Loading...
PC 11-25-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 To~e Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 25, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Austin, Mahoney, Chairman Roberts. Doyle, Hams. Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works Department; Thomas Wiles, Planning Intern; Raymond Chung, Traffic Engineer; Vera Gil, Planner II, and Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the October 28, 1996 Regular Meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the October 28, 1996 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. Chair Roberts Coms. Doyle and Harris Com. Mahoney Passed 2-0-1 Minutes of the November 12, 1996 Regular Meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT:' VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the November 12, meeting minutes as presented Com. Mahoney Corns. Doyle and Harris Passed 3-0-0 1996 Planning Commission WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Roberts noted correspondence received relative to Item 9. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-EXC-96 LLM Investments (Larry Miller) Same Lot 2 - Upland Way Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 25, 1996 Hillside Exception to construct a residence on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 19.40.050J of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO JANUARY 13, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEET1NG 10. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 81,052 and 31-EA-96 City of Cupertino Various Properties bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, Torte Avenue, Rodrigues Avenue and So. DeAnza Boulevard AMENDMENT TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN BY ORDINANCE to define future office, hotel and commercial sites, their future development intensifies and to make a deletion or modification to the medium density residential overlay in the area commonly known as City Center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 17, 1997 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO JANUARY 27, 1997 PLAIXrNING COMMISSION MEETING. 11. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 2-Z-83 (Mod.) and 32-EA-96 City of Cupertino Various Properties bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, Torte Avenue, Rodrigues Avenue and So. DeAnza Boulevard. MODIFICATION TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING to de£me furore land use types, development intensifies and building forms in the area commonly known as City Center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 17, 1997 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO JANUARY 27, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Applications 4-EXC-96, 81,052, 3 I-EA-96, 2-Z-83 (Mod.) and 32-EA-96 to the January 27, 1996 Planning Cormmssion meeting. Com. Mahoney Corns. Doyle and Harris Passed 3-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. Mike McNutt, 10368 West Acres Drive, addressed the Planning Commission, stating his concern about a large tree on West Acres Drive which he said presented a safety hazard for the neighborhood. He said that during the last storm several large branches fell from the tree. Mr. McNutt said that he has repeatedly contacted the City maintenance depa~hnent over the years to help with the pruning of the tree or cutting branches when they fall. He requested that the City consider removing the tree or cutting it back significantly. Planning Commission Minutes 3 Novemb~ 25, 1996 Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Planning Director, said that the Public Works staff would discuss the matter with the street maintenance staff for a solution to the matter. CONSENTCALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Property, Owner: Location: !7-ASA-96 Sun Micro Systems Menlo Equities 20545 Mariani Drive Architectural review to modi~ an existing office building including adding chiller units to the roof, removing vine screens from first floor windows and other minor changes. ENVIRONMENTAL DETER~MINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANN1NG COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Application No.: Applicant: Proper~ Owner: Location: 19-ASA-96 Larry Kramer TCW RcalW Fund 3 Holding Company 19624 Stevens Creek Boulevard Architectural review to allow neon in a wall sign for a new restaurant. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPE_n_LED MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahon~ moved to approve Consent Calendar items 1 and 2. Com. Austin Corns. Doyle and Harris Passed 3 -0-0 3. Application No.: 18-ASA-96 Applicant: Peninsula 7 Property Owner: Peninsula 7 Location: Tract 8822, Peninsula Avenue Architectural review of masonry, wall and Lot 7 streetscape as required by a conditional Use Permit for a 7 lot Planned Development. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLAN'NING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff nresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a 6 foot masomy wall, landscaping and fencing for the Peninsula 7 development, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application. The decision of the Planning Commission will be final unless appealed within 14 days. Mr. Colin Jung, .associate Planner, explained that architectural and site approval was presented as a result of conditions placed in the Use penmt for the seven lot subdivision. Referring to an overhead Pla/ming Commission Minutes 4 November 25, 1996 of the landscape plan, ,Mr. Jung described the proposed changes. He said that staff recommended the Grapestake pattern for the masom'y wall because of its residential appearance. He explained that the front of the wall would be landscaped with vines growing from Lot No. 1, and staff would require the applicant to provide aa irrigation plan at the building permit stage. In addition, the dirt strip in from of the wall will be landscaped with shrubbery. Mr. Jung described the fencing and landscaping for Lot No. 7. Mr. Dick Childress, Debcor Corporation, said thai the applicant concurred with staff's findings. He said that when the project is completed, enhancement of the other units will be done, although it is not a requirement, but would make the units appear more uniform. He said that the fronts of the units will also be landscaped for uniformity. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one who wished to speak on the item. Chair Roberts sununarized that the issues were: the aesthetics of the wall design; the size of the shrubs, and the fencing and landscaping of Lot No. 7. Coms. Austin and Mahoney said they concurred with staff's reconunendation. In response to Chair Roberts' question, Mr. Jung said that the setbacks were according to the plans. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 1 g-ASA-96 in accordance with the model resolution. Com. Mahoney Corns. Doyle and Harris Passed 3-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 12-EXC-96 Wolf Camera (Elto Sign Company) Greg Bunker 1375 DeAnza Boulevard Exception to locate a second sign on aa existing retail building in accordance with Chapter 17.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMIvlISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the sign exception for two additional signs for Wolf Camm. Following a review of the application, staff recommends approval of the first sign provided it is changed to a painted rather than illUminated sign over the southeast entrance; and denial of the second sign which staff feels is unnecessmy due to the close proximity of an approved non-conforming monumental sign at the comer of Wildflower and DeAnza. The Planning Commission's decision will be final unless appealed within 14 days. Mr. Tom Wiles, Planning Intern, referred to Exhibit A, and explained staff's recommendation as outlined in the attached staff report. Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 25, 1996 Mr. Cowan suggested that if the Planning Commission decided that signage was necessary on the one enny to guide customers to the store, up lighting might be appropriate. Mr. Allen Ford, representing Eko Sign Company and Wolf Camera, said that relative to the canopy sign, it was intended to put vinyl on the awning and he did not disagree with staWs findings. Relative to the sign at the rear of the building, he said that he disagreed with staff's findings regarding the illumination. He explained that the distance fi-om the sign to the property line of the houses was about 250 to 300 feet; there were several fully mature trees and a wall blocking the view from any ground floor activity. He said that the suggested up lighting was not feasible because the entire wall would be illUminated. Mr. Ford said there was a need for the sign to direct customers to the rear entrance. Referring to the overhead of the elevation and site plan, Mr. Ford answered questions about the proposed signs. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak on the item. Com. Austin said that she was in favor of the sign over the entlanceway because driving down DeAnza Boulevard there is confusion on where the fi-ont entrance is located. Com. Maboney said he felt the sign was far enough away not to cause a problem, and stated that there is only one way into the store. Chair Roberts said he felt there was a need to identify the main entrance. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 12-EXC-96 according to staff's recommendation contained in the model resolution, with allowance for the illumination. Com. Mahoney Coms. Doyle and Harris Passed 3-0-0 Application No.: Apphcant: Location: Historic Preservation Ordinance and 4-EA-96 City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of Historic Preservation Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: Janumy 6, 1997 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 1996 Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the items for discussion as outlined in the attached staffreport. She discussed the Historic Property Designation flow chart and reviewed the historic property modification, including the distinctions between Category 1 and Category 2. Ms. Wordell reviewed the historic ranldng system, as contained in Appendix A of the staff report. She said that the ranking system was simplified fi.om previous attempts, and that the ranking points were not totaled, but used merely as a guideline. Com. Maboney suggested that the ramking numbers be changed to a range. Ms. Wordell referred to Exhibit E for the list of potential restrictions. In response to Chair Roberts' question, she said that the list could potentially be expanded. Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 25, 1996 In response to Com. Austin's request, Ms. Wordell explained the IMills Act. She quoted a definition from a previous staff report: "The Mills Act provides for a reduction in property taxes on historic property when certain conditions are met. Owners of designated historic properties must enter into a preservation contract directly with the local government agreeing to restore the property if necessary, maintain its historic character and use it in a manner compatible with the historic characteristics. The home owner establishes, along with the jurisdiction, what improvements they will complete. Contracts must be made for a ten year period, during which time the owner is entitled to a reduction in property taxes. The county tax assessor is directed by state law to adjust the assessed value of the property downward to reflect the restriction placed on the property. A lower assessment will result in lower taxation. Mills Act contracts have the net effect of freezing the base value of the property, thereby keeping property taxes low. Often the benefits are minimal the first few years, but as the value of the property climbs, a significant property tax savings may be experienced. Mills Act contracts remain in force upon resale of the property ..." Ms. Wordell said that further review of the Mills Act could be tabled for a future meeting if interest warranted it. Ms. Wordell provided an update on the Diocese issues of concern. Deputy Counsel Eileen Murray explained that there was a government code section that exernpts churches and religious organizations from designation as historic landmarks. However, the ordinance has been challenged in court, where it was declared unconstitutional and is now pending. She said that presently the City must abide by the state law; the state is in the situation of being enjoined from enforcing the state law. The brief will be filed in December, followed by argument in February and hopefully results will be available in mid year. Ms. Murray clarified that the church must meet conditions if they want to be exempt. The state law, which is now enjoined fi.om being enforced, states that the church is exempt fi, om regulations to protect the non-comraercial properties, owned by religious organizations, provided the organization objects to the designation, and the organization det~rufines in a public forum that it will suffer substantial hardship likely to deprive the organiTation of economic return on its property, the reasonable use of its property, or the appropriate use of its property in the furtherance of its religious mission. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Mr. George Monk, 19925 Price Avenue, reviewed the November 2 letter he sent to the planning Commission which addressed the request to use a jury of their peers for the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee. He said that staff feels there needs to be a committee with expertise on the subject, and the committee in the ordinance contains vested interest, not experts. He said his November 14 letter asked to include a mechanism to isolate the historical zoning designation. Mr. Monk reviewed his November 16 letter which requested that a plan be outlined to respond to the Council's questions on property value impact. He said he felt that the hnpact of property values would be negative, and requested consensus on the issue. He said that his November 18 letter was a request for reference work to support the use of deed restrictions, for which there is no professional standard or precedent. Mr. Monk said that his November 19 letter requested that reconsideration be given to use of Section 19.82.090 of the "alternative" ordinance presented at the last meeting. He said that clear standards were needed so that the homeowners were aware of the rules they were expected to follow in the ordinance; the ordinance presently does not have clear standards. Mr. Monk reviewed further points covered in the staff report. First, a request to get expert input or require expert input during the designation process. He said the ordinance was structured to equate Planning Commission Minutes ? November 25, 1996 good taste with historical merit. He quoted fi.om Exhibit D regarding a draft report sample: "Narrow rooms providing very poor use of space; front brick stairway not proportional and detracts from the beauty of the house." He said it was clearly a taste judgment, not a historical judgment and would be a guideline for people in the future. When a permit is requested, a historian's report is requested which is based clearly on historical significance. He said that if it is going to be zoned, if designating ordinances are passed and if deeds are going to be restricted, it needs to be done correctly the first time. Referring to the staff report, he questioned the changes made to Ordinance No. 1726, specifically 19.82.100 which addresses the interior of buildings. Chair Roberts requested clarification on the issue relative to jury of peers and expert input. Mr. Monk explained that the current ordinance contains a homeowner, a historical society member, and an at-large member. He said that the homeowner and histo/ical society member are vested interests, not experts. He said he felt the committee should be comprised of a jury of peers who can truly judge on the merits. At the decision point, it should be an expert input to indicate what is historically significant about the building. Chair Roberts said he felt the composition of the committee was a judgment issue, not a factual one. In response to Com. Mahoney's questions, Ms. Wordell said that in many cases it would be impractical to zone a portion of a parcel. Ms. Wordell explained, that in the event a portion of the property was historical the property would be zoned, but the actual element of it that would be protected would be spelled out in the ordinance. Father Michael Mitchell, 10110 No. DeAnza Boulevard, said it was his understanding from the prex4ons meeting, that Section 19.81.110 Sho,~dng Economic Hardship, was to read: "If a building is substantially damaged or destroyed." He questioned the merit for omitting "substantially damaged". Following a brief discussion, staff noted they would look into the wording discussed at the previous meeting and make the necessary changes. Mr. Mike Ure, 10518 Phil Place, said he was not in favor of the ordinance and likened the ordinance to "a wolf who keeps coming back in a different guise still with big chops and sharp teeth." He said that in particular, the standard of review is presently as an impairment type of standard, a "nose of wax that can be turned to suit anyone's purposes". Mr. Ure said he would like to see a better standard such as the one proposed in the alternate ordinance. He said that he favored landscaping being exempt. He said he felt the ordinance was not improved by adding exhibits not incorporated by specific hooks in the precise language of the ordinance itself. He said he would like the ordinance returned as a kinder ordinance. Chair Roberts clarified that the draft ordinance excluded painting, ordinary maintenance and landscaping. Ms. Wordell said that it would be reviewed when presented to the City Council to ensure consistency. Ms. Sharon Blaine. Cupertino Historical Society Board of Directors, pointed out an error in the wording of Appendix A, explaining the ranking system. She noted that the word "few" should read "many". Referring to the list of the Historical Advisory Committee, she pointed out that the historical society did not intend to have a member on the committee. She said they would be individuals who would apply through the city process similar to the Planning Commission or Public Safety Commission. She explained that when the ranking is done in the designation process, it would be decided what portions of the building are important and historically significant and those parts would have restrictions placed on them. The way parcels are set up in the county, you cannot Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 25, 1996 zone a piece of a parcel; if something is put on a deed it is on the whole parcel. She suggested that the same percentages be used that are used for buildings damaged by fire, such as 25% or 50%, to allow the footprint to be changed. She said that there is a ranking that speaks to landscaping, therefore it should be addressed if consideration is given to exclusion of landscaping. Ms. Mary Lou Lyon, 8879 Lily Avenue, urged the Planning Commission to adopt the ordinance, pointing out that there would never be an ideal time because of the differences in properties. She commended staff on the excellent job on the ordinance and said it should be completed before the millennium. She noted that it was difficult to satisfy everyone. She said something was needed to protect what little history was left in Cupertino. Mr. Don Westwood, 10090 Hillcrest Road, referred to a report where it listed, but did not include, painting, ordinary maintenance and landscaping on Page 2. He noted that Page 7 listed the exceptions and indicated that good neighbor fencing repair or construction was excepted fi.om the ordinance. He noted that Mr. Ure's reference to his landscaping was still fair game according to what was listed and dialog presented. Mr. Westwood questioned the composition of the committee ifa member of the historical society was not going to be a member of the committee. Relative to the zoning of the properties and exclusion of certain features, it seemed ambiguous that at some time in the future someone could go after parts of the property, unless specifically excluded. He said that he sensed the urgen~ of moving on the ordinance, but urged that all issues be resolved so that there would not be repercussions following the adoption of the ordinance. He pointed out that in a historical sense, the purpose of the ordinance was an attempt to keep houses fi.om being demolished, and the thrust and focus on discussions has been tD4ng to control the remaining properties and the features on them. He said there was no language keeping the things fi.om being destroyed. He suggested control over the demolition of properties and relaxing the control on the specific architectural details on the properties. He suggested a mechanism to use demohtion to keep the houses from being controlled, He said it would help create an ordinance in which the homeowners are not restricted from ongoing things they want to do with their house; but protect the actual destruction or removal of the entire house. He said no examples were given of people making oatxageous changes to their homes, although there were indications of homes being tom down. Chair Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Austin said that she felt a decision should be made on the ordinance so that the City Council and the committee could proceed with their pan. She said she disagreed with the composite of the committee, noting that the Planning Commissioners should not be involved, but that 5 at-large community members should comprise the committee. Com. Mahoney reiterated that he preferred a two stage process; the first stage to set up the committee and basic guidelines; do all the groundwork. The second stage would be to decide what would be done with the information at hand. Discussion continued about the urgency of adopting an ordinance and the possible impacts of doing so before knowing all the pertinent facts. Com. Mahoney reiterated that he was in favor of an ordinance, but not a "mega ordinance" before knowing all the facts. Com. Austin disagreed, stating that the committee should be formed, have direction, have more public heatings and get more input and fine tune the ordinance along the way. Chair Roberts said that a redeeming feature of the ordinance was that there was a difference between Category 1 and 2 and staff would have control over it at the time the advisory committee presented its report to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 25, 1996 Chair Roberts said he felt it was time to move on with the ordinance and that the draft ordinance submitted by staff with minor cleanup was a suitable foundation for the formation of the advisor)' co..~mmi~ee. He said the committee should consist of an architecL a historic preservationlst, a property owner, and two at large members from the general public. Chair Roberts summarized the changes to the ordinance: eliminate numbers, amend first two descriptions, add wording "substantially damaged;" clean up the purpose; and designate what is historical. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration. Com. Mahoney Coms. Doyle and Harris Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENrF: PASSED: Com. Austin moved m approve the Historic Pmse~,afion Ordinance, with the modification of the composition of the advisor), committee as stated by Chair Roberts, and other modifications stated in previous paragraph, and forward to City Council for their recommendation. Chair Roberts Com. Mahoney Coms. Doyle and Harris Passed 2-1-0 Application No.: Applicant: Prop~,--~, y Oxxmer: Location: 8-EXC-96 Da;4d Solnick George and Barbaxa Marcinkowski 10211 Byme Avenue Hillside exception to construct decks, stairs and other outdoor features including landscaping on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 19.28.050C of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETEILMJNATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COb,~vlISSION DECISION LLNLESS APPEALED CONI'INUED FROM PLANNING CO~LMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12, 1996 Staffpreseatation: The video presentation reviewed the application to consh--uet two retaining walls, a trellis, terracing and stairs, and landscaping to the B~mae A~,,enue residence, as outlined in the attached staff report. Applicant ~vill provide a 25 foot rear setback and w411 provide more screening for the largest retaining wall, as well as provide 2 trees to reduce the impact of the fumm decks from the golf course. Staff recommends approval of the application. The Planning Commission's decision is final unless appealed within 14 days. Ms. Vera Gfl, Planner II, explained that the major concern a4th the item was the visual impact to the ,llustra,,~,. the proposed changes and golf course. Referring to the architectural rendering, she; ~a answered questionsl Mr. David Sotnick, applicant, explained the proposed changes. Referring to the site plan, he illustrated the location of the exis~ng pool, .q.nd the proposed sauna, and explained the landscape plan. Chair Robes said that although it was an a ,~acfive project, he felt the pool and sauna could be fit into the fiat portion of the lot. He said he was opposed to the application, noting the last condition Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 25, 1996 stated that the structure could not otherwise be physically located on the parcel as a minimum which is necessaxy to allow for reasonable use; which is one of the necessary conditions defined and stated he could not agree to that. Com. Austin expressed concern relative to the 50% slope and the addition of 1,000 usable flat square feet. She said the landscaping and trellises were attractive and felt the changes would improve the appearance. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application No. 8-EXC-96 according to the model resolution. Com. Austin Chair Roberts Coms. Doyle and Harris Passed 2-1-0 Chair Roberts explained his opposition to the application because he felt it set a bad precedent to permit development of this kind on a steep slope when not necessa~. Chair Roberts declared a recess from 8:30 p.m. to 8:40 p.m. Upon reconvening, the same Planning Commissioners and staff were present. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 5-EXC-96 LLM Investments (Larry Miller) Same Lot 3 - Upland Way Hillside Exception to construct a residence on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 19.40.050J of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct a single family home on Upland Way. The geology report and building design were reviewed as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff will review site access and grading, and outline the conditions for granting a'hillside exception, but is neither recommending approval nor denial of the application. A determination from the Planning Commission will be considered final unless an appeal is filed. Mr. Cowan referred to the overheads of the grading plan and profile, site plan, floor plans and elevations, architectural drawing and landscape plans and described the placement of the proposed residence. Mr. Cowan summarized that the proposal was technically correct, but staff would like to see more detail and time spent on how the entrance could be redesigned to soften the building mass as seen downslope. He said that the issues of concern were to what degree does it blend into the hillside, and to what degree is it consistent with the RHS standards? He explained that the overall objective of the hillside policy was to have the architecture blend into the natural hillside to the greatest extent possible. Planning Commission Minutes l t November 25, 1996 Mr. Cowan reported that the building does meet the technical requirements of the residential hillside ordinance; however, the large building, prominent entty and stairway, elongated third story and building color were not in keeping with the intent of the hillside performance standards. A discussion ensued regarding the square footage of the proposed residence wherein Mr. Cowan answered questions. Mr. Lany Miller, 47 Upland Way, said that he has worked diligently with the staffto ensure that the design mitigated some of the grading issues from the prior proposal. He said that the prior approval was for 900 feet for the house, 1,430 for the common drive, totaling 2,330 cubic yards. He said the present grading was for 1,976 cubic yards for the common drive and the house. He said he was confident that reducing the size of the facade was something they could accomplish. Mr. Miller explained that the house would have to be set down into the hill more, and graded more to reduce the from facade and the from enny way, to stay within the grading limits. Referring to Photo No. 4, Mr. Miller illustrated the top of one ridgeline noting that it did not reach the 15%. He said the prominent ddgeline is the one the house to the north sits on and goes down the side, and is tucked into a valley. Referring to a photo montage overlay, Mr. Miller explained the use of the ground poles to illustrate the top ridge p~ints of the houses. He said that a small part of the house could be seen above the tree line. He noted that six new homes were being constructed in the nearby area. He commented that binoculars would be needed to see the house. He illustrated that northern parts of the second and third story would be visible from the valley floor. He used the photo montage to illustrate the view between the foliage from the one perspective and then overlaid what the entire house would be, so it could be seen that the whole house fits in the lxees and at best. has little visibility from the comer. He said he was working with staffto get the project to meet the needs of the city Md the site itself. He requested approval with the stipulation that the applicant work with staff to lessen that front facade and work with the landscaping to help continue to soflen the lines on the side of the project. He said they would ensure that they meet the requirements on square footage and that the color meets the city requirements. Chair Roberts asked the applicant to comment on the vertical 'blocky' elements on the front facade. Mr. Miller said that they would work with staff to lower some of the architectural elements so that it would not appear so obtrusive. In response to Com. Austin's concern about the potential of landslides, Mr. Miller stated that tests were conducted on 15 trench sites in addition to drilling holes to deterrrdne what the geoteclmical was below the surface and came up with some recommendalions on what had to be done to the foundalion'to ensure its stability. Cotton & Associates performed a review and concurred that by doing the proposed work planned, the stability of the house and the integrity of the structure will remain intact. Mr. Cowan reported that Cotton & Associates reviewed the previous plans and there has been extensive geologic work with Mr. Cotton and a private geologist. He said that the material would be recompacted which has all been considered as part of the previous application. Mr. Cowan said that Mr. Cotton sent a letter outlining what had to be accomplished and ensure that the new construction drawings are reviewed by Purcell and Rhodes and comply with requirements, making sure that the site is buildable. Mr. Cowan pointed out that staff would ensure that the building codes dealing with seismic safety were adhered to. Discussion continued wherein staff answered questions. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak on the item. Planning Commission Minutes 12 November 25. ~996 Mr. Cowan said that staff was concerned with the two stow entry, which was dramatic from the builder's point of view. Com. Austin said she had quite a few concems. She said that the geotechnical mitigations had to be stringent: she said she was not comfortable with it and it needed more than fmc tuning as it was too big for the slope and should be reduced She said she felt the building should be tucked in more. and it would take more than simple architecture. Chair Roberts said he was concerned about the bulk of the building. He said he had reservations about the previous design and the present proposal stuck out substantially mom He said he was not certain that the pe~,ective shown actually existed. Chair Roberts said he felt the revised plan would be substantially different and he wanted to see it with the revisions, and therefore could not presently vote for approval of the application as submitted. Mr. Miller said that he would prefer a continuance of the item to work with staff and address the issues of concern and return with a revised plan to soften the visual impact. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application No. 5-EXC-96 to the December 9, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Mahoney Corns. Doyle and Harris Passed 3-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Prope~. Owner: Location: 10-EXC-96 Samy Ishak Samy Ishak 22164 McClellan Road Fence Exception to locate a 6 foot fence in the required side yard setback in accordance with Chapter 16.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff t~resentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the fence exception to locate a six foot 'high masonry wall without a setback on a single family home site located at the southeast corner of McClellan Road and Linda Vista Drive. The applicant is requesting pennission to build the wall to ensure greater security and prevent litter and rocks fxom being tossed on his property. Staff reconunends denial of the request finding that the wall would not prevent litter and rocks fi.om being tossed in the applicant's yard. It could also lead to graffiti on the wall and negatively impact the appearance of the neighborhood. Staff suggests a fence in place of the wall. Mr. Tom Wiles, Plamimg Interm noted a correction to Item D of the staff report. He said that as far as the 40 foot corner triangle, the applicant's proposed fence would actually fall within the 40 foot comer n'iangle, whereas if the 5 foot setback was installed, it would not be a potential hazard for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Chair Roberts noted correspondence from a neighbor. Mr. Edmund Lonz. objecting to a 6 foot masonry, fence. There was no one present who wish to speak. Planning Commission Minutes t3 November 25, 1996 Mr. Cowan clarified that the general role for approval/denial of applications was that it was acceptable to approve an application if the applicant was not present, but if the Planning Commission was planning to deny the application, the applicant should be present to represent his interests. Ms. Wordell said that it was possible the applicant was not present because the item was not scheduled to be heard until about 10:45 p.m. and the agenda was ahead of schedule. There was consensus to continue with the agenda items and return to Item 9 when the applicant appeared. Chair Roberts moved the agenda to Item 12. OLD BUSINESS Report to Council: 12. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 18-U-96, 6-TM-96, 8-Z-96 and 26-EA-96 Chalet Woods, Inc. Charles and Palma Grantham 1187 Gardenside Lane Use Permit to construct 5 single family detached residences on a .66 acre parcel in a Planned Development Zoning District. Tentative Map to subdivide a .66 parcel into 5 lots. Zoning Amendment to rezone a .66 acre parcel from R1-6 to P(RES) or other appropriate zoning district. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: December 11, 1996 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct 5 single family detached homes, which the Planning Commission previously recommended denial on. City Council chose to continue the application given the applicant's willingness to revise the project to meet Cupertino's R1 standard. The project now meets R1 standards in terms of height, setback and FAR requirements. However, staff believes the proposed elevation of the homes could be improved to provide more variety. Applicant is also working with neighbors to address concerns they have. Staff recommends approval of the application. The Planning Commission's determination will be forwarded to the December 11 City Council meeting. Ms. Wordell reviewed the issues of concern, which included the privacy issue for the lot closest to the existing development to the west. She noted that a revised set of plans was distributed showing a window lxentment in lieu of a second stoW window on Lot 5. She said that staff was also recommending more variety in the architectural frontages. She addressed the issue of the landscape strip as outlined in the staffreport. Mr. James Jackson, attorney, emphasized that the City Council reviewed the possibility of a 4 lot project vs. a 5 lot project, and determined that the 5 lot project was preferred, and was consistent with the General Plan range of 5 to 10. He said that the applicant has spent a great deal of time with the neighbors txying to address their concerns. He addressed the 18 foot setback vs. the 17 foot setback, noting at the time they were before the City Council they were proposing to address the privacy issue with the neighbor to the west that there be an 18 foot setback, and it could have been accomplished had not the Council made a determination that they wanted to meet all R1 setbacks. He said that when that took place there was no choice but to meet all R1 setbacks and it pushed the house one foot further to the west, making it a 17 foot setback. Relative to the neighbor's request Planning commission Minutes 14 November 25, 1996 for the 6-1/2 foot planter strip, he said the applicant is willing to accommodate that request by putting a 2 foot easement across their own property ia order to achieve that matching landscape strip. He requested that approval of the application be forwarded to City Council. Mr. Danyl Fazekas, architect, said that he would rework the designs of the homes so that each house would be custom designed to address the concern of lack of variety in the facades. He reviewed how the concerns of the neighbors were addressed. He said that they were willing to mitigate the landscape strip to address the concerns of the neighbors; sycamore trees will be used for street trees and park strip; the fireplace on Lot 2 has been removed and replaced with larger windows; on Lot 5 use of opaque or stain glass windows placed higher would be used to alle'viate the neighbor's concern; and planting of a row of Italian cypress on the applicant's side of the property line. ia response to a concern about the property line fence, he indicated the eng'meer would address the issue. He said that a possible solution would be a new concrete retaining wall with the fence to prevent movement. He discussed other possible solutions to staff and neighbors' concerns. He expressed his willingness to address concerns and include other concerns as pan of the conditions of approval. Mr. Mary Kirkeby, civil engineer, added that the house to the west of Lot 5 was higher than their property as shown ia one of the cross sections and had stability problems with the fence. For the grading ordinance, the wall differential between the two lots will be a concrete wall with the fence atop, which will add longevity to the fence. He requested that the easement for the extra two foot planter be on Kingsbmy only on the Gardenside side of the street. In response to Chair Roberts' question about the necessity of the 2 foot wider planting strip, Mr. Kirkeby noted that the city standard was 4-1/2 feet and the requester's argument was for appearance conformity to the area across the street where it is 6-1/2 feet. Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, said that the street department was consulted on the width of the park strip for the trees and was informed it was not absolutely necessary for the sycamore trees. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Mark Blaszczyk, 7453 Kiagsbury Place, said he was the resident who requested the wider park strip. He noted that he was also a traffic engineer and was familiar with the issues of concern. He said he requested that the sycamore trees be planted because it was a larger tree, and even with the reduced FAR, the homes were large and trees sliould match the size of the hom~s, and the park strip provided room for growth of large trees. He said that the wider streets were preferable, and he would like to see them keep the 20 foot center line to face of curb roadway width. He said that relative to'the easement, however it was accomplished would be satisfactory, that his intent was to see the 20 foot center line to face of curb and also tbe 6-l/2 foot park strip to match what is on the north side. He said he would like it to be consistent all the way around. He questioned whether the dimensionality could be maintained along the houses not on the Gardenside. Mr. Singh Yalamanchili~ 1182 Ruppell Place, said that he had some of the same concerns already addressed and added that he was concerned about the wall and requested that the applicant have a proposal for an attractive wall. Mr. Cowan pointed out that it was the applicant's intention to build a concrete retaining wall along a common line and stabilize the slope. Chair Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Austin recommended that the Planmng Commission approve the application, including a condition relative to the drainage and runoff ensuring the water runoff toward the street: including a Planning Commission Minutes ts November 25, 1996 condition relative to the 6-1/2 foot park strip with corresponding 2 foot easement. She recommended the inclusion of a speed bump; the rezoning; that the windows on the side of Lot 5 be opaque or stain glass windows and placed higher; she said she supported the use of sycamore and Italian cypress trees as a condition; the architecture along the frontage of the street should be varied so that no two residences are alike; the future housing development would comply with the single family zoffmg development standards. Mr. Ray Chung, traffic engineer, explained the process followed to have road bumps installed. He said that it was through a petition process where the majority of the neighborhood submit a request, staff conducts a engineering traffic survey and based on the assessment, a recommendation made to install road bumps or not. Com. Mahoney said that his original concerns related to the size of the houses and the applicant had scaled them down. Relative to the landscape strip, he said he would stick with the Cupertino standard. Staff indicated they were not opposed to the 6-1/2 foot park strip. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to forward the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council, except for the inclusion of the speed bumps. Com. Mahoney Corns. Doyle and Harris Passed 3 -0-0 Chair Roberts moved die agenda back to Item 9. Mr. Samy Ishak apologized for the miscommunication about the application presentation. Referring to the overhead of the street map, he explained that the need for the retaining wall arose from his family's fear for safety from traffic and also to deter passers-by from tossing trash and rocks onto his property. He pointed out that recently a dnmk driver crashed onto his property narrowing mis~mg his young daughter. A discussion ensued regarding the materials to be used for the proposed retaining wall. M~. Is[ink explained that the materials were similar to those used on other retaining walls surrounding residences in Cupertino. Mr. Wiles noted correspondence received from Max and Christy de la Giroud'arc, Cupertino residents, objecting to the application. He noted their objections were: (1) that they had a curved driveway and the fence would block their vision of the sidewalk and traffic when backing out, especially skateboard or roller skate traffic; and (2) the fence would attract graffiti without trees or shrubs in front of it. He added that a letter was also received fi-om Mr. Edmund Lawrence. Com. Austin said that she concurred with staff's recommendation because of the information contained in the model resolution and that the wall would be unsafe. Com. Mahoney concurred. Chair Roberts agreed that the safety objectives would be better served if the wall was set back 5 feet from the sidewalk because it was a busy intersection and would obscure the view. Mr. Ishak reiterated his concern for safety and po'rated out that he did not feel graffiti would be a problem because the type of wall to be constructed. Planning Commission Minutes 16 November 25, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to recommend denial of the application for the fence exception on Application 10-EXC-96 based on the findings in the model resolution Com. Mahoney Corns. Doyle and Hams Passed 3 -0-0 Mr. Cowan noted that there was a period of 14 days for the appeal process. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. m the regular Planning Commission of December 9, 1996. Approved as amended: December 9, 1996 Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary