Loading...
PC 06-13-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3182 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 13, 1994. ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL commissioners Present: vice Chr. Doyle Com. Austin Com. Roberts Com. Harris commissioners Absent: Com. Mahoney Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of community Development ciddy Wordell, city Planner colin Jung, Associate Planner Thomas Robillard, Planner II Michele Bjurman, Planner II APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES May 23, 1994, Regular Meeting May 25, 1994, Regular Adjourned Meeting. Com. Austin amended the minutes of May 23, 1994 as follows: 1. Page 1, commissioners Present should be included after councilmembers Present. Com. Harris amended the minutes of May 23, 1994 as follows: 1. Page 6, 5th paragraph should read "Com. Harris stated a two story home is acceptable, but the lack of reduction of the length and width of the home is her main concern. Chr. Mahoney concurred. 2. Page 8, 6th paragraph should read "The commissioners discussed which signs they would approve and Com. Harris suggested approving the monument sign, the logo sign on the west and one set of signs on either the south or east elevation to include Boston Chicken and the logo." 3. Page 8, Motion, add the words "a maximum of" before "36 inches high." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 2 4. Page 11, 6th paragraph, last sentence should read "Regarding the property at I-280 and stelling, she would support rezoning to medium to high density, as per the staff report." 5. Page 13, Report of the Planning Commission, 3rd paragraph, change the word "that" to "as to which". MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of May 23, 1994, as amended Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of May 25, 1995, as presented Com. Harris Passed 3-0-2 Com. Roberts Com. Mahoney WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No discussion POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR Item 2: Application Associates renotice. 7-U-94 and 14-EA-94: cupertino citv Center D Remove from Calendar and Direct to Planning Director Cowan stated Item #7, application 4-TM-94, should be continued to July II, 1994 as it was noticed incorrectly. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to continue item #7 to the meeting of July 11, 1994. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney Com. Austin moved to remove item 2 from the calendar and direct to renotice Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Application No: Applicant: 7-ASA-94 Symantec Corp. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 3 Property Owner: Location: Lincoln properties 10201 Torre Avenue Installation of a satellite antenna on roof. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved to approve the Consent Calendar Com. Austin Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 . 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. staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report and noted this item was continued from May 9th to allow staff time to return with additional information and suggestions regarding the regulation of house size in relation to the size and slope of a lot. He noted lot area zoning designations, maximum graded flat yard area and second story off-set were discussed at the last hearing. The consensus of the Commission for those three issues was that staff's proposed language was acceptable. Planner Robillard reviewed the Floor Area Ratio Standards and the Slope Adjustment as outlined in the staff report. He noted an issue brought to staff's attention is the fact that some lots in Regnart Canyon are zoned Al which allows more animals than allowed in the RHS zone. He stated that any concerns regarding this issue should be brought up at this time. Planner Robillard stated staff recommends that the Planning commission approve the three issues discussed previously. He pointed out that requiring a slope analysis places greater burden on the homeowner, and may be perceived as decreasing the level of public service to the residents of cupertino. Com. Austin questioned the city of Woodside's Development Standards, as outlined in the staff report. Planner Robillard stated Woodside does not include a maximum house size. Com. Austin stated she would like to see a chart which includes lot size, slope density and buildable area. Com. Harris stated she interprets the city of Woodside's standards as prohibiting building on slopes greater than 35%. Planner PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 4 Robillard stated he would have to clarify this with the city. Planner Robillard stated that the FAR standards would not apply on slopes which are less than 10%. Com. Harris expressed concern about this as it may allow a large home on a smaller lot with a slope less than 10%. Planning Director Cowan pointed out that there is not a cap for homes in the Rl zone. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding numbers, Planner Robillard stated the numbers were prohibit further subdivision. the lot area determined to Regarding grading, Com. Harris pointed out that a developer indicated that limiting the grading to 2500 cubic yards may force a home to sit on top of the hillside instead of following the contour of the land. Planner Robillard stated this was considered and staff believes that 2500 cubic yards is a good balance. Com. Roberts stated he would favor maintaining 6500 sq. ft. He asked about excluding the language regarding footpaths around the building from the grading requirement. Planner Robillard stated footpaths would not be included in the area of calculation for grading. He noted staff felt that 1000 sq. ft. of grading was highly restrictive and they are proposing 2000 sq. ft. excluding footpaths. Com. Roberts stated he is interested in the woodside Ordinance which prohibits any disturbance on that part of a parcel which has a ground slope greater than 35%. He suggested the city of Cupertino's Ordinance have a similar cap. Planner Robillard pointed out that building on slopes 30% or greater is not allowed without seeking an exception. Planning Director Cowan stated the origin of this ordinance was developed in the 70' s with the hillside plan. He noted three ranges of slope density formula was developed. He added the city's Geologist, the applicant's geologist and engineer will decide the best location for a structure and the roads. He stated this is reviewed at the sub-division level. In response to Com. Doyle's question regarding lots which do not have a lot size number, Planner Robillard stated some lots would not be given a lot number designation until they are subdivided. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 5 Regarding site grading, Planner Robillard stated any area which will be graded should be limited as much as possible around the building footprint. vice Chr. Doyle opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Michael Bruner, 1144 Derbyshire, stated when doing a subdivision the primary issue is the size of the home and noted house size should not be limited on flat lots. He stated there should be a compromise. He noted a 6500 sq. ft. house on a 20,000 sq. ft. lot is not very big if designed properly, especially on a flat lot. He suggested starting at 10,000 sq. ft. and then doing deductions which would be more reasonable. He added the slope reductions are well warranted. Com. Roberts questioned the drainage area? Mr. Bruner stated the commission has limited the amount of building area and does not believe the drainage will be a significant problem. Mr. Robert Bigler, 11230 Bubb Road, stated no-one really knows what a 20 or 30% slope is. He believes that a 30% slope is acceptable to build on. Com. Doyle asked how many potential lots are affected by the slope restrictions on the house size? Planner Robillard stated it will have a significant impact. The public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Com. Doyle stated there are three specific areas to be discussed FAR, maximum flat area and second story setbacks. Com. Roberts stated there was the question about the 6500 sq. ft. cap. Com. Harris stated she would like to see a FAR slope adjustment chart for the city and it should be applicable for flat lots as well. She would also like to see maximum house restrictions based on lot size in all areas. She expressed concern about no residential cap except in the RHS zone and believes a maximum cap is needed in all zone areas. Planner Robillard stated slopes were taken determine lot sizes. He added on the workplan Commission will revise the Rl ordinance. into account to for next year the Com. Harris stated the second story off-set and maximum flat yard area is acceptable as proposed by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 6 Com. Roberts stated there should be an absolute maximum on house size and would be open to discussion regarding a lower number than 6500 sq. ft. He stated a lO% slope is a substantial slope, but the right place to start, and added a 1/4 acre lot in the RHS zone is a small lot and believes there should be provisions down to the smallest lot in the RHS zone. He noted the setback provisions are acceptable as is the 2000 sq. ft. flat yard area. He stated the footpaths should be included in the 2000 sq. ft. Com. Roberts stated he would like to incorporate that portion of the Woodside ordinance which discusses ground slopes in excess of a certain percent should not be altered in anyway. Com. Austin stated she would like to see a FAR chart vs. the slope adjustment chart. Second story setbacks are acceptable as is the 2000 sq. ft. flat yard area, but should include the footpaths. She expressed concern about the 6500 sq. ft. cap on house size, and concurred with Com. Roberts regarding a smaller number. She noted the 2500 cubic yards of grading seems high, but she would accept this. Com. Doyle stated the FAR and Slope Adjustments are acceptable. He noted the 6500 sq. ft. home is not a concern to him as much as the massing and visibility of a home. Maximum grading of 2000 sq. ft. is acceptable, but he expressed concern about the second story setbacks. He stated he would like to see more of a step back look to reduce the mass. Com. Doyle pointed out that open space is not included in the lot size and is concerned about this. Planning Director Cowan stated in a clustered development a certain percentage of this property must be keep undeveloped. Com. Harris concurred with the Com. Roberts regarding the Woodside Ordinance, no building on areas which have greater than a 35% slope. She questioned how the average slope is determined and the buildable area? Planner Robillard stated if the average grade is greater than 30% this would be calculated in the slope adjustment, but the applicant could build on areas which are less than 30%. The maximum flat yard area was discussed, Com. Harris suggested allowing 2500 sq. ft. to include the footpaths. The Commissioners briefly discussed the maximum house size, Com. Harris suggested 5000 sq. ft. on 1 acre lots and 6500 sq. ft. on larger lots after the slope adjustment. Com. Doyle stated the FAR gives the maximum sq. ft. of a house allowed on a lot size, then it is restricted by the slope PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 7 adjustment. He believes this is restrictive enough. He noted if this is not acceptable they could set a smaller number as a cap. The Commission voted on the following: 1. Maximum flat area: 2,000 sq. ft. to include the footpaths around the building. (3-1 Harris No) 2. Second story setbacks acceptable as proposed by staff. (4-0) 3. Maximum slope not to exceed 30%. (4-0) 4. FAR and Slope Adjustment acceptable. (4-0) 5. 5000 sq. ft. cap on a home in RHS zone. (4-0) MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to recommend approval of a Negative Declaration Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney Com. Austin moved to approve application 8l,156 subject the findings and subconclusions of the hearing to include the points addressed above. Com. Roberts Passed 3-1-1 Com. Harris Com. Mahoney 4. 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. Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Jung presented the staff report noting this was a city initiated zoning application. He noted to implement hillside protection policies as written in the General Plan the City has recently adopted two zoning ordinances, open space and a revised RHS ordinance. Mr. Jung gave a brief background history of the Regnart Canyon area and reviewed the proposed zoning for the properties in this area and pointed out changes made by staff. He noted a number of residents living in the Al zone are concerned about how the new zoning regulations will affect them. Mr. Jung reviewed the zoning Comparison Matrix AI, Rl and RHS, A and OS. He pointed out that uses which are legal before the zone change will be considered legal non-conforming uses. Mr. Jung stated staff recommends approval of the changes in zoning districts for Regnart Canyon from AI-Agricultural Residential, RHS- Residential Hillside, RI-Sing1e Family Residential to RHS- Residential Hillside and from A-Agriculture to OS-open Space. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 8 Com. Harris stated there is no requirement regarding construction in the A or OS zone along a ridgeline. Associate Planner Jung stated a Use Permit is required for construction in the open space zone and the ridgeline issue will be addressed at that time. He noted the only piece of property which is zoned agriculture is owned by the Homeowners Association which is restricted to private open space. Mr. Cowan stated the open space was set aside to meet the density requirement. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Tom Winegar, 11741 Regnart Canyon Dr., stated there is a history of agriculture on his property and he would like this to continue. He stated if they change zoning they will have a legal non-conforming use and it is harder to sell. Mr. Winegar addressed the 4-H organizations within this city which also involves his property and noted the importance of these. He stated the Al zoning should be left as is. He stated a resident from the Hillsides should be included in the discussions with staff and the Planning commission. Associate Planner Jung stated staff believes that all hillside properties should be subject to the development regulations in the RHS zoning ordinance, but they do understand the animal issue. Regarding the animals, Mr. Jung stated the larger the lot the more animals a property owner can have. He noted one suggestion from the city of Woodside ordinance was to exclude animals which are raised over a limited period of time for educational purposes. Mr. winegar stated the concern about changing from Al zone to RHS is that the purpose of the Al zone is to conduct agriculture, e.g. a vineyard, and the purpose of RHS is for residential. Mr. Jeffrey Libby, 7984 Folkestone Dr., stated he walks on Regnart and his kids ride horses in this area and it has the feel and flavor of a rural atmosphere. He stated he would not like this area to be rezoned and his family and friends concur. He noted if this ordinance is passed, a conditional use permit will be required to raise a particular type of crop or animal and it will make life more problematic for the property owner. Mr. Cowan stated crops cannot be grown for commercial use in RHS zones, but a conditional use permit would be required for more animals. He pointed out that the commission adopted the General Plan one year ago and these changes are implementing the General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 paqe 9 Mr. Jung pointed out that there are existing restrictions for people living in Regnart Canyon. Ms. Jane Riley, 22000 Regnart Rd., stated her property has always had animals on it and she would like to keep this option. She noted she has raised animals for 4-H projects as well as food. She stated she is concerned about changing the outlook of the canyon with the changes proposed. She added the more restrictions the more difficult it will be to have animals and there should be no limitation on the number of animals allowed. She stated the zoning should be left as is. Mr. Jung addressed the animal issue raised by previous speakers. He suggested sending a Minute Order to the City Council indicating that this issue came up after making the recommendation on the RHS zoning ordinance and ask them to modify it to include more liberal regulations regarding animal keeping for certain properties in the RHS zoning ordinance. He stated his concern would be, if this is done any other area zoned RHS may also be allowed to have animals. Ms. Chris Martinez, 11331 Bubb Rd., noted she keeps animals on Jane Riley's property, is involved in the 4-H programs and brings school groups to this property to see the animals. She suggested the Al zoning be left as is. planning Director Cowan stated properties zoned Al and changed to RHS will be legal non-conforming uses. He added if the County Health Department allow the animal activity to occur this can continue as is. He believes there is ample protection for people who have had an historical use of keeping animals on their property. Com. Roberts questioned problems with run-off from stables etc and noted over grazing can cause erosion? Ms. Matinez stated she does not see the run-off or the erosion as problems. Ms. Pat Nicholson, 21598 Flintshire st., children involved in 4-H and would like the their agricultural setting. stated she has two winegars to maintain Mr. John cougler, 22245 Canyon View, stated he has lived in the foothills for 13 years and is concerned about homes built on ridgelines with no vegetation for screening. He asked why his property was being rezoned and his neighbors was not? Mr. Jung pointed out that this is the first phase in the Hillside rezoning area and they will be looking at other areas in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 10 future. Mr. Cougler stated he would like to be involved in this process and stated the Al zoning should be left as is. The public hearing was closed. Com. Harris stated property owners be allowed to continue, so recommendations for the rezoning. who currently have animals will she would support staff's Com. Roberts stated he sees the rezoning as a necessary step for consistency with the General Plan and would urge staff to be as creative as possible regarding continued animal use on the property which has a history. Com. Roberts stated he would support the exemption as written in the woodside ordinance, as addressed by Mr. Jung earlier. Mr. Cowan pointed out that 90% of the property in Regnart canyon is zoned RHS or Rl. He suggested sending a minute order to the Council to explore the animal use. Com. Austin asked if the change from Agriculture to RHS occurs can the seven properties who house animals be allowed to continue and have a different zoning. She believes these seven properties should be recognized as special properties. City Attorney Kilian stated this would be a two step process, the General Plan would have to be amended and a new zoning ordinance would have to be created which allows residential/agricultural. Com. Doyle stated, regarding should be maintained and educational purposes. the animals, the historical precedence there should be an exemption for Mr. Cowan stated that horticultural activities would be allowed in Al zone, but the raising of animals would require a conditional use permit. He stated commercial farming operations are not allowed. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved to recommend a negative declaration Com. Austin Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney Com. Harris moved to approve application 1-Z-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing to include the changes in parcels as outlined by staff. Com. Austin Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of JUne 13, 1994 Page 11 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: ABSENT: Com. Roberts moved to send a minute order to the city council asking them to consider the preservation of agricultural uses and lifestyles in the RHS zone and in particular consideration be given to an exemption for educational activities, such as 4-H. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney Com. Austin moved to continue item #9 to the meeting of June 27, 1994 Com. Harris Denied 2-2-1 Coms. Doyle and Roberts Com. Mahoney After a brief recess Vice Chr. Doyle stated that people involved in application #9 would like a continuance at this time. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: 5. Com. Roberts moved to continue item #9 to the meeting of June 27, 1994 Com. Austin Passed 4-0-l Com. Mahoney Application No(s): Applicant: property Owner: Location: 6-EXC-93 Lotus Development & Constr. Inc. Same 2266l San Juan Road EXCEPTION to construct an addition to a residence on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with section 19.40.050 of the Municipal Code. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting this is a request for an exception on slopes greater than 30%. He noted the exception is to allow an additional 130 sq. ft. of building area. He added this is a pipeline issue and is subject to the General Plan Hillside policies. Issues to be discussed are: visible Mass - staff believes the building materials, setbacks, architectural features and colors are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Development on slopes greater than 30% - the exception is for l30 sq. ft. and staff does not believe this is significant. Grading - amount of grading is 500 cubic yards, which is much less than what is allowed. PLANNING CO~~ISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June l3, 1994 Page 12 Tree retention - arborist report indicates that a 30 inch Oak tree could be retained if protective measures are taken. Monte vista Fault - this fault runs through part of the existing house and the geologist recommends that any structure located within a 25 ft fault zone should be non-habitable. Planner Robillard stated staff recommends approval. Com. Austin stated she would like to see the arborist report. Planner Robillard stated there are trees on the lower portion of the property which will not be affected. He stated the average size of homes in the neighborhood are approximately 3,000 sq. ft. The Commission discussed the cross section of the home proposed. Planner Robillard stated the original home is approximately 1000 sq. ft. Com. Harris questioned the landscape Plan and Planner Robillard stated this project is in the Rl zone and the Rl ordinance does not requ~re a landscape plan, but the commission could request it. Planner Robillard presented slides of the existing landscaping. Mr. Robillard outlined the locations of the surrounding residences. The public hearing was opened. APplicant Presentation: Mr. Barry Barnes, Lotus Development, stated a full set of plans were presented to the city on September 5, 1991, and the structure was approved in November 1991. He stated this issue is in the pipeline and that is the reason for the exception. He stated he plans to landscape the upper section of the home. Planner Robillard pointed out the steep slopes on this property and noted the overall slope of the lot is approximately 40%. Mr. Steven Haze, 2268l San Juan Rd., stated if this house is built it will increase his property value, but has concerns about the impact on the neighborhood as a whole. Mr. Haze addressed an article in the San Jose Mercury News dated April 24, 1991 regarding Mr. Cowan's comments that oak trees would be replaced if a house was to be built. He stated he requests that as a condition of approval the three oak trees be planted. He noted he has had some vegetation removed from his property and would like a condition that construction will not flow over onto his property. He noted the slope of this property is steep. Mr. Haze expressed concern about the debris flow from this site and stated there should be some containment. Mr. Haze addressed the oak trees on the property PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 13 stating these should be designated as heritage trees. He also addressed possible construction work on the weekends and would like to know if this can be controlled? He stated there are few homes in the neighborhood which reach 3000 sq. ft. Mr. Haze addressed the affect on the wildlife as a result of the development. Mr. Bob Dahlberg, 22639 San Juan Road, stated that this proposed house is out of character for the neighborhood. He expressed concern about privacy because of the lack of trees for screening. Mr. Dahlberg addressed the period of time for construction and asked could this be controlled on weekends and expressed concern about trespassing on his property. He stated he would like the commission to consider the new slope ratios before approval and make sure that Mr. Barnes adheres to noise ordinances. In response to Com. Austin's question, Planner Robillard presented an example of this house using the new slope formulas, noting it would allow a 2700 sq. ft. house which includes the garage. Com. Roberts stated he would like to see the landscape plans and the arborist report. He believes there are grounds for concern regarding the slope, the landscaping and the tree protection issues which have been raised. Planner Robillard stated a soils report was done and has been reviewed and agreed upon by the city Geologist and Structural Engineer that the slope is stable to build a home. Regarding the trees, the Commission can write a specific condition to address their concerns. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding the newspaper article, Mr. Cowan stated the trees to be replaced were based on two lots, but in actual fact there is only one lot. Regarding drainage, propos~ng to install permit stage. Planner Robillard stated the applicant is drains and this is reviewed at the building Com. Harris suggested a condition which would protect neighbors trees during the construction. Planner Robillard stated the house is setback 10 ft. on the side, but a condition can be added that any trees in this area should be protected. He outlined the operating hours for construction during weekends. He noted the oak trees on the property are protected under the specimen tree ordinance. Mr. Barry Barnes stated privacy of neighbors will not be affected. He pointed out the existing screening on the property and noted the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June l3, 1994 paqe 14 trees will be protected. He noted any new construction within the last lO years has been close to the 3000 sq. ft. and this house is consistent with them. He noted the construction will take approximately six months and they will work weekends. Mr. Parviz Namvar, San Juan Road, stated he is in favor of the construction of this home as the existing house must be brought up- to-date. He stated there is neighborhood resentment, but believes some middle ground could be found. He pointed out that this property is in the pipeline and believes this property will bring value to the neighborhood. vice Chr. Doyle closed the pubic hearing. Com. Harris stated a condition should be added to address neighbors trees. She noted this project has been on the books since 1991 and there are homes of similar size in the neighborhood. She noted she visited the property and noted there is a need for a change. She spoke in favor of the project as long as the trees are protected. Mr. Cowan stated trees will be trimmed and in this case the arborist is suggesting that tree canopies be trimmed for view as opposed to cutting them down. Com. Roberts expressed concern about drainage, Mr. Cowan stated the Planning commission does not get involved in the drainage system for individual homes. Planner Robillard stated drainage is worked out with the city Engineer. Com. Roberts stated he would not support this project at this time, Com. Austin concurred. Com. Doyle stated this is a pipeline issue and believes the applicant has met the guidelines. He stated screening is adequate and the trees should be protected. He spoke in favor of the project with the condition that the neighbors vegetation be protected during construction. City Attorney Kilian stated it would si tuation to continue this item until present. be appropriate in a the 5th commissioner 2-2 is vice Chr. Doyle stated if this item is continued the Planning commission would like to see the soils and arborist's report, and the drainage and landscape plans. SECOND: Com. Harris moved to continue 6-EXC-93 to the meeting of July 11, 1994 and re-open the public hearing. Com. Austin MOTION: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June l3, 1994 Page 15 VOTE: ABSENT: Passed Com. Mahoney 4-0-l 6. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-EXC-93 Lotus Development & Constr., Inc. Same 2280l San Juan Road EXCEPTION to construct a new residence on a substandard lot in accordance with section 19.40.050 of the Municipal Code. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting this is another pipeline issue and the four main issues staff is concerned about are as follows: Substandard Lot Size - Based on the slope density calculations the required lot size is 37,231 sq. ft., the subject lot is 23,791 sq. ft. Development on Slopes greater than 30% - approximately 3000 sq. ft. of building and grading are going to be on slopes greater than 30%. The developer has agreed to cut back some of the grading. Roof line visibility - The house is approximately 40 ft. from a prominent ridgeline and the house is visible from the valley floor. Visible Mass - The rear elevation is large and does not have any second story off-sets. Planner Robillard presented slides of the lot in question. In response to Com. Harris' question, Planner Robillard explained how the reflectivity standard was developed. Regarding access, Planner Robillard stated it is a private road leading up to this residence and before the developer can obtain building permits he must have access to his lot. He noted this is being worked out with the adjoining neighbor. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Barry Barnes stated this project was submitted in September 1992 and has worked with the city on various changes to San Juan Rd. He stated he has been required, by the city, to put in $80,000 worth of storm sewers on Cordova which has been done. He noted the average slope of the lot is 27.2%, but part of the house is sitting on a 30% slope. He stated to reduce grading they have set the house into the contour of the land. He noted minimal grading has been done on the site. He stated the house was designed under the old guidelines and met all the requirements. He stated there has been money and time already PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 16 spent on this project and it is in the pipeline issue. He believes that the ridgeline issue, as addressed by staff is not an issue. Mr. James Efting, 415 S. Murphy Avenue, Sunnyvale, stated he is an attorney representing the paviso family who built the private road Mr. Barnes is using to get to his property. He stated they have no objection to the proposed construction, but the concern is that access is still a problem and until an agreement is reached, Mr. Barnes is using the paviso' s private property. He added this project should not be approved until the access problem is resolved. city Attorney Kilian stated as long as there is the question of access the Planning Commission could either defer or deny this application or make a positive recommendation on the condition that the easement is required. Ms. Donna Dicker, 22790 Mercedes Road, stated her and her husband are not in favor of granting this exception because of the instability of the site and the drainage. She addressed landslides in the area and expressed concern about the impact this house would have on the environment and the surrounding community. She stated the lot is substandard and therefore believes the exemption should not be granted. She added a retaining wall was replaced on her property because of drainage problems. Mr. Robert Wulff, 22780 Mercedes Road, presented pictures to the Commission showing the slide area in this location. He noted the soils are very unstable. He expressed concern about the proposed home blocking out the sunlight to his home. He stated the reason for the exception is for the Planning Commission to make decisions on problem lots such as this one. Mr. Ron pasari, 22776 Mercedes Rd., stated he is representing himself and Mr. Chuck Williams. Mr. pasari presented some pictures to the commission of homes recently built in the area. Mr. pasari read a letter from Mr. Williams to the Planning commission which outl ined each photo. The letter was submitted as part of the record. Com. Roberts questioned the driveway and Planner Robillard stated the driveway was designed for both homes. Mr. Wulff expressed concern about drainage not being adequate for both lots. Mr. Morey Nelsen, 2l80l stevens Creek Blvd., stated the drainage is designed to accommodate both lots. He noted the house will be visible, but it will blend in with the hillside when the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 17 landscaping is installed, but does not believe the house sits on a ridgeline. Regarding the landsliding addressed earlier, Mr. Nelsen stated this happened because of grading on lots were it occurred. He noted Mr. Barnes has spent a significant amount of money on geotechnical studies and all agree that with the proper procedures the project will be a safe project. He noted the driveway has been designed to accommodate both projects and a retaining wall has been installed to support San Juan Road. Mr. Charles Nelson, San Juan Road, stated he is a relative of the paviso's and the only concern is that the access issue be resolved. He stated the house currently being built was built without a written agreement. He added the developer is ready to sign the agreement and the property owners have three conditions: 1. An agreement be signed for maintenance of the road. 2. After the construction is complete there is a resurfacing requirement to bring the road up to standards. 3 The paviso's be compensated for engineering fees for the retaining wall. Mr. Barnes stated the drainage problem has been taken care of. He noted soil studies have been done and everything is o. k. He reiterated that this is a pipeline issue and added the drainage is for the two lots. The public hearing was closed at 11:40 p.m. In response to Com. Roberts' question regarding the drainage system, Mr. Cowan stated the applicant was asked to build the drainage system for both lots because eventually something will get built on this lot. Planner Robillard reviewed the grading proposed and noted if the applicant does not grade the lower portion of the property the grading will be 1200 sq. ft. less. He also reviewed the portion of the house which will be seen over the ridgeline. Com. Austin spoke in support of staff's recommendation and noted she is concerned about the slope stability, visible mass, prominent ridgeline and the access issue. Com. Roberts stated he is not in support of the project as proposed because of all the issues raised above and this is a significant exception. Com. Harris stated she would support staff's recommendation. She stated she did visit the site and is concerned about the prominent ridgeline. She added visible mass and no second story setbacks are problems to the existing community. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 18 Com. Doyle spoke in support of staff's recommendations for the same reasons as other Commissioners. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to deny application 7-EXC-93 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin left at 11:55 p.m. 8. Application No: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 3-V-94 Roy & Yvonne Hampton Same 2l82l Oakview Lane VARIANCE to allow a 7 instead of approximately residential zones. ft. second story sideyard setback 10 ft. as required for single family staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report noting this is a request for a variance application. Mr. Cowan reviewed the findings to grant this variance as outlined in the staff report. He noted he reviewed the request for the variance and denied it and this is the reason for the appeal. He stated he could not make the finding that there are extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property that does not apply to others in the same zoning district. Mr. Cowan reviewed the variance requested and noted the ordinance requires a 3ft. off-set in the plans the applicant is proposing. He noted when the ordinance was adopted there was a strong desire to maintain additional setbacks for second stories. Mr. Cowan reviewed the variance the applicants were issued by the County. The public hearing was opened. APplicant Presentation: Mr. Roy Hampton, 21821 Oakview Ln., stated it is his belief that he does meet the two findings the Planning Director did not. He showed a site plan map outlining the location of his home. Mr. Hampton reviewed the reasons why his exception should be granted. He noted he was granted a variance from the County in 1978 for the addition. He noted if the addition was approved it would fix an unsightly chimney issue. Mr. Hampton showed petitions obtained from neighbors in support of the addition. He believes a wall built without the setback would be more stable. Mr. Hampton showed pictures of other homes in the area with second stories. He requested that the variance be approved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 paqe 19 Ms. Yvonne Hampton, 21821 Oakview Ln., stated if not granted the room will be too small to use. need the additional space for growing families. this variance is She stated they The public hearing was closed. Com. Harris spoke in favor of approving the variance and believes there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. She noted previously there was a second story addition approved with a 7ft setback and adding on it would seem more appropriate to continue with the 7 ft. She stated the addition will solve the chimney issue. She noted granting the variance would allow the property owner to enjoy full use of all their rooms. Com. Roberts stated he does not perceive the circumstances as exceptional or extraordinary. He stated he cannot make the finding B and noted the house could be expanded towards the center of the lot. He stated he could not support the variance as proposed. Com. Doyle stated he cannot make findings A & B to grant the variance. SECOND: VOTE: NOES: ABSENT: Com. Roberts moved to recommend denial of application ]- V-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Doyle Passed 2-1-2 Com. Harris Corns. Mahoney, Austin MOTION: NEW BUSINESS 10. Review of Kaiser Permanente Medical Center EIR - Santa Clara ci ty Planner Wordell presented the staff report and noted the purpose of this item is to give the Planning commission and city Council an opportunity to comment on the EIR for the Kaiser project in Santa Clara. She noted staff will be meeting with Santa Clara staff and she would welcome any comments from the Commissioners at this time. She reviewed the location of the project and the surrounding areas. Ms. Wordell stated the project consists of approximately 1 1/2 million square feet of buildings. She stated issues which relate to Cupertino are traffic issues, these will be discussed with Santa Clara staff. She stated a concern was that there was no mitigation proposed to deal with some of the traffic concerns. She noted parking will also be discussed. Com. Roberts asked if there is a hazardous waste facility on this site? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Page 20 vice Chr. Doyle opened the hearing for public comment. Mr. Larry Tucker, project Director, Kaiser, stated there will be no incineration on this site for hazardous waste. Com. Harris stated air quality related to traffic should be discussed. Ms. Wordell stated CMA will handle the regional issues regarding air quality. Com. Harris suggested discussing the idea of Kaiser purchasing a location to house employees and then use a shuttle to get to the medical center. She suggested expanded pick-up services for patients and would like to see something explored regarding traffic and air quality problems. Com. Roberts stated there should be more mitigation on traffic, but it will be an advantage to have a state of the art medical center located in this area. Com. Doyle expressed concern about a jobs/housing imbalance as well as transportation. He added the City should be well represented during this project approval. city Planner Wordell stated there is a consensus of the commission to discuss traffic and air quality impacts. She noted staff will be meeting with Santa Clara staff and will relay the comments from both the Planning Commission and city Council. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Com. Harris commented on the sign ordinance review and noted organizations should be able to advertise public events in the public right-of-way. She noted this is a community feeling. city Attorney Kilian stated if this is the case, the City cannot prohibit candidates running for office from putting up signs in the public right-of-way. Mr. Cowan stated this issue will be placed on the agenda in the future for discussion. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None