Loading...
PC 09-09-85 r/ CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC-474 10300 Torre Avenue,Cupertino,Ca. 95014 . Page 1 • Telephone (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMEER 9, 1985 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 7:30 . p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Com. Mackenzie Corm. Adams Com. Sorensen Vice Chr. Szabo Staff Present : Dir. of Ping. & Comty.Devel. Cowan Assistant Planning Director Piasecki City Attorney Kilian CityEngineer Whitten APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to accept the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 26, 1985 as submitted. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to continue Item #5 for two weeks. • SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) WRITTEN COMMUNI CAtIONS A letter from George Zsoka, 11247 Bubb Road regarding Agenda Item #4, to be considered at that time. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR PUELIC HEARINGS: 1. Application 12-TM-85 of DE ANZA PROPERTIES (JASON CHARTIER) : TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP to consolidate nine parcel consisting of approximately six acres into two parcels with approximately 2. 4 acres and 4 .36 acres and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the east side of Torre Avenue approximately 250 ft . south of Stevens Creek Boulevard and 250 ft . north of Rodrigues Avenue in a P (Planned Development with Commercial, Office and Residential, 15-30 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zoning district . First: Hearing continued. PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL APPROVAL. ,® I PC-474 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 9, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Cowan gave the Staff Report describing the Map as interim; 411 that in future there might have 'to be another map action. John Vidovich, for the Applicannt, disagreed. The Iines were accurate for the office buildings, he said, though when building the apartments they would have to come in with a new Map. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close ,the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen I VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) Vice Chr. Szabo confirmed withl' Staff that no control of the senior citizen project would be lost . Because of Mr. Vidovich' s testimony, he suggested modifications to Conditions 17 and 18. MOTION: Com. Adams, to approve Application 12-TM-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of thejHearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15; Condition 16; Condition 17 modi- fied to remove the second sentence; Condition 18 modified to read, "It is recognized that the lot lines of the subject application may not correspond to the building wall locations as approved in conjunction with Application 17-U-85 (Rev. ) and that the applicant may file a subse- quent tentative map to correctly locate all lot lines with respect to planned buildings in the • subject development prior to requests for any building permits. " 1 SECOND: Cosa. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) 1, , 2. Application 29-U-85 of FIRS"' IEAPTIST CHURCH OF CUPERTINO: USE PERMIT to construct a parsonage for an existing church on a 5. 5 acre site and ENVIRONMENTIAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the west side of Miller Avenue approximately1i350 ft . north of Atherwood Avenue in a BQ (Quasi-Public) zoning district. First Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL APPROVAL. Mr. Piasecki presented the Staff Report and suggested clari- fications to the wording of Conditions 17 and 18 . Carlo Christensen, Developer, 18567 Ream Road, Castro Valley, commented ed the architecture had been approved, and that it was a very nice home. I Scott Southard, 101051 Miller Avenue, Pastor, asked for clarification of Condition 23 midi ascertained with Staff they could go ahead with the parsonage if they had correct permits for the trailer at the time the par.sohage was completed. He felt the parking lot was not1' highly visible and was concerned about taking out parking spaces to add landscaping, because of • the expense, since they might later have to develop parking else- where on the site as the congregation expanded. id A !r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 9, 1985 PC-474 Corn. Adams established that the existing driveway to the Page 3 parsonage would be improved to accommodate two vehicles. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Corn. Adams VOTE: Passed 4_0 (Chr. Claudy absent ) MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to grant the Negative Decla- ration of the Environmental Review Committee SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to approve Application 29-U-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15; Condition 16; Condition 17 modified to read, "Permitted uses shall generally conform to the list of church-related activities as described in the summary of activities and as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development";Condition 18 modified to eliminate the wording, "and 5 children in the nursery"; Conditions 19-27 as presented in the Staff Report . SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) 3 . Applications 14-Z-85 and 14-TM-85 of JOHN VIDOVICH (MARSHALL MOK) ; REZONING approximately 3. 5 acres from A (Agricultural) to R1-6 (Residential Single-family, 6,000 sq. ft . minimum lot size) zone or whateverzone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTA- TIVE SUBDIVISION MAP to subdivide approximately 3 . 5 acres into 12 parcels ranging in size from approximately 6,600 sq. ft . to 12,000 sq. ft . and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located approximately 50 ft . to 250 ft . north of Orogrande Place and extends along Regnart Creek from the terminus of November Drive to the Highway 85 right of way. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - October 7, 1985. Mr. Cowan, giving the Staff Report, advised that Staff had that evening- heard from the Applicant that he would like the option of decreasing the number of lots to 11 and retaining the existing dwelling, which Staff felt would be satisfac- tory if setback requirements were met . He reviewed the circulation issue, advising that existing November and proposed Festival Drives eventually would contain two adjacent cu .desacs, to prevent through movement . He advised of some future improvements to be borne by the ® Applicant in part, also advising that the final dedication line for the creek channel might need to be adjusted, since the Santa Clara Valley Water District had not yet responded. He explained the reason the roadway weas situated next to the creek was to allow for public access,which had been a Commission goal in the past . PC-474 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 9, 1985 Page 4 Com. Sorensen was concerned about the 100 year flood and also that the Santa Clara Valley Water District might require more dedication 0 for erosion control. Com. Adams wanted it ensured that the Applicant did not in future seek a variance for the existing house. Com. Mackenzie established theibridge would be constructed in conjunction with the 85 corridor development eventually. Mary Kirkeby, 12228 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, Civil Engineer, discussed problems with some of the Conditions. He felt there would be little of Lot 1 left after the culdesac dedication and asked that it be adjusted, since it was not a major turnaround, so that instead of taking 10 ft . from the lot, the property line could curve at the back. He pointed out it would be a 32 ft radius either way. Mr. Whitten agreed that Staff could work to reduce it . Mr. Kirkeby, referring to Condition 23, said they did not feel comfortable demolishing present buildings prior to recordation of the Final Map. Referring tolCondition 18, he was concerned about the burden, shared by three property owners, of over $100,000 worth of improvements eventually. He also felt there should be a time limit on how long the connection of Festival and Orogrande was to be left, since the area was very congested. He advised they had been in contact with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, who saw no reason to widen the creek channel. Mr. Cowan stated it was City policy that the buildings should be • removed at this time, or at least a cash deposit taken to ensure removal. He saw potential problems if the Map was recorded without such removal and individual lots were then sold. Mr. Kirkeby was concerned because of delays in financing that could be caused. Robert Mok, son of the Applicant, confirmed they wanted to keep the barn, and at the time of building, would tear down everything except the house. Com. Mackenzie established with Mr. Kirkeby there would not be a problem if demolition could take place at the time the building permit was issued. Clara Perusina, 10909 S. Stelling '. Road said they did not want to subdivide their property. She was concerned about there being no right of way to Stellirng Road from the three properties on the proposed culdesac and wondered why the right of way the Perusina family had sold to the State could not be used for a street to alleviate that situation. She spoke of problems with the creek, that the eucalyptus trees there scattered debris and that the bridge had been washed out twice since they had lived there. Richard Judkins, 21155 OrograndePlace, representing the homeowners there, said they were concerned with safety and therefore any proposals which would affect Orogrande ' s status as a culdesac, since they had heard rumors that'isome connection across the creek • was contemplated. He established with Staff that any changes would require further Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 9, 1985 PC-474 Com. Mackenzie pointed out that Lot 12 of theproposed Page • subdivision would be in that position, thus obviating the possibility of such a connection. John caller, 21203 Orogrande Place was gravely concerned the creek would collapse if an adjacent road was constructed and felt it should be redesigned. Chuck O 'dell, 7716 Orogrande Place, was opposed to adding homes when there was only one exit and the area was so impacted by traffic . He emphasized that the culdesacs mentioned should never be opened, and did not agree with the construction of the bridge. Vice Chr. Szabo and Mr. Cowan confirmed the culdesacs would not be opened, but that there would be some type of circui- tous route in the area eventually. Ron Schrotenboer, 1091 November Drive also questioned the addition of houses to an impacted area and mentioned the difficulties of making a left turn onto Bubb Road from September Drive during peak hours. He felt that traffic should be addressed at the same time as the development. Mr. Kirkby noted that, in view of discussion at a recent Caltrans Meeting, a future crossing from Festival to the easterly neighborhood would be possible. Mr. Cowan reported that residents of Rose Blossom had recently explored through traffic on that street with 411 City Council, and did not think they would welcome vehicles crossing the freeway there. The Commission wondered whether there would be problems putting a culdesac in the 40 ft . right of way the State had purchased from the Perusina family. Mr. Cowan thought not, but to be definite would have to chec . with the State. Vice Chr. Szabo ascertained with Mr. Whitten that there were appropriate engineering solutions available in loca- ting the roadway adjacent to the creek; that any problems could be corrected. Mr. Miller disagreed, giving an example of Santa Clara Valley Water District 's concern with the creek bank there. He mentioned the proximity of the roadway to his property; that he did not want people driving down there. He felt houses =-backing -up to the creek would be more aesthetically pleasing. Vice Chr. Szabo established with Mr. Whitten that though the Santa Clara Valley Water District had seen the Map they had not yet responded, though the Applicant had discussed it with them. Mr. Cowan advised the Applicant had initially wanted a double row of lots with the roadway moved to the north,but 410 that Staff had felt the environment of the creek being shared was a policy. PC-474 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, S`EPTEMBER 9, 1985 • Page 6 MOTION: Corr. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Corn. Sorensen 110 VOTE: Passed 4-0 • (Chr. Claudy absent ) Con. Adams felt the bridge should be tied to the tiring of the 85 corridor construction, so that it would not have to be torn down again and redone. ' Discussing the issue of the roadway, the majority of the Commission felt it would be less problem for the homeowners to put it next to the creek, and of more benefit to the public and more aesthetically pleasing to have the creek visually accessible, with a wrought iron fence for safety and environmental preservation. ' MOTION: Com. Adams, to reopenIthe Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) John Vidovich said he did not object to building a fence, if it was needed, but felt it was aesthetically preferrable not to build one. MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) The Commission felt the protection of a fence was neessary. 411 MOTION: Co: . Mackenzie, to recommend the Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review Committee. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) NOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 14-Z-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report an,d Subconclusions of the Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 14-TM-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the - Hearing, with Standardl; Conditions 1-15; Condi- tions 16;17;18; Condition 19 modified to add the following sentence : "The size and shape of the culdesac may be revised at Staff' s discretion; Conditionsl20; 21; 22; Condition 23 first sentence modified to read: "All existing structures on .the siteishall be removed prior to issuance of building permits . " (Second sentence to remain as written) ; Condition 24; • Condition 25 modified to read: "The Applicant shall be fully responsible for any flood control channel improvements or further dedications required by the Santa Clara Valley Water District PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 9, 1985 PC in conjunction with the subdivision, subject to Page 7 the review and approval of the City Engineer (Including the erection_ of a staff approve: fence) ; New Condition 26 to permit the Applicant to combine lots 3 and 4 and retain the residence on these lots, providing that buildings as constructed meet all current Ordinances. SECOND: Con. Adams VOTE: Passed 3-1 (Com. Sorensen voting against the motion because of a concern with the fragility of the creek; preferring to see the roadway redesigned) . (Chr. Claudy absent) Mr. Cowan noted the revised City Council hearing date of October 15, 1985. BREAK 9: 45 P.M. (Approx. ) 4. Applications 15-Z-85 and 15-TM-85 of THE WILLIAM DAY COMPANY: REZONING approximately 2.1 gross acres from Al-43 A ricultura -R( g 1 esidential, 43,000 sq. ft . minimum lot size) zone to R1-7. 5 (Residential Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft . minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone is deemed appropriat: by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP to subdivide approximately 2.1 acres into nine parcels ranging in size from 7, 500 sq. ft . to 11,600 sq. ft . and 411 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Bubb Road and Regnart Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - October 7, 1985. a Mr. Plasecki noted the revised Nap included the trees and also noted 3 additional Conditions, 23 to allow more separation between the culdesac and Bubb Road; 24 for City installation of sidewalks; and 25 requiring that the Applicant submit a geotechnical investigation to advise City Council of the integrity of the adjacent Santa Clara Valley Water District water basins in the event of a maximum seismic event . Referring to the letter mentioned under "Written Communi- cations" he advised the writer had asked for it to be disregarded, since it referred to an adjoining piece of property owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District . Vice Chr. Szabo established with Staff that the City could not require the Santa Clara Valley Water District to undertake the investigation. The feasibility of tree retention was discussed. Mr. Addington, present property owner, had been advised by a tree specialist that all the pines were beetle-infested, he said. William Day, Applicant, described the poor condition of the pines and that they were too close together to be satisfac- torily thinned. He had plans to use decorative fencing and landscaping to create a better effect, he said. He said i 1 PC-474 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 9, 1985 Page 8the remaining trees would be structurally _S pruned to prevent 111 damace during; construction, and established with Staff he could Frune these on Lot 4 to a 15ft .1 clearance to enable installation of a firerlace. Questioned by Com. Adams, ;�r. Day described the discovery of the trunk line; there without benefit of easement since the City had inadvertently omitted to acquire the of way, he I right said. He confirmed the ir willingness to redesign the dwelling cr relocate the pipe, but did not want to abs orb P � the potential high cost . Mr. Day wanted flexibility to raise of lower the pad elevations slightly. Ivir. Piasecki voiced Staff' s concern the pads were already higher than those of surrounding houses and felt they should not be more than half a foot higher. Regarding Condition 25, Mr. Day thought it unfair to burden this development,particular e elopment, since there had been development in thBarea since 1958 .He was also concerned with the time scale. The Commission pointed out there was no mechanism to require any other party to take part . It; was suggested Mr. Day could appeal the Condition to City Council. Mr. Piasecki and Vice Chr. Szabo established the Final Map could be approved at the same time the study was submitted to City Council, without returning to Planning Commission. 411 .sir. Day suggested the study coulld be subject to approval by the Public Works Director. Mr. Piasecki emphasized there was concern that City Council see the report and set an acceptable level of risk. A representative of Mackay and 'Somps, Civil Engineers was concerned they might need to be&' within two-thirds of a foot of elevations shown, rather than half a foot . Jim North, 11267 Catalina Court; asked if there was a requirement for the developer to maintain the privacy of existing homes. Staff listed the standard setback requirements and observed that grade differentials were not presently controlled by Ordinance. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: ' Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent ) It was the consensus of the Comriission that the geological study was unfortunately necessary. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent ) 110 � I PLANNING COMMISSION XINUTES, SEPTEMBER 9, 1985 °C-474 40TI0N: Com. Mackenzie to recommend a pp� oval r oz Page 9 Application 15-Z-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent ) MOTION: Com. Mackenzie to recommend approval of Application 15-TM-85 subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15; Condition 16 modified to reflect Exhibit A, 1st revision; Condition 17; Condition 18 modified to add: "unless approved by the Planning Department" to the end of the first sentence; Conditions 19;20;21;22;23;24;25. SECOND: Com.. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent ) Mr. Cowan noted the revised City Council hearing date of October 15, 1985. 6. Application 33-U-85 of EARL BUTLER: USE PERMIT to legalize an existing garage conversion (approximately half the garage ha- ® been converted into a bedroom and bathroom) and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is necessary. The subject property is located on the east side of Peninsula Boulevard approximately 325 ft . north of Grand Avenue in a P (Planned Development with residential intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearin: date - September 16, 1985. Assistant Planning Director Piasecki gave the Staff Report . He explained the previous Use Permit had expired, and stated, for the record, that the applicant should be aware that street improvements could be required and building permits should be obtained within 24 months. Earl Butler, 10156 Peninsula Boulevard, the applicant, explained he had not realized the previous Use Permit expired in two years. He requested that the frontage appear like a double garage, rather then as suggested by Staff. Mr. Piasecki observed the addition did not look attractive at present and Staff hoped for an architectural tie-in with the existing building. Com. Adams established that the present appearance was that of a double garage door. MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Mackenzie 4110 VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent ) � s '�T yLEs r, PTEMBE G PC-474 PLANNING COPfi,:ISSI��� :-:Iii;J ;:,, S�� iL:,:.Lr.:� 9, 7-9 Page 10 411 The Commission had no objections to Staff' s presentation. MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend approval of Application 33-U-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and the Subconclusions of the Hearing, and Standard Conditions 1-15 and Conditions 16-20 of the Staff Report . SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) 7. Application 16-TM-85 of CRAIG CLARK: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP to subdivide approximately . 76 acres into three parcels ranging in size from approximately 8,000 sq. ft . to 11,000 sq. ft . and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is necessary. The subject property is located on the east side of Stelling Road (opposite Lilac Way) approxi- mately 500 ft . south of Erin Way in a R1-6 (Residential, single- family, 6,000 sq. ft . minimum lot size) zoning district . First Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL APPROVAL. Mr. Cowan gave the Staff Report, drawing attention to • additional Condition 21. Com. Mackenzie established if Mr. Masters ' project (8-TM-85) did not proceed, Mr. Clarke would be entirely responsible for acouirin the dedications and making improvements. Craig Clarke, 21885 Almaden, Applicant, described the poor condition of the fruit trees on the property. Com. Mackenzie established with Mr. Clarke that adjacent property owners, including Mrs.! Sullivan, had no interest in selling land that would improve', the project . The Applicant was not conversant with Condition 21, but did. not want to encroach on Mrs. Sullivan, he said. Mr. Cowan advised that Mr. Whitten would negotiate with the parties involved to come to a slolution regarding the dedication and improvement of the triangle!;. Corn. Adams observed the circumferential length of the culdesac provided access for future development . MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) i MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend approval of Application 16-TM-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusi'ons of the Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15; Conditions 16-21. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) PLANNING COM1~:ISSION :=TRES, SEPTE:-iEER 9, 1965 UNFINISHED EUSINESS Pa-e 11 111 8. Application 17 U-85 of aA='i!:C .� ROCKER: Pccuest for interpretation that site, architecture and building; area changes represent iinor modifications to the approved use permit . Said project is located on the north side of Granada Avenue 100 ft . west of Imperial Avenue in the Monta Vista Commercial District . Mr. Piasecki discussed Staff' s feelings, that collectively the changes constituted more than a minor change in the Use Permit . He described the changes proposed, emphasizing the basement area, which added square footage and conse- quently presented parking concerns. He pointed out that the degree of concern in the Monta Vista area about archi- tecture also influenced Staff' s decision. The consensus of the Commission was that the architectural changes were acceptable and pleasing, but the basement, fenc. and deck were issues. Mr. Rooker said theonly planned use for the basement was heating, but that in future it could be desirable to use it for dead storage space, and he did not want to agree not to use a space he was paying for. He established it was not of habitable height . Noting the request to take out the interior staircase to the basement, he questioned this, sinc: it would use up floor space, which would seem to be more desirable, he observed.® Com. Adams established the 450 sq. ft . basement was already existing, and had not been added. Vice Chr. Szabo asked Staff if the space had to be counted in the F.A.R.'* if it was used for heating. Mr. Cowan suggested it could be interpreted that part of the 450 sq. ft . would be used for mechanical space, and therefore would not be subject to parking restrictions. He noted there was a question of enforcement, and also was concerned that this not be construed as a change of policy. The Commission made findings that the building was so small the F.A.H. * averages for larger office buidlings did not apply, and also that the space would not be full height, and therefore was not useable except for storage. The stairwell was discussed. Mr. Rooker did not want a hatch, =_.since in one of his projects a hatch was giving problems. The Commission made a finding that the stairwell would take up more useable space and would therefore be acceptable. Mr. Rooker established an agreement would not be required. Mr. Kilian observed the. only purpose of such an agreement would be to notify successors on the property. *F.A.R. - Floor Area Ratio PC-474 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 9, 1985 Page 12 Mr. Rooker felt the picket fence was unsuitable on this site. He recollected that A. S. A. C. * had not recuired it and pointed out 411 there were other aspects of the guidelines they were not incorporating; also. It would cut down on the amount of lands- caping and would be a liability, as someone might stumble on it at night, he said. Mr. Cowan advised the picket feince feature of the guidelines was to demarcate pedestrian from automobile areas, and felt as the area developed there might be a need for it . Com. Adams found it was unnecessary in this situation, since there would not be parking at the perimeter of the parking lot . Discussing the deck, it was established with the Applicant the deck would rise 18 inches above ground level; consequently the 6 ft . fence would rise four and a half feet above it . Com. Adams, establishing that on the land to the west residential could be permitted, felt the deick height was unacceptable. Mr. Rooker pointed out the indoor/outdoor relationship favored by the guidelines, and to lower, the deck would mean a step and no room for furniture. Mr. Cowan suggested the solution of a 3 ft . setback of the deck from the fence, as required in a, comparable single family zone. Mr. Rooker pointed out there were trees, including silk oaks, on the property line and a wisteria rising above the 6 ft . fence. Com. Mackenzie found that with the wisteria in that location, there would not be a problem. MOTION: Corr. Adams, to adopt a Minute Order indicating the changes the Applicant proposed were minor in scope, incorporating the Findings of the Hearing and Findin-s cf Staff Report modified as follows: Finding 1 as written; Finding 2 to read, "The 450 sq. ft . basement shall not be used for office space but can be used for minimum storage. ";Finding 3 deleted. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy absent) Mr. Rooker spoke of the high costs of processing projects through the City of Cupertino. NEW BUSINESS REPORT `OF` THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Mr. Cowan advised that the Commission was invited to a presenta- tion A. S.A.C. * would be receiving on September 18, 1985 on architectural expertise. *A. S.A. C. - Architectural and Site Control Committee • i 4Zr;'Frri x.r,.• yU-.... ,�.{.,�;; 7 _,...._ry 'F -,. £ . 4x..•1t^ 's- e -�4. .. ai+ I!.-"IrT.:3: b-N;ca•- ,,;F;.:-.�u.�+�.+ti..-. —� s., - 5��- u„kr:., vFq. k.,•> �! vk{: v i'x^.Y"�1..�vi„f..:,�,�..�yt�` ,.i��4 �°s.�.,7 �.7Sy�f.S... S+e� ...5":.5.h %.,..p trw .S'a� ,:Y3jh7 4a(.z7.. 1� .��,�4 �' 4 � � r4 �,e ,+� { i gS et-;s5, ,�+i' PLANNING CO:ITIISSION hTINUTES, SEPTEY�IBERy 9,, 1985 PC-474: ,t' MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to..continue Application r' r '`� Page^ 13 • 3C-U-85 -to'the-Regular Meeting of u September-23, 1985 7{ SECOND: . Com. Adams VOTE: Passed (Chr.' Claudy absent) , The Meeting .was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. to Tuesday, September 17, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. QTS w KF APPROVED: City Cleric. ' i Chairperson 1p ttl 33! t.. 1 { T` 4. t t 1 Y'