106-E. Draft PC Meeting Minutes of 12/14/10.pdfAttachment E
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 December 14, 2010
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. DIR-2010-30 Appeal of an approval of a Director's Minor Modification to
Linda Shen -Jung allow paving in the front yard of an existing duplex for the
(GLSAA, LLC) the purpose of a parking space. Tentative City Council date:
967 Miller Ave. January 4, 2011
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the appeal of an approval of Director's Minor Modification to allow paving in the
front yard of an existing duplex for the purpose of a parking space; appellant is Erwin Wolf.
He reviewed the appellant's two objections to the proposed parking stall; specifically the
safety factor which the appellant felt would be the difficulty in exiting the driveway onto
Miller Avenue with the potential of causing accidents; and that the proposed parking did not
belong on the setback area without direct access. The appellant also felt that the added parking
stall would degrade the property appearance. Staff noted that vehicle parking in front setbacks
is a common feature of other duplexes along Miller Avenue; there were no accident reports
involving vehicles backing into pedestrians or bicyclists in the Iast 5 years; the paved area
when not in use would provide more vehicle maneuvering area; the duplex has a larger than
typical landscaped front setback, and the stall would only take up 22% of the front setback
landscaping with direct access to the driveway.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the appeal
be denied.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions about the application.
Mr. Erwin Wolf, Appellant:
• ,Said that other duplexes in the area had front garages and require front driveways; however the
applicant's duplex does not have a garage in front and has a common driveway. He said that
an additional vehicle would obstruct the view to the street for cars backing out of the driveway
into traffic.
Gordon Shen -Jung, property owner:
• Said that the additional parking space out front would provide a buffer zone for backing out
into the street; and improve the safety for tenants of both duplexes, providing more space to
maneuver their vehicles. He said his tenant presently has two automobiles, one is parked in the
garage and the other in the driveway. They will soon have three cars as his son will be coming
home from school; and it is difficult to find parking in the street.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing
The appellant and staff discussed alternative layouts for the proposed parking area in the front area.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Said staff was not concerned about the potential precedent of putting parking in the front yard;
particularly in the duplex zone because there are adjacent similar driveways already
established with driveways fronting the street. Also, in terms of the percentage of the
landscaping covered, it is only about 22 to 25%; and staff feels that it is not a concern unless it
takes up more than 50% of the landscaped area.
Coin. Miller:
• Said that the two issues are whether or not the parking in front is acceptable or not; and the
issue of potentially the area not being wide enough and it is inconvenient. Perhaps the
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 December 14, 2010
neighbors would agree to cut their lawn back in the area on both sides, which would widen it
to mitigate that issue. He said he agreed with Mr. Wolf's point about the safety of children on
bikes and walking; particularly if there are elderly tenants there who may not be as attentive as
younger people; there is the potential for accidents there.
Com. Kaneda:
® Said he understood the concern about safety issues, but felt that from a safety standpoint, every
other property on the street allows the same level of potential danger, and he did not feel the
project was not doing anything -that was not already being done on the street.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Com. Giefer:
• Said from the front view of the residence, it has a good residential feel to it. From the
overhead view, for the residences with street facing driveways, it makes sense that they would
have driveways facing the street, and there is nothing they can do to change the neighborhood
pattern now; but they can prevent proliferation of stacking cars in front of all the residences
along Miller Avenue and giving it more of a higher density automotive look and feel. She said
she felt it denigrates the visual aspect of the neighborhood and she did not want to see more
intensity of vehicles stacked up in front of the houses.
• Said she did not feel the need for a 3-point turn radius, because that is what the T was designed
for. Between the two resident units, property owners, and the shared drive, they already have
that space, and she was concerned about the downgrading of the appeal of the visual aspect by
allowing additional parking in front of the duplex. She said she felt it was the wrong thing,
and agreed with Com. Miller that they would see a proliferation of it; starting with 22% of the
frontage of the road and potentially increasing to above 40%. Everything in front of every
duplex that doesn't have a front facing driveway is going to be paved over and more cars
would be in front.
• There may be a safety issue also since it is across from a middle school and a multi -language
school.
• Said she did not want to intensify the vehicle orientation of the neighborhood and would not
support the application; but would support the appellant.
Chair Brophy:
• Said the alternative to putting a car in that space would be for somebody to park right on
Miller; both in terms of aesthetics and terms of safety, which would be less desirable.
Com. Giefer:
• Said the street was already designed to have cars parked in front of it on Miller Avenue and
that was acceptable; however she did not want to stack cars in front of the houses on both sides
of the sidewalk. The internal parking to each unit is intensified as opposed to maintaining the
current parking pattern along Miller Avenue; she said she was not opposed to the cars parking
on Miller Road because that is where they are supposed to be.
Vice Chair Lee:
Asked staff if it was considered deficient parking in accordance with the Cupertino City codes,
since it was done many years ago when it was San Jose.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner:
• Said that from a Cupertino standpoint the developments could be considered deficient;
Cupertino requires 6 parking stalls for a duplex. At the time they were developed in ,San Jose,
they were provided with only 4 spaces per duplex.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 December 14, 2010
Corn. Giefer:
• Noted that Cupertino did not exist in 1953, it was county land; and was there a parking
requirement? There would not have been a parking ordinance and they would be allowed to do
even less.
Conn. Kaneda:
® Asked staff if the duplex with shared driveway occurs in 50% of the homes along the street, or
only in a few occurrences on the street.
Colin .lung:
• When walking both sides of the street, more than 50% of the duplexes had garages fronting on
Miller Avenue. There are more of the duplexes with a shared driveway, but it is not a
preponderance of what is seen on Miller Avenue. It is fortunate that there is onstreet parking
on Miller Avenue, so that despite the deficiency from the standpoint of parking in the
duplexes, they can park along the street.
Gary Chao:
• Said that technically the unit is already a legal non -conforming situation; the stall in this case is
more of an amenity; it is not really required; they are not triggering discretionary review or
adding onto the building, where they will be asked to conform to the standard. That is why in
the staff report the area is categorized as more of a parking/vehicle maneuverability area. In
some cases, in residential districts, there will be a hammerhead with a flare out on the side
leading to a two -car garage. Staff is satisfied it is interlocking pavers as opposed to concrete in
terms of the visual implications; but it could be smaller. In that case it would be a compact car
that would have to park in there or it would serve more as a maneuverability area. He noted
that the 17 feet is the depth of the grass, that is not to consider that 3 foot or 4 foot path; they
could essentially renovate and make that part of interlocking pavers so that would help absorb
some of that dual purpose; it would serve as a path and double as a vehicle maneuvering area
or some interim ancillary parking.
Vice Chair Lee:
s Suggested they do that that so that there would be at least a few feet toward the sidewalk so a
car could not back all the way in there which would alleviate some of the safety concerns.
Gary Chao:
• Said the 17 feet is the depth of the grass strip; the city requirement for a head -in stall is 18 feet.
Said the 11 x 17 was doubled as a vehicle maneuverability area and staff was not concerned if
they added a few feet for that purpose; it could be reduced to the minimum in terms of 8-1/2
feet wide. He said that if they were going to approve it, it should be kept at 17 feet so they can
pull in and out of it.
Motion: Motion by Corn. Miller, second Conn. Giefer, and carried by 3-2-0; Corns.
Lee and Kaneda voted No, to uphold the appeal of DIR-2010-30.
Jane aug ino previously approved Conditional Use Permit (U-2003-04)
Housing Partners, LLC) to a in requirements to be incorporated into an
19501,19503,19505, appropriate alternate ega in lieu of the covenants,
19507 Stevens Creek conditions and restrictions (CC&R's). Tenta iv cil