Loading...
PC 10-10-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 10,1994 ORDER OF BUSINESS Called to order at 6:45 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Com. Harris (arrived at 6:49 p.m.) Commissioners Absent: Com. Austin Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Aaron Sherrill, Intern Michele Bjurrnan, Planner II APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 22, 1994 - Special Meeting September 26, 1994 - Regular Meeting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Doyle moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Com. Roberts Passed 3-0-2 Corns. Austin, Harris WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -letter regarding Item 10 Clerk's note: Com. Austin arrived at 6:49 p.m. POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR Item 3: Application No.: 5-EXC-94, Carry Queen/Kornberg Assoc. Continue to the Planning Commission Meeting of October 24, 1994 " PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 2 Item 4: Application No.(s): 7-TM-94 and 2-EXC-94, William F. Klein, 10187 Stonydale Drive Continue to the Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 1994 Item 8: Application No.(s): 9-U-94, 3-Z-94, 8-TM-94 and 27-EA-94, Forge/Homestead Continue to the Planning Commission Meeting of October 24, 1994 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Doyle moved to continue the items as requested by staff. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Corns. Austin ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENTCALENDAR-No~ PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-EXC-94 Jeraldine K. Mitchell Jeraldine K. Mitchell 8115 Hyannisport Drive EXCEPTION to allow a 5 ft. high fence in the front yard setback in accordance with Chapter 16.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED City Planner Ciddy Wordell introduced Aaron Sherrill, Planning Intern, who presented staff's recommendations. He answered Commissioners' questions regarding the Sheriffs opposition to the proposal and increased activity at Kennedy Junior High School. Jeraldine Mitchell, applicant, said she is a teacher and a nurse. She said in the past she has lived in harmony with the schools. Ms. Mitchell talked about the increased activity at the school since busing has stopped. She said she thinks every parent brings every child to school. There is definitely an increase in car traffic on Hyannisport. The proposed fence would not totally obscure the view of the house from the sidewalk. The last (top) foot will be a lattice design. As for changing the neighborhood's character, she said it would enhance her and neighbors' property and the neighbors are in favor of it. In regard to the Sheriff s Dept. objection, there is inviting cover all over the street, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 3 including shrubs. Ms Mitchell said that anyone can build a fence 20 feet back without an exception. This point is completely moot. As for setting a precedent, there are already similar fences on her block, in the neighborhood and all over Cupertino. She described what she sees from her front yard - a big ugly barn of a gym, an ugly mobile unit, lots of dirt, a chain link fence and lots of traffic. She said one needs to travel along the street and see what she and her neighbors have to put up with. Also, Ms. Mitchell said that no one had told her about the accessory ordinance. She had no idea that one could encroach into the setback three feet. She said it seemed to be an adversarial position instead of someone working with her. It has been very cumbersome, with lots of detail to present and has cost lots of money. Ms. Mitchell showed the Commission some pictures of the neighborhood, including the type of fence she proposes. One of the pictures showed her house with and without the fence. Another was of a fence that is like one proposed, which she described as an attractive addition, open and airy, blending in and with no more lurking space than a bush or any other fence. Her gate would be locked, and it would make her happy to have the new fence and patio. She said there is a diversity of fences in the area and a diversity of opinions of them. She showed pictures of properties where shrubs extend to the sidewalk line. These are things that would impede visibility of others when backing out of driveways. In her case this would not happen. She said she hoped the Commission would consider the application and overturn staff's recommendation. At the request of a Commission member, Ms. Mitchell described the fence. She referred to details of the elevation and described a plan that would afford privacy when sitting on the patio. She said she likes to have some place where she can relax and the back yard is windier and coolerthan where her new patio would be. When asked about moving the fence out of the front setback, Ms. Mitchell described the problem of a roof that overhangs; if the fence were moved back the patio area would be too small to even bother with. Director of Community Development Cowan answered questions regarding easements, He said that the easement for roadway purposes is 30 ft. from middle of the street. Typically, the property line is about ten feet from the curb. Carl Wanke, 8165 Hyannisport Drive, said the lots are 105 or 106 ft. An actual lot is supposed to be 100 ft. with a five foot easement as recorded. He said that with the landing strip and the sidewalk, II feet of Ms. Mitchell's property is taken. Mr. Cowan answered Commission's questions and said if the property was 105 ft. and the sidewalk was on the easement on that property, the ordinance would put the setback not from the edge of the sidewalk but from the property line. This would be a very unusual case. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 4 Chair Mahoney said we need to find out if this is true. Mr. Wanke said that this area had belonged to San Jose and was annexed to Cupertino. Now they are putting sidewalks on the curb. In his opinion, Ms. Mitchell should be able to get what she wants out of the property. He said you can see this type of fence all over town. He said the Sheriffs report is moot and has no bearing, especially in Cupertino. Mr. Wanke said he was on the committee involved when the school playgrounds were rebuilt. The committee had expended many months with parks and recreation and the plan was approved by the City Council. He said that eventually, the pine trees across the street will be cut down and a parking area put in. That is in addition to the $5 million they will spend on rejuvenating the playground. Ms. Mitchell's home will face the entrance to parking lot. Mr. Wanke said the planter referred to on the plan is part of the foundation. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved to continue the item to the meeting of October 24. Com. Roberts Carried 4-0-1 Com. Austin Com. Doyle said he would like a better understanding of the Sheriffs concerns, and Com. Doyle wanted information on how the other fence got built in the setback area. 5. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 12-U-90 (Modified) and 26-EA-94 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 10900 N. Blaney Avenue USE PERMIT to install a natural gas vehicle fueling station for both public and private use. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Michele Bjurman, Planner II, presented the staff report. She said PG&E has 21 of these facilities statewide. Ms. Bjurman described truck traffic at the site and said it operates 24 hours, seven days a week. Ms. Bjurman answered questions about the hours and "personing" of the filling operation. She said it operates seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and no person is needed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 5 Guy Helmstetter, PG&E employee, said his remarks were offered in support of this compressed natural gas station. He congratulated the City for the recent funding from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for alternative fuel vehicles and for its application for Clean City recognition. The application is related to the Clean Cities program; it forms the basis of PG&E's commitment to supply compressed natural gas to Clean City Coalition members until other fueling infrastructure is available. The facility is planned to provide fuel for city vehicles. Initially it will be available to coalition cities through the use of tube trailers. This is the cheapest method available at this time for coalition members to fuel their vehicles. Mr. Helmstetter said he would like to change the staffs recommendation to include 2 tube trailers on any given day because coalition members are increasing all the time and he could foresee that it is possible that two tube trailers would need to be refueling at any given time. Steve Crismond, PG&E, said the tubes fill in about ten hours. Regarding the history of the fueling stations, Mr. Crismond said the first one in the state was installed in 1986 in Fresno. In answer to Commission's questions about fires or explosions on the sites, Mr. Helmstetter said he knew of one problem and it occurred because tanks were not installed on a truck properly. There was no explosion or fire in that instance, and all the vehicles of the lype used were recalled. Mr. Crismond said there is triple redundancy in all safety systems, and he is very confident of safety. He said the company has made sure it is a safe product because otherwise it could kill the project. In answer to questions about location of the stations, Mr. Crismond said that in Davis, Stockton and Santa Rosa they are located in residential areas. Mr. Crismond said their business plan is not to have any outside users. PG&E is trying to provide an interim fueling infrastructure. When others provide the service they want to use it only for PG&E vehicles. Ms. Bjurman stated her opinion that no screening to Blaney and 280 was necessary because there is a bank with heavy tree coverage. She showed where she had asked for additional landscaping and said she had asked that the compressor be painted grey. William Hanney, 1773 Heron Avenue, Sunnyvale, said his house is three houses in from the freeway and butts against the wall on east side of PG&E. He said his main concern is the truck traffic and the lights since it is a 24 hour operation. He asked if the light would intrude into the back yards as it had previously. His bedrooms face PG&E. Chair Mahoney said there is a condition that the lighting will be looked at by the staff. Ms. Bjurman said there are only two new lights and they are distant from the residences. PUNNING COMMIÇ,g¡ON MINUT£S October 10, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Hanney said he and his neighbors got quite a bit of light from the substation when it was first installed. He expressed concerns with noise if trucks exit onto Homestead. If they are going out to Homestead they will drive close to his home. Dave McKinnon, support services manager at the Blaney Avenue PG&E facility, said that the Environmental Review Committee had asked them to allow any tractor trailer traffic except between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. He said they do have normal traffic that comes in and out during the night for trouble calls, and that a truck comes to deliver materials in the early morning. He said the compressors operate at about 70 decibels which is the same noise level as normal traffic on Homestead. Mr. Crismond said the noise measurements are well within the City's limits. Mr. McKinnon said they have night lighting in the parking lot for employee safety and have had no complaints. The added lights should not impact the neighbors at all. John Steele, 1775 Heron Avenue, Sunnyvale, expressed concern about traffic in the evening coming across the PG&E property and asked for clarification. He said he would object to trucks coming through the area near his back yard. Pauline Angelo Hanney, 1773 Heron Avenue, Sunnyvale, said she fought when they put the substation in. At the time, her husband was ill. She said she went to court and lost. PG&E has not put up trees as promised. However, they did cut down the lighting after she called them. She stated that trees will not hide or protect the neighbors. She asked how the neighbors know that PG&E won't do what they did before and that they won't have to fight again. She said that after fifteen years they are still waiting for the trees PG&E promised. They still have not gotten them so how can they believe in PG&E. Ms. Hanney said they will do what they want unless they are caught now in the beginning before they start. She said there are both one and two story homes, mostly two. Ms. Bjurman said she would look into what conditions were imposed when the substation was installed. Ms. Hanney said the trees are not a protection and the fence is not high enough. Ms. Bjurman said it is an eight foot sound wall. Ms. Hanney said she doesn't trust PG&E. She had gone through so much and they did nothing. Mr. McKinnon pointed out that PG&E will keep truck movement between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.. They do respond to emergencies as usual. He said they will work with staff on researching what PG&E's commitment was in the past and will comply. He said that the only things that would preclude planting trees in the back of the lot were overhead lines and an underground conductor. When asked if PG&E has an active program to talk PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10,1994 Page 7 to their neighbors, Mr. McKinnon said they did not. Com. Doyle suggested that maybe communication would help. Mr. McKinnon said it would be possible Mr. Cowan said the City has a night time delivery ordinance and the same hours should be applied in this case. Staff clarified that the ERC's concerns regarding one truck a day were related to concerns about traffic on Blaney. Com. Doyle said he was willing to go with two trucks and he would like PG&E to work with the neighbors. Com. Roberts agreed. He said the project is very much in the public interest. He said the City should require that PG&E plant a line of trees if this condition had not been previously imposed. Com. Harris said she thinks this is a wonderful idea. She said she would like to see a ten hour window for the trucks on site and would like to see PG&E's previous commitment honored. Mr. Hanney asked if there was going to be any feedback trom PG&E as to the planting of shrubbery. Chair Mahoney stated that there will be follow up on previous conditions. Ms. Bjurman said she would get names and phone numbers so that all interested parties could be contacted. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Doyle moved to recommend granting of a Negative Declaration. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Austin Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 12-U-90 (Modified) subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with condition 2 of the model resolution modified to state that two tube trailers may be allowed to use the site in a 24 hours period of time, and that a condition be added stating the use of the site must conform to the requirements of the nighttime delivery ordinance. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Austin 6. Application No.(s): 3-EXC-94 PLANNING COMMI~,!ì,ION MINUT£S October 10, 1994 Page 8 Applicant: Property Owner: Location: TW International Investment Corp. Mao-Hsin Liu 21680 Rainbow Court EXCEPTION to construct a new residence on slopes greater than 30% and on a prominent ridgeline in accordance with Section 19.40.050 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED City Planner Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report. In answer to Commissioners' questions, she said the grading is within regulations and she clarified why the exception is required: 30% slope and building on a ridgeline. Staff also answered questions regarding the following items: · Amount of house on slopes greater than 30% - 487 sq. ft. · Reflectivity of colors - some concern about light colors above ridgeline · Backdrop - some hills, there is a ridgeline behind the house Tony Wong, 21680 Rainbow Court, applicant, said he is the designer of the house, which will be on a vacant lot of approximately .87 acre which was subdivided in 1979. It was rezoned residential hillside for one residence. The applicant discovered that 88% of the total lot area is part of a minor prominent ridgeline. The 12% buildable area is located on slopes of 30-50% which slopes down to a very steep cliff. Mr. Wong stated that it is hazardous and unsafe to site the residence on such an area. The applicant is asking for am exception to build on a minor ridgeline. There is a higher ridgeline behind it. The proposed two story residence is located in the middle of four houses. The two story houses are higher than the proposed residence, the others are split level. Mr. Wong referred to diagrams of neighboring houses. He said he had designed this house so that it is on three levels. with the garage embedded in the hillside and the first level wrapped around the site. Only the bedroom wing is visible on the ridgeline. From the east side only the second level is visible. The house is blocked from the north and west sides by the other residences. Driving up Rainbow, you can only see the third level on the ridgeline. Mr. Wong said it will appear as a one story house. He said he had chosen grays and browns to camouflage and compliment the surrounding colors of ground and vegetation. By means ofthe colors and design, the impact on the ridgeline is minimized. Mr. Wong said he had no problem with the staffs recommendations of less reflective colors, lowering the turret, moving the pool, using landscaping for screen, and reducing the house size. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 9 David Phipps, 21700 Rainbow Court, an adjacent property owner, said he objected to this house. It is too big and should not be on the ridgeline. The house would look down on his property. He said we can't be putting three stories on ridgelines. Donald Van Buren, 21660 Rainbow Court, said he would like to see the house a little bit lower and not have a prominent position on the ridge. George Royer, 11800 Upland Way, said the house would dominate his property. He was concerned that it is too much on the ridgeline. Mr. Wong said the house is 14.5 ' above the prominent ridge. However, this is the only way to design the house to fit on the property unless they build a two story monster house on the flat part. He repeated that he had designed the house so it hugs around the site. Only one neighbor can see three stories, and this can be mitigated by planting shade trees. The others will perceive a single story house. Ms. Wordell said the garage is included in the square footage. Staff is suggesting that the house be reduced to 5,000 sq. ft. excluding the garage. This is similar to the approach taken on an earlier approved project, and the garage is buried. Com. Doyle said one of his concerns is the turret. He would like to see the designer minimize the impact on surrounding neighbors. The landscaping needs improvement as well. He said he would like them to try to minimize the three story impact. Maybe the garage can be moved. Com. Roberts said that with four houses already built and the topography of the site, he saw no choice. He agreed regarding minimizing the impact. He said he would like to see the size of the house reduced to 5,000 sq. ft., and there should be some condition which requires the shielding of the garage from the downhill neighbors. He said there is no way to assure that landscaping will be effective in mitigating the problem. No landscaping plan was submitted, and Com. Roberts said this is a defect of the proposal. He said it would be difficult to comment on colors without a photo of the site. Com. Roberts said he was in agreement with the 5,000 sq. ft. size without the garage if the garage can be shielded so it's not a visible mass. Ms. Wordell said that the video crew films at the sites of all applications. Perhaps Commissioners could view those videos. Com. Harris said if this were the first or second house, she would be opposed, but since it is the last it doesn't seem right to preclude it. She said it looks as though the developer has tried to minimize impacts, and he seems willing to make all the changes proposed by staff. She said she would like the item continued pending a report that reflects all the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 10 changes mentioned, including reduction of the height of the turret and entrance - how it is done and what it would look like. She said she would like to see how the project looks with the changes, including a landscaping plan and with the 300 sq. ft. removed. Mr. Wong said he had no objection to a continuance to November 14. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Doyle moved to continue the item to November 14. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Austin RECESS: 9:01-9:14 P.M. 7. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 18-U-85 (Modified) and 28-EA-94 Apple Computer, Inc. Cupertino Union School District 10253 Portal Avenue USE PERMIT to construct a 960 sq. ft. classroom adjacent to an existing school. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED City Planner Wordell presented the staff report. Jacki June Horton, I Infinite Loop, representing Apple Computer, added that the original proposal for a day care center, Phase 11 was to be located on the adjacent 3 acres to the north. That was a land lease Apple had with Cupertino Union School District. In 1991 they renegotiated with CUSD and no longer lease that property. It is unlikely that they would again lease the property. Instead they are maximizing the use of the property they are on. There is ,more outdoor play area than they need. The area is not used. The current plan will use the whole back yard area and open up a portion of it that is currently fenced off. She said while their ratios are lower than required, it is hard to predict exactly how many children in any age group would be attending. For economics and flexibility and the realities of child care, they think it is appropriate to set the nwnber of children at 85. In answer to questions regarding parking, Ms. Horton said she is a parent too and has visited at various times of day and has always found a parking place. When there is a meeting or a party parking sometimes overflows. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 11 Sonja J. Shurr, Cupertino Union School District, 10301 Vista Drive, said this was originally an II acre site with Portal School on the other end. When the Nan Allen site was developed, it was a two acre site. The actual play area and buildings were on one acre. The four additional parking places come from the drop off spaces. State licensing does not allow parents to drop children off. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration. Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Austin Com. Harris moved to approve Application 18-U-85 (Modified), subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing, with Condition 2 of the model resolution modified to real 85 instead of 80 students. Com. Roberts Passed. 4-0-1 Com. Austin Mr. Cowan announced that the Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed with 14 calendar days. OLD BUSINESS 9. Report to City Council: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 81, 156 and 9-EA-94 City of Cupertino Citywide Amending various sections of Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside Zones, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, including regulations for flat yard area, second story off- sets and house size. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: l-Z-94 and 2-EA-94 City of Cupertino West Foothills of Cupertino REZONING various hillside properties encompassing 185 net acres In the Regnart Canyon Area. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 7,1994 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT£S October 10, 1994 Page 12 CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 Mr. Cowan presented the staff recommendation dated October 10. Chair Mahoney asked staff if their recommendation meant going back to allowing one large animal for the first 40,000 sq. feet and one additional for each 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. Cowan said that in reality most of the properties in Regnart Canyon are not allowed to have horses. With the RHS zoning they could. Saratoga's ordinance is more restrictive, allowing one horse per acre. The AI-43 zone allows 3 horses no matter what the size of the property. Mr. Cowan said another issue is that some of the Canyon residents have agricultural practices that are commercial in nature. Planning Commission has said they would like those activities regulated. Mr. Cowan asked Commission to briefly touch on what had previously been discussed since some people here tonight weren't aware of that meeting. Liz Winegar and Jessica Evans, 11741 Regnart Canyon Drive, said they attend Kennedy Junior High School. They have horses and are concerned about the City taking away this privilege. They described their horses and the awards and training. They said they don't understand why large animals are such a concern when Commission should be more concerned about speeding on Regnart Road. Ms. Winegar said she had to give up one horse because even though they have a six-stall barn and an acre of pasture, they re limited to three horses. They said they want others to have the chance of training, riding and caring for a horse. They suggested allowing four large animals for the first acre and two for each additional acre. Jim Black, 11691 Regnart Canyon Drive, said that he had put together a survey and '. distributed it with a letter. He said he had received a packet from the City regarding tonight's meeting but did not think anyone else had received it. He said before discussions go toq far, it should be in everybody's hands. Regarding horses, there was a proposal brought in as result of the previous meeting. He said he thought it was more reasonable to use the Woodside model than the Saratoga model and talked about 4H which he does not see addressed in staffs recommendation. There is nothing about goats, sheep or chickens which he would categorize as small animals. In regard to agriculture, his neighbor has grapes. He said that in the interest of a more accurate response, we need to get the information into everyone's hands. He said that he had surveyed 80, had 30 responses, 28 yes, and 2 in favor of no regulation. He suggested adding new categories on the chart to include Woodside's ordinance, 4H and smaller animals. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT£S October 10, 1994 Page 13 Mr. Cowan clarified the "grandfathering" issue. Exhibit A is a comparison of what would be allowed under various zoning scenarios. Mr. Black said there could only be about six more homes built in the Canyon. He said he thinks the ànswer is somewhere between what the residents propose and the RHS ordinance. The RHS zoning is more restrictive than their proposal. He said they are asking for one more shot at this, and that the information be given to everyone who is interested and they make a logical proposal. He said that maybe RHS is logical for uniform zoning throughout the City. If this zoning is going to be applied to Lindy Lane and other areas, they should be notified. Com. Harris said it came up because they are going section by section to rezone. Regnart Canyon input will affect other areas. Mr. Black stated that some people left at 9:00 p.m. There is a range of peoples viewpoints. Some of them think they should be able to have tennis courts. Mr. Black suggested that the residents get the information from staff, go back and meet, and come back with a matrix. One of their questions has been why do anything since it's worked well over the years. He considered that a fair question. He said he was sure there were reasons. He said he thinks the residents are pretty focused. Com. Roberts said that if the Commission going to go into this again he would like to see erosion evaluated. In general the soils report said the grazing capacity should not exceed one horse per acre. Mr. Black said that Contra Costa Parks Department enters into contracts with ranchers to have animals graze to keep brush down. He said he does not think erosion is a serious problem; sheep and goats grazing is not a major issue. Tom Winegar, 11741 Regnart Canyon Drive, said he is Elizabeth's father. He thanked the Commission for hearing them again. He said he had polled his neighbors and held. meetings. Most seem to be unanimously in favor of what we are doing. He said that if they are willing to spend lots of money for property they should have the intelligence and ability to take care of it. He said the number of horses in the area is decreasing. He estimated there are 50. He said we are not talking about a big problem. The horses are not grazing, they are fed hay. He showed slides of various Regnart Road properties to show the Commission what areas with horses look like and how they are cared for. He said it is difficult to find the Canyon from the valley. He said he and his neighbors are concerned about why they can't have the freedom to keep horses the way they want to. He said he had lived in the area since 1949, and spoke of the agricultural heritage. Mr. Winegar said he and his neighbors would be giving up the freedom to make a decision PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 14 that only they can make. He believed that this is an individual property type of decision and that most of the problems can be solved. Com. Harris said she thought everyone was missing the point of the issue and that no one will be deprived of anything if RHS goes into effect. Mr. Winegar said that he believes grandfathering is more of a waving of hands that can disappear. He wants to know that forever he would have agricultural privilege on that property. He said he loves his heritage and wants to propagate it. He said that if he had to give up his horses because of being crippled, the new regulations would not allow his son to have horses. Mr. Winegar said the point is that it is on their deeds now, and they don't want it changed and that maybe even more reasonable consideration can take place. Dick Randall , 22348 Regnart Road, said he has been here at meetings for the last three years and believed that the Regnart ridge area has been chosen to be the model for whatever changes will be made in the hillsides. He said he purci].ased in Cupertino because of the rural life style and built his home to enjoy views of the hillsides and the Bay. In his opinion the area has not changed much, but if you listen to the people who live in the valley the hills are changing. Mr. Randall said he owns more than one horse and is doing some training on his property. Deer graze and water on their property. After he bought horses he came to the City with an application to build a bam. In the process the property was rezoned RHS' The current RHS zoning says one horse per 40,000 sq. ft. The picture Commission had seen earlier was of his bam. What has this meant for his family? He said they have a business in Sacramento, have had foals born in their bam, and kids have come to see a baby horse. He said his frustrations began when the City wanted to merge lots. Now the City is asking what difference does it make if we grandfather you in? Mr. Randall said the difference is he wants the law to say that he and his kids can keep seven horses in their bam. He said he does not want to face the uncertainty. He described the cleaning and maintenance of his property, and he said the Wine gars have had six horses for years and there is no evidence of erosion. He said they feed their horses, they don't graze. Mr. Randall described the grazing capacity on his ranch in Montana. He asked the Commission to consider something that works. Four horses on an acre might seem like a lot. One horse an acre is unjust. He would like the opportunity to talk about a reasonable program. Terry Buck, 214 Ahwanee Avenue, Sunnyvale, said she is a responsible horse owner who rides in the Canyon and hills. She brings her own hay in and hauls manure out once a week. The horses are well taken care of. She said horse owners enjoy Regnart Canyon and enjoy riding. She said she stands behind the people who spoke here tonight. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 15 Following discussion, Mr. Cowan stated that staff will reorganize the exhibit to include other cities, 4H and similar organizations and an exception for educational situations, and will differentiate between domestic pets and other animals. Com. Harris said that a soils report was submitted in the last packet and she would like it included again. Chair Mahoney said consideration of applying the RHS zoning was not because of animal issues but because of the building of large homes in the hills. In regard to house size, he said that at the last meeting Commission had discussed a sliding scale beginning at 5,000 sq. ft. for one acre with a 6,500 sq. ft. cap for lots over five acres. In regard to slopes, Mr. Cowan said that if it is an issue, property owners would have to hire an engineer to determine an accurate slope measurement before they could do anything else. He clarified that if an applicant wants to subdivide, the steepness must be considered. There is no steepness factor for single lots. Chair Mahoney polled Commissions members as to use of the slope factor. Commissioners Harris and Roberts were in favor; they felt it was necessary because of the many variables in lot size and slope, and would give applicants guidelines up front. Com Doyle said he didn't want the slope factor to be a break point for Commission to review a project. There are some proposals he would want to review regardless of slope. Com. Roberts said there a lot of other criteria that would trigger review. Chair Mahoney stated that the recommended alternate is C3. Com. Harris said that as long as the item is being continued, she would like to look at other alternates. Chair Mahoney opened the meeting to the public for input regarding house size. Mr. Black asked for clarification of what triggers review by the Planning Commission Chair Mahoney explained that what the City is trying to do with hillside zoning in general is put some proscriptive things in so the Commission doesn't see every item. There will also have to be some house size standards. Mr. Black stated the opinion that the slope consideration will complicate the process. Com. Harris said the slope issue comes up on small lots. You can usually can find a place on larger lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 16 Mr. Black said the chart is intimidating and inquired about the timing for he and his neighbors to come back to Commission Mr. Cowan said it would be at least November 14. Com. Roberts said the C-3 alternate does not correspond to what Commission discussed at their last meeting. Dick Randall talked about Mr. Doyle's proposal that a 6,500 sq. ft. cap would mean it has to come back to the Planning Commission. He said his sleep would have been better if Commission had said that three months ago. Com. Doyle said it is implied that if you go over 6,500 or whatever cap you have to have findings to be able to do that. Com. Harris said she is ambivalent that five acres is the right size. She said she would like to see three acres on a chart too. Com. Roberts said maybe the slope penalty is too severe Com. Doyle said maybe if the regulation read that any house that breaks the plane of the slope by over 10 or 15 ft. needs to be reviewed by the Commission, it might help keep the visual impact down. Com. Harris said she did not want the Commission to review everything, but slope matters. In answer to questions about why Council had sent this back to the Commission, Mr. Cowan said it was primarily for them to look at animals but they had asked the Commission to include house size again as well. Chair Mahoney said Commission has a lot of data from the previous meeting. He said he would like to try to keep it simple. Com. Doyle said he thought keeping controls in place would keep it simple. Chair Mahoney asked staff if there is a practical issue around slope. Mr. Cowan said he thinks the sliding penalty for slope steepness will not ensure a good looking house; design control is required. If Commission is aiming lor smaller houses regardless of design, the sliding slope scale is the way to go. He said there can be a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 17 sliding FAR scale, that is, have a lower FAR as the lot gets bigger. Staff can come back with two different approaches, one with the steepness penalty and one without the penalty. Regarding visibility, Mr. Cowan said there are two primary mechanisms in place to control it: 1. You can't go over 30 ft. as measured parallel to the existing slope. 2. The other has to do with the offset. Commission gave direction to staff as follows: There needs to be a sliding scale. We know it crosses at an acre at 5,000 sq. ft. Need models, one at three acres and one at five, then give slope adjustments. See what other jurisdictions are doing regarding slopes and penalties. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved to continue the item to November 14. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Austin 10. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-EXC-93 Lotus Development & Constr., Inc. Lotus Development & Constr., Inc. 22801 San Juan Road EXCEPTION to construct a new residence on a substandard lot in accordance with Section 19.40.050 of the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Director of Community Development Cowan presented the staff report. Barre Barnes, applicant, stated that this is a pipeline project. He showed a computer montage of views from 1. Stevens Creek and Foothill without the house. 2. Cordova and Santa Lucia without the house. 3. Cordova and Santa Lucia with the house before he lowered it 2.5 feet. 4. Melissa looking up at the site. 5. Melissa with the house. He said he has lowered the entire house three feet and explained how the plans have been changed with the master bedroom moved under the garage. He said the ridgeline is much higher than the site and presented slides showing the location of the house relative to the prominent ridgeline. Mr. Barnes said that the architect brought projections of the roof out to break up the mass, moved the bedroom and did away with one bathroom. He described the grading that would be done to shield the neighbors. He said the house would be on the side of a mountain, not on a prominent ridgeline. Colors have been changed, and he said he thought he had met all the requirements that City Council asked PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 18 him to. Mr. Barnes described the design of the drainage system which will catch all surface and flat plane water and carry it off. Mr. Cowan said there might be a way to lower the house some more. Ron Pasari, 22776 Mercedes Road said he is not against a house on this property. He is concerned with the house size and how it relates to the slope, the visible mass, stepping back and the ridgeline. He said these issues had not been appropriately addressed by the developer, and the neighbors are now reacting to a proposal they haven't even seen because it was just made today. Mr. Pasari read a letter ITom himself, Charles Williams, Donna and Frank Dicker and Robert and Nancy Wulff into the record. He said they would be more than happy to discuss any compromise with Mr. Barnes. Mr. Pasari added personal comments, stating that a lot has been said about pipeline projects. He said he can understand that Mr. Bames made an investment when certain regulations did not exist. However, he is a spec builder and as such takes certain risks. The fact that is it a pipeline project does not justify sacrificing all the regulations. Mr. Pasari said if you look at the color of the existing house it does not melt into the hillside. He said he thinks there should be some guidelines on the colors and that no matter what kind of house is approved Mr. Barnes should be required to put in landscaping to shield the view of the house from neighbors. He said you can see into his bedroom from Mr. Barnes' property. He invited the Commission members to visit the site and said that one Council member had visited and was moved by what he saw. Mr. Pasari answered questions, stating that going from 4,600 to 4,000 sq. ft. would reduce the impact of the house. He said the neighbors are saying that what Mr. Barnes is trying to do is too much and impacts what they have invested in. He asked what about the neighbors' pipeline? Mr. Pasari expressed a preference for an alternative to using fill at that location. Robert Wulff, 22780 Mercedes Road, said his house is right below the garage of the proposed house. He said he basically agreed with what had been said. If the house were lowered five feet there would be a level back yard and no fill would be necessary. He said the neighbors tried to come up with a house size that would be reasonable relative to the rest of houses in neighborhood. He said what he would like to see Commission do is recommend to staff and the developer that they try to get closer to what the neighbors are asking for. Frank Dicker, 22790 Mercedes Road asked if nothing had been changed would the Council be saying that the public would not have had any voice? Commission answered yes. He said the pictures are good unless you did not know about real estate. He said he cannot see any room to put another house. He said that a layman can't relate to the USGA map and the map isn't relative to the proposed house. Mr. Dicker said he and his PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1994 Page 19 neighbors are looking for reasonableness. He thinks their proposals are fair. They have come up with these suggestions without having an opportunity to talk to Mr. Barnes. Mr. Barnes said the fill was placed to help shield the view of the house from neighbors. Soils engineers and geologists were there. It was added to help the impact from the neighbors' back yards. He said the architect did call neighbors and asked if he could answer questions. Mr. Barnes said he has been trying to work it out with staff and everyone else. Mr. Pasari said he thinks the assumption on Mr. Cowan's part is that a lot of money has been spent on this design. He wished that Mr. Barnes had met with the neighbors earlier. In his opinion, the proposed plan violates spirit and intent of rules and that there are merits to going back and starting from scratch. Com. Harris said she does not think the changes Council asked for have been made. She said she thinks more lowering is possible and that the house size needs to be reduced. Com. Roberts said it was hard to distinguish between the old and new plans. He said he is opposed to the use of fill that disturbs a natural contour in order to mask a massive house. Com. Doyle said the applicant still needs to work on stepping it back and reducing the height. Regarding the fill he said he isn't qualified to judge whether it will cause problems. Commission discussed ways the current plan could be modified. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to continue this item to the next meeting, applicant to meet with neighbors and staff and come back with a plan for consideration. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Austin SECOND: . VOTE: ABSENT: NEW BUSINESS Clerk's note: At 12:04 a.m., Com. Roberts left. II. Request to set a public hearing for a rezoning of various hillside properties in the Inspiration Heights area from RI-7.5, RI-IO and RI-40 to RHS located in various hillside locations in the Inspiration Heights area generally bounded by Voss PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT£S October 10, 1994 Page 20 Avenue, Alcalde Road, Santa Lucia Road, San Juan Road and Stevens Canyon Road. MOTION: SECOND: YOTE: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved that the item be considered at the second meeting in January Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Austin 12. Review of Santa Clara County Draft General Plan. City Planner Wordell said Planning Commission is invited to the City Council meeting on October 17 to consider this item. MOTION: SECOND: YOTE: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved to schedule to attend October 17 City Council meeting. Com. Doyle Passed 3-0-2 Austin and Roberts Chair Mahoney stated that the Commission is considering the Stevens Creek Plan and the Diocese and needs to focus on big issues. Com. Harris said the time limits must be enforced no matter how many items are on the agenda. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEYELOPMENT Com. Harris asked for more information regarding Item 3, City Center Associates and asked if permit streamlining will be talked about. Mr. Cowan said right now the thrust is to streamline the building permit application process. Com. Harris said the City needs to maintain its commitment to safety and community impact. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None. ADJOURNMENT - At 12:16 a.m., the meeting was ad'ourned to 6:45 p.m., October II.