apple, Tandem and Vallco are tmiflc; unfortunately Cupertino sta~ed on the downside because we were the west side and the last established. Mr. Youmans said "We don't have the luxury like Los Gatus and San Jose who have a large inventory of older homes and businesses leR. We are le~ with endangered animals who are leaving us quickly and left in the hands of the unskilled jeweler, the historical si~ificance to be diminished within a secoM. I stand before yon asking and deferring that you ~ the ordinanne that staff has developed and move on establishing Cupertino on the same level as the rest of the cities in the Santa Clara Valley, preserving the past for our children and their children's children Mr. Don Westward, 10090 Hillcr~t Road, commented that he was a student of Ms. Lyons many years ago. He presented a list of issues discussed at the study session. He said he had been in favor of lc'Ring the demolition permit he ~ guideline on the ordinance. He stated that it was his opinion that through some level of modification of the house, such as adding a second story, it would be in the realm of magnitude that the burden of going through the whole process discussed does not seem out of proportion with the project he would undertake. What does concern him, was changing trim on the house, that seems miniscule, and if yon look back on the problems of Cupertino, most of the ones you are trying to solve is someone razing a house and losing the property all together. He said he would not like having imposed on him the other restrictioas because it is felt that the homeowner can sneak by on this one; he said he expected to sec credit for a reasonable amount of taste on these things. He said he would not object to submitting to guidance on projects that undertake a certain level, such as the cost of the project, but would prefer to have control over smaller things himself. As written, anything older than 1935 gets included as this Category 2 which goes through the same procedure. He said that properties in the City of Cupertino should not be included on the list just because they are the only ones left in the city, and normally wouldn't be considered in the County of Santa Clara. Mr. Monk reviewed the four points he presented at the May 1996 City Council meeting. (1) Discuss with ~ owners: Mr. Monk said that this item has been lcoked at. (2) Research the impact on property values: He said there was a speech referenced by staff in the documents, although ambiguous on property values, it does highlight that there is significant additional amounts paid by homeowners of historical properties, which will have a result and impact on property values. (3) Deed restrictions: the current staff draR seems to be headed down the road of calling a deed restriction a "deed notation" with the question we found no compelling interest in the community for an ordinance to regulate historical structures and a significant resistance fi~m a broad cross section of residents. He said he reviewed the tapes several times and could not fred a requ~t from the City Council rescinding the Commission go back and clarify the City Council's direction. H.e asked how to get the dratt ordinance Chair Robe~ doc, la~ a __r,aees__s at 9:40 p.m. Upon reconvening at 10 p.m., tho same Commissioners ami staff wore present. Chair Roberts summariz~ that the major ~ of opiniou revolved around homcowner consent or desigantion and stamt that it was a substantial gap. H~ said that there wore still major diff~r~ces includin,~ the nature of the evaluation process, the composition of the committee, the dofinition of cxceptious. FI~ said he un~rstood that it was thc Cou~Ws int~t that there should he an ordinance, but did not heax any guidan~ from tho Couneil whether or not tl~re should be a Historic Preservation Ordinan~, and he saw it as a closed issue. Ho said it was a question of whether or not wo ar~ ¢los~ ~ongh to p _roee~__~ with the staff's draf[ or whc~r we need to start all over again. ThePlasmingCommissiou~sworeasksxltocommentonth¢issues/dif~rences listed: (1) I-bmexn~cer Consent; (2) Committ~ Composition; (3) Exceptions; (4) What restrictions, specifically; and (5) Ranking prne~sso Com. Austin referred to Page 5 of the staff report and commented on the following direction to staff: Develop the Historic Preservation Advisory Committce ~m~ing ordinance. She said she felt there should he a committee and should be composed of a repr~mtative group in the community appointed by the City Council, and not Planning Commissioners; and reflcetive of our so~ioty as a group interested in preserving the historical community, should have at least one or two or as many as the City Council deems; it should be willing people who are concerned and are cio:mod by Council as contributors to the community. She said that historic recognition could be in the form of replanting trees, or putting a plaque on a historic location. She said that all cities except for Mountain View and Cupertino have adopted an ordinance. She said that a homeowner in Santa Clara said that the value of her home increased because of rig historic si~anificanee placed on it. She said that the dmR ordinance has had a lot of comity input. She said that the spirit of the ordinance is to work with the homeowner to preserve whatever the historical significance is. She questioned what the exceptions would he and what would the ordinanco specify in the event an earthquake destroyed a house; would it specify the home had to be built stick by stick? Clair Robem said that the dra~ ordinance does not dearly indicate the notion that the findings of the committce and the Commission would explicitly state what the historical features are to be protected such that there could he some leeway or some modifications of other aspects of the building that didn't impinge tm those historical aspects. Ho said it could be an item for discussion. Com. Austin said that tho draR ordinance is a beginnin~a; alld relative to restriotions she folt they wore talking about preservation. She said she thought the spirit was to preserve what it was that was sj~nifieant. Planning Commissiou Minules 1~ October 14, 1996 Com. Mabom'y suggested that the 4th ¢~t~ory should be labeled "what are the restrictions going to be depe~diag ~ ~ ~ ~ ~?" Com. Doyle said that it comes down to two ¢lemeats; do you have an ordinance and why do you have an ordinance; and do the affected people have a voice in its application. He said there was a need for an ordinance because tbere are some sites that need to be prceerved and the raerits of ~ ~e of ~ will be dicavaxl or judged by many different people in many different ways. He said he felt the affected people should have a voice it it and its application, and that he liked the concept of multiple levels. He said that the system needed to be scored on as good a standard as possible and ensure its consistency. Com. Mahom, ysaidthatth~roisanmd~ranordinance, aframework, alist, andguid~lines. The advisory committee should be imowledgeable people. He said he did not know what the restrictions would be and because of that, could not make it non-voluntary at this time. He said it needs to stay non-voluntary at this time except for demolition. There is too ambiguity which cannot be resolved until Com. Harris said that she felt them should an ordinance; four of the items identified as key landmarks would have to be identified for the community with or without consent. She said that the committee should be desig-~t~i as in the ordinance, a balanced committee by design. She said she concurred with staff that the ordinance they worked on and the proposed property owner's ordinance could be blended to some extent. She said that the area of hardship should be changed Dom "economic hardship" to "economic and other hardship" and she stated that the language in Section 19.82.100 as provided in the alternate version deals with it appropriately. The other issue is that the community would like to see a list of resources which is all thc possible ones and a list of designated landmarks from the list of resources. In the alternate version, Section 19.82.060 is made to 19.82.055, the criteria for designation, and it becomes the criteria to put it on the inventory. Com. Harris recommended that the editorializing be removed from the purpose Section 19.82.010, and leave in sentence "This purpose of this chapter is to: ..." Section 19.82.050 she suggested that the wo~din?, of the second last seatencc be changed to read: ".... one historic preservationist, one additional resident of the community at large, and one architect or design professional." Section 19.82.100, Com. Harris questioned whether the building could be reconstructed with different or just different configuration. Ms. Bjurman said that her interpretation was both. Com. Hams stated that it should state so. She said that Page 6 of the alternate version was very clear in stating "nothing in this ordinance shall he construed as requiring property substantially damaged or desU'oycd to be rebuilt as ~1~lieas", and suggested it be subst/tuted to make it clear. Com. Harris said she would like to see an incontive section as there needs to be a sectinn that defines the incentives that th~ city will provide, and work with the property owner on. Com. Harris addressed thc global interest issue. If a propcrty is thc last of its kinds and not special on a global level but its thc last of its kind in Cupertino, do we want that to be a landmark? She said that she had difficulty with the present staff ordinance rating scale, it is very confusing how to quantify it should be a landmark. Sbe said she would like simple rating sheets. She ~t~ that thc alternate version takes the items in the text of staffs ordinance as important and assi?~ a 1 to 10. She sa/d that the staff ordinance needs to specify why the property is designated; and once it is selected as a landmark, along with that should be a specification in the deed restriction as to why it is designated. P]aa~ Commi.~siOil Minutes 17 October 14, 1996 Com. Doyle expressed concern that discussion was oc_currinE~ but converging was not happening. He said h~ had hoped for 4 or ~ decisions that the Commission could agree upon and from there form a subgroup or someone to come up with wordsmithln_.o a document to agree upon. He said he was not clear on the Commission's stand. Ch~ir Roberts said that mom work was regaled oa tl~ ranking process and what is actually going to be achieved in protection. H~ sugge~led ~ tl~ maidng pro,ss up toward what is being protected and if it is a matter of use permit or architectural site approval, there would be Sl~cific items or class of items that would Ig prot~d fi~r that propony ami that those would be connected to the historical meaning of the prop~. I~ said he felt the comn/_m_~ should be comprised of members with of exc, q~ions includin_o that for non-residential properties, the functionality of the building for the I~ said that if th~ principles of tanking and categorization are worked out, the important resources to be protected will be on a non-voluntary basis for assurance that any substantial portion of them are actually protected, and th~ properties of lesser significance could be worked on a voluntary basis. He said it was important that the most significant resources are protected. Com. Mahoney reommeaded a two stage process; the lust sta&e to set up the committee, then return with the work completed and e~ct something to ratify the ranking, ~he restrictions; have a list and discuss whether it is voluntnry or non-vo]untal~. Com. Austin recommeaded that the Planning Commission adopt staffs proposal to develop the Historic Preservation Advisory Committ~. Discussion continued about th~ appropriate processes to follow wherein staff answered questions. Mr. Cowan stated that if the item was coatinued, staff could work on development of rudimentary restrictions that would ~y into thc rating system. Com. Doyle expressed contra about the homeowners who were in limbo waiting for a decision to be made. Ms. Bjurman cxplaincd that the particular appl/cation discussed carlier was for a two lot subdivision and like any appi/catio~ would be considered under the California Environmental Quality Act. She said that one of the significant issues is historical, and thc applicant has been instructed to provide information to the staff to dc~crminc if it is a si~t, niflcant h/sWrical building or site. She said that staff suggested a report be conducted in order to do flint, but staff still must do an assessment. She said it does not prohibit the homeowner from confing forward w/th a subdivision map. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue the Hiswric Preservation Ordinance to the November 25, 1996 Planning Commission mcet/ng. Com. Mahoney Com. Austin Passed 4-1-0 Planning Commission Minutes ~s October 14, 1996 7. West Valley Hillside Study and Ge~ral Plan Amendment ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt T~NTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 21, 1996 Staff~: Ms. Bjunnan explained that thc project is a multi-jurisdictional planning project that staffhas been working mi for more than a year with the cities of Saratoga, Monte Screao, Town of Los Gatos, and County of Santa Clam. Through thc General Plan thc City of Cupertino has determined that there is a concern about growth into the hillsides, on lands outside the urban service area but within thc growth b(Rillda~ lille. Staff for ~ as the population grows alid development pressures on the hillaides continues, it was important to conserve the hillside natural resource and to prevent future development from reducing its natural beauty. Ms. Bjurman reviewed thc development of four sUatcgies which includo (1) Develop joint hillside land use objectives; (2) Limit expansion of urban development into hillside areas; (3) Minimize the visual impacts of hillside development; and (4) Provide mechanisms for the resolution of future hillgide land use issues. Ms. Bjurman explained What there were action items developed for each of the strategies. She highlighted Item 3 and 4 of Strategy No. 2, which were items Cupertino fought to get as action items. The County of Santa Clam has agreed to do two things to look at thair current hillside land uses What arc allowed, which would include looking at their zooing ordinances and what is currently allowed as either a permitted use or condition use in their hillside areas and examine whether those land uses are consistent with their overall General Plan protection policies fur the hillside areas. The County will also clarify and define the intensities for specific uses that Cupertino had concerns for what were open ended, such as lodges, retreats and gnff courses. Their ordinances do not clearly delineate the intensity of those uses. Referring to Strategy No. 3, Minimize thc visual impacts of future hillside development, Ms. Bjurman, said What thc County will have a comprehensive approach to re, zoning all of the hiilsido areas to require design review, and have completely revised their approach to design review, similar to Cupertino's method of requiring certain colors in thc hillside, certain setbacks, etc. Ms. Bjurman said What staff looked at the Joint Powers Agreement as an approach for securing the agreement, and all of thc pa~icipating agencies felt negatively about this approach fur several reasons. One was What they felt they would have a loss of control over the hillsides and the dccisioas What would be made there, and by c _r~.~fi~ the Joint Powers Board there would be another hierarchy of p~view and therefore reduce strcandining for applications. All felt What thc stratogies and policies and actions items What came from the documents wore adequate to meet thc goals What wore established to begin the process. Ms. Bjurman explnlned what one of the challenges of conducting a multi-jurisdictional approach to planning is what of assuring What the raport is acceptable and completing the review process in a timely mallRor. Staff is urging recommending adoption of the document to the City Council because if ther~ are changes it will have to go back to each of the jurisdictions and deciding bodies and they make Planning Commission Minutes Octoher 14, 1996 :a,4itionai changes to the document. She reported tl~ ltz County of Santa Clara's pla~ni.~ Commission is recommending approval of the document. Staff is recomme~li.~ acceptance of the sttmegy report along with the action items and that the Planning Commission request that City Council ~ a G-eaeral Plan amendment for the many items called out on Page 3 of the staff report, including the adoption of a long tarm growth boun~,y line, the document and clearly d~me the inteasive uses. Discussed ensued wherein staffanswered Commissioners' questions. Chair Roherts opened the hearing for public input. Ms. Beez .lones, 10398 ~ Creek Place, said that she had pre~iously requested that the landowners be included in the disonssions; in the Cupertino sphere of influence there are not that many landowners and they should be participants in the discussions. She said th~ County General Plan and thc goals committee had participants. She asked where recommendin_o, allowable uses and .~nfing that they want to limit the allowable uses and intensities has the Comnfission considered the profitability and the financial stability of the landowners property Ms. Sones asked the following questions: "What is the newzoninE? What uses are heing considered? What effect will these have on the land and the use of the land? She said that the beauty is being preserved for the life of the current and future generations but there is no comment on the effect on the landowners. That land only exists that is heautiful because the landowners have preserved it. In the hillside strategy section there is a suggestion that you discuss with Mid-Peninsula Open Space for acquisition. Are you recommending that Mid-Peninaula Regional Open Space use their power of eminent domain and condemn private property to protect certain natural climates? Under the land use principles to protect the West Valley so that it is visually beautiful, to establishing those? Will the County or Cupertino decide those within their own sphere of influence? My request is that you nget with the Cupertino land owners that are in your sphere of influence and let them participate in the establishagnt of the principles and the strategies. Don't use condemnation through Mid-Penin.~ula to acquire certain parcels. Protect the hillsides, but the consideration for the families who have invested in the land, pay the taxes, maintain the land and because they love the land and the open space and believe in the rights of private property, and without these private property owners, there would be no open space". Mr. John Kolski, 12100 Stevens Canyon Road, representing Stevens Cr~.k Quarry, stated for the record Stevens Creek Quany's objection to the proposed hillsides preservation strategies. He said the policy takes away the viable economic use of the property for the future; it eliminates the variance procedures for the property; it establishes future use of eminent domain by public agencies and the policy leaves open a high potential loss of value for the property based on restricted uses in the future which amount to a taking, Chair Roberts questioned if mineral extraction was prohibited under the stra~gy. Ms. Bjutman responded that it was not, and clarified that Mr. Koisld was considering if he wanted to - sell his property he may he limited. Plal~ C,o~n~ioll Minut~ 20 Octob~ 14, 1996 Mr. Cowan cimified that the County General Plan regulates it, but what is not rcgula!_~_ ve~ well is the design paramete~ for that future development. Thc overall basic land use intensity, the amount of houses per acre is not bein~ ~ by the document. The question of design of the future development would be better deftned with this proposal. There was consensus from thc Planning Commissioners to support thc proposal for approval. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Han~ moved that thc Minute Order be approved. Passed 5-0-0 Com. Doyle excused himself fi*om discussion of Item 8. Application Nos.: Applicant: Property Owner: 7-U-96 and 3-TM-96 Lily Chang, Inc. and WBF Enterprise LLC Same 22371 Cupertino Road Use Permit to construct 2 single family residences on a 10,163 sq. ft. lot in a proposed Planned Development Zone. Tentative Map to subdivide a 10,165 sq. ft. parcel into 2 approximately 1,800 to 2,200 sq. ft. parcels. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt T~NTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 21, 1996 Stafforesentation: The video presentation ~-wic-~ved the background of the item as outlined in the staff report. The proposed application is for 2 single family residences on a 10,165 square foot lot in a Planned Development Residential zone. The previous application for 3 single family residences was denied by thc Planning Commission. As proposed, thc existing home will be demolished in order to subdivide the lot into two equal parcels of 5,083 net square feet sach. The Planning Commission will review thc height and placement of a retaining wall and how it will impact drainage on thc lot; tree protection; and building size and design. Staff rec.~ approval of the project. Approval or denial will be forwarded to thc October 21 City Council mcctin8. Ms. Bjummn said that City Council felt a two lot rezoning was appropriate and returned the eonditioual use permit and tentative map to the Planning Commission for comment and review. She explained that in response to City Council's concern about the garages and second story windows, the architect varied the loe~tion of the buildings on the lots, elongated thc entrance to the firont door and added facia material to thc front facade to soften the prominent appearance. Relative to the bathroom windows, she stated that a condition of approval that requires tlmt the windows be obscure or to make them clear story, sc that thc bottom part of the sill would be at approximately 7 feet high to prohibit Referring to the site plan, Ms. Bjurman explained that the condition of approval protected several trees. She said that the grading and drainage will result in a si,~niflcant increase of soil material in the front and rear lots of the homes. As a result of that, a City policy says you must either drain to the street or Platming Commission Minugs al October 14, 1996 if you dram off site, you haw to obtain msm~ts from adjoininE prol~rty ow~rs. SIg said that the e~aeer has decided to add a significant amount of soil to the property which has resulted in the one side and the ceater of the property. As r~orted in the mbofist's report received today there will be a loss of all trees on the proper~y with the ~:ption oftree No. 9 and 3 which are oak trees. Pavers not yet been reviewed by Public Works. Public works has agreed to the change in the driveway but not yet to other proposed changes. She noted that if the drainage method is approved, Condition 4 would have to be modified to iml_it~t~ that the two trees that would be saved would be trees No. 9 and 3 and decide wh~her or mx to relocate the olive tree, No. 6. Staff r~mammds approval of the design with the changes and condition of approval. In response to a question from Com. Austin, Ms. Bjurman said that the sidewalk would be continued and would be designed to go around the oak tr~s, which has been approved by the architect and Public Works. A discussion easued wherein Ms. Bjurman answered questions regarding setbacks. Mr. Daryl Fazekas, architect, m/erred to the site plan and discussed proposed drainage. He noted that a second olive tree could be relocated. He said that he preferred to have concrete pavers, currently the city interpretation of the parking ordinance is that 20 feet of the driveway needs to be on concrete; reading the par~ing ordinance it says concr~e paving and is mxot clear whether concrete pavers on sand are just as good as poured in place concrete, but concrete pavers on sand are much better for the oak tree, the~fore apphcant would prefer mX ~o do that. l-le said that since trees gave to be removed because of the grading, applicant would accepi any condition ~e Commission deems regarding replanting ~re~. Referring to the landscape plan, he pointed ou$ the location of two proposed street u~es nmi an omei tree. The arborist and the civil engineers n~ with staff today and arc agreeable ~o Mr. Fazekas discussed the altemalive drainage systems. In response to Chair Roberts' question, Mr. Fazekas said that the wall surrounding the property varies fi.om 0 to 3-1/2 feot. Ms. Bjurman clarified that the applicant was given two alternatives; one to approach the adjo'ming property owners and obtain an easement to flow over their land and establish a point of where it was going and obtain easem~ts fi.om the people; or to drain fi.om the back to the front. What they cho~e to do was to drain from the back to the fi.ont. The applicant said that they had met with the manager from Sunnyvi~w Manor and discussed the proposal, but that he did mx have any authority to deal with the issues. They have no~ contacted the OWlet. Chair Roberts opaned the hearing for public input. Mr. Mark Edwards, 22350 Cupertino Road, said that his prime objection to thc proposal was that there were two narrow houses on a narrow lot and a lot of frontage on thc street. He illustr~_t_~_ a proposal for 2 homes facing thc front of Cupertino R~i, one being a flag lot. He said be felt his proposal would fit in the neighborhood much better. Mr. Jan Stocckcaius, 22386 Cupertino Road, referred to thc site plan and expressed couccrn about drainage and sethacks. He pointed ont that thc setbac, ks do not currently meet tbe normal R1 style requirement, b~ause although fig minimum is 5 feet, there is generally a requirement for 10 feet on thc other side. He suggested that thc buildings be moved slightly to thc west, specifically reducing sethacks to 10 feet, 6 feet and 4 feet. He said that sinec they arc going to be densely placed, thcre is no coot~lled by drillin~a 4 large dry wells to hnndle the runoff and were not required to drain to the street at that time. He questioucd if that could be a reasouable choiee in this instance. Ms. Cmlsen Maloncy, 22333 Cupertino Road, said that she was not still not comfortable with thc proposal for 2 homes and asked that consideration be given to single unit development. She expressed concern about thc minimum 5 foot setback. She said she fi~lt the City Council ignored the neighbors opinion and noted that they had collected more than 120 signatures in opposition. She said she hoped that thc Commission would recommend thc developer to consider a single family unit that would more closely represent the neighborhood. She questioned the second floor windows and the location of the Ms. Bjurmaa clarified that thc two windows facing Ms. Maloncy's rcsidcucc would be stainvcll windows and the retaining wall was ou three sides, including thc side of her property. Mr. Fazekas explained the iocatiou of thc retaining wall and thc window on the upper landing in thc home. Hc said that thc window m the laundry ronm could be made a high window or obscure. Mr. David Doyle, 22362 Cupertino Road, said he felt the premise was that the purpose of the Planni~ Commission was to protect thc public. He spoke for thc public, stating that they do not have the money that thc developers have to invest in staff for these types of project, nor do they have thc ting to invest or the flexibility to move after thc changes have been made. Tbey also don't have the ability to provide input to the developers. He said what the public does have is the time to communicate with the Commission and they must rely on the Planning Commission to protect them from this type of professional development organization. Mr. Doyle sa/d that the parcel, which is a single family home today, was initially presented as a high density, complex project that you denied. A?in, it is presented back with another proposal with the same fundamental concerns and the developer still has not contacted all the affected people; there has not been ~ *hnring at this point in time. He asked that the Planning Commission protect the community from poor proposals such as this. He said the three main issues arc thc view from thc street, thc privacy issue and drainage. Thc P,3 which was originally in thc proposal is the right direction to go in and would give more protection. What is present now are two ve~ narrow, tall houses sitting on pedestals. He addressed thc issue of density, stating that thc .45 FAR as being thc maximum for a single family home, noting that most homes do not do that. It is getting into a Uansitiou zone where .45 would be appropriate vs. some of thc other numbers discussed. Hc summarized that it would be more appropriate to see thc front and back unit configuration, and that it should meet thc R.3 setbacks and regulations. He said that in the future be would like to see enough detail in the housing design materials and landscape plan so there can he some decisions made on it. P~ C:ol~llJ~Joll ~u~ ~ ~r 14, 1996 He said there has been much confusion and it is difficult to ascertain the actual information with th~ information at hand. Chair Robe,s cloud thc public hearing portion of the meeting. In response to Com. Mahomy's question, staff exphined that Council asked that the Planning Commission review the proposal for 2 houses and submit findings. Com. Harris said that she was opposed to the proposal largely because of the setbacks; five foot setbacks with drainage swills to take up more of th~ would make the setbacks non-functional and people wonld not he able to get f~om the back of the property to the frout, which is a safety factor. The issue ofthe windows loukin?_ at each other is also a problem. The loss of trees is also a problem; this is a neighborhood with a rural character and removing all the trees will damage the character. The development is too intense. It doesn't meet the present s~Ooack rules. She said that she did not support the proposal. Com. Mahoney said he had problems with the proposal. You can't have normal setbacks if you are going to put them side by side. He said he felt that the drainage problems have not been properly explored. He said he did not have a problems with the windows because they were offset. He said he was not clear how far the ~ing walls went back. He said he was opposed to the tall and narrow topography of the proposal Com. Austin said that she was not in favor of the proposal before and still did not approve of it. She said they were very narrow houses, all garage doors, very poor plan for the drainage wifla the culverts down the side. She said them could have been some underground pipes or drilling dry wells. She said she was disturbed about the loss of trees also. The cu~ing still is not reflected in the proposal and she said she felt it was si?ificant. The second flour setbacks do not meet the standards. She said one house or duplex should he considered, and she was not in favor of the proposal and would not vote for it. Chair Roberts said that he shared the Council's hope for a satisfactory compromise or solution. He said he did not like the long narrow geometry, and they are not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. He said he felt there were grounds on the basis of the neighborhood protection to object as well. It is compounded with the problems of thc dminago and the associated fill and lira loss of trees, it is not a good solution. He said he might support a two unit development in which the units are attached and had the look of heing a single residenc~, however, it would be a loss of ~:onomic value. Mr. Fazekas said that continuing the matter would not be beneficial and asked that the. Planning Commission vote on the proposal. MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to report to City Council that the Planning Commission does not approve of the proposed configuration because of the narrowness of the houses, the loss of trees due to drainage, setbacks, and drainage swills. Com. Harris Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 NEW BUSINESS - None 24 October 14, 1996 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Following a brief discussion, there was conscmus to changc thc special meeting schcdulcd for November 20 to November 19 for the Gnmeral Plan ~iew, from 7 to 9 p.m. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING Com. Harris said that the ~ate~tleilt quoted in the _rec__m~t article about built-out was as exaggerated ~t~aeat on her part. REPORT OF ~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. on October 15, to the regular October 28 Planning Commission mo~ng at 6:45 p.m. Approved as presented: October 28, 1996 F.h~b~ Ellis Recording S~cr~.ary