The URL can be used to link to this page

13. Tracy Hsu appeal L if CUPEItTINO City of Cupertino 10300 To~re Avenue Cupertino..CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ''3 Agenda Date: October 2, 2007 Application: TM~2007-03, V-2007-Q3 Applicant: Jitka Cymbal (Westfall Engineers) Owner: Sue-Jane Han Location: . 21871 Dolores Avenue \.-, APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Tentative Map application to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels, 8,375 square feet and 11,470 square feet respectively and the denial of a variance application for substandard lot widths in a proposed two-lot subdivision. RECOMMENDATION The Council has the options to either: a) Uphold the Planning Commission's decision; or b) Uphold the appeal; or c) Uphold the appeal with modifications. BACKGROUND On January 23, 2007, the Planning commission voted (3-1-1; Saadati absent) to deny the proposed project. The Commission was concerned about the side-by-side lot design and felt that the project did not match the flag lot pattern of the immediate neighborhood. Also, the Commission had concerns regarding the requested five foot side yard setback exception. The Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council. On February 20, 2007, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's. decision on a draw vote (2-2) with one Council member absent. On May 1, 2007, the Council considered and denied the applicant's reconsideration request based on the principle that procedurally they did not want to revisit a decision that was made by the . Council with a quorum even if one Council member was absent during the deliberation. Cowlcil member(s) suggested that the applicant has the option to reapply and be heard by the full CQuncil if they choose. . L 13 -1 File Nos.: TM-2006-12, V-2006-01 Page 2 M:ay 1, 2007 Subsequent to the Council meeting, the applicant has reapplied "ivith several changes. The applicant is no longer requesting for a side yard setback exception and has volw1tarily agreed to provide at least 10 feet side yard setback along the westerly property line to address neighbor's concerns. On August 28, 2007, the Plam1ing Com111ission considered the new application and again rejected the side-by-side lot configuration and the lot "ividth variance requests in favor of a flag lot configuration. TI1e applicant is appealing the.Plamung Commission's decision. PROJECT LOeA TION ll1e project site is located on the north side of Dolores Avenue between Byrne Avenue and Orange Avenue. A main residence, two detached cottages and a detached shed currently exist on the parcel. Single- f?lnuly residential parcels surrow1d the subject site. The proposal is to demolish all of the structures on the property, subdivide into two conventional (side-by-side) lots and build tvvo new single family homes. GENERAL PLAN The General Plan (Policy 2-23) that applies to this project specifies that: "Create flag lots in proposed subdivisions when they are the only reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot pattem in the neighborhood. " This policy discourages new flag lots in the interest of promoting better house to street relationships in residential neighborhoods. DISCUSSION ll1ere are hvo primary issues for tlus project: flat lot versus conventional lot design and the substandard lot widths. Please refer to the PlamUng Commission staff report (exlubit A) for a detailed discussion on these two issues. ApDellant The applicant is appealing the Plam1ing Commission's August 28, 2007 decision based on the following reasons: 1. The proposed side-by-side lot configuration and lot width (50 feet) is consistent is the predominate pattern of the neighborhood. The Plalming Commission's decision is not consistent "ivith the City's General Plan in that the proposed side- 13 - 2 File Nos.: TM-2006-12, V-2006-Ql Page 3 May 1, 2007 ~ by-side lot design and the lot width variance request are reasonable alternatives to a flat lot design. 2. The Planning Co~ission previously granted approval for a similar side-by-side subdivision request therefore should be consistent PlanninK C~mmission On August 28, 2007, the Planning Commission considered and denied the applicant's request for a side-by-side subdivision lot configuration and the substandard lot width request. Instead, the Commission approved the project with the condition that the tentative map shall be revised to reflect a flag lot configuration. The Commissioner's comments are summarized as follows: · The proposed side-by-side lot configuration is no consistent with the immediate neighborhood on Dolores Avenue. · There may be design problems with building massing and dominating garages on the front elevation with the side-by-side lot configuration. · Side-by-side may work if the applicant is willing to consider either limit the house size and/or provide detached garages. L Public Input . Several neighbors expressed support for a side-by-side lot configuration. One neighbor was concerned about the variance request and felt that a flag lot .configuration is more appropriate. Staff Staff previously supported the proposed side-by-side lot configuration and the narrower lot widths primarily because the project is consistent with the intent of the broader City's General Plan. Furthermore, the project is compatible with the overall estiiblished pattern of the Monta Vista neighborhood. The may be more flag lots on Dolores Avenue, however the entire neighborhood consists of more narrow side-by- side lots with similar narrow lot widths. There are not many lots left in this neighborhood that will be able to physically permit similar subdivisions in the future, so either way the project will not significantly change the pattern of the neighborhood. Staff is concerned that flag lots will create undesirable building and yard relationships and prohibit appropriate house to street relationships. Visible front door entries and building living areas provide the opportunity for neighbor -to neighbor interaction and enhance a sense of community. Staff has attached a list of recommended conditions of approval should the Council decide to uphold the appeal and approve the side-by-side lot configuration and the variance request. '-' Enclosures Planning Commission Resol1:ltions Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from August 28, 2007 Applicant's Appeal Request (with attached materials) 13 -3 File Nos.: TM-2006-12, V-2006-Ql Page 4 Recommended Conditions of Approval Exhibit A: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 28, 2007 (with attachments) May 1, 2007 ~ Approved by: ~ ah~L,~ David W. Knapp 0..... , City Manager G: \Planning\PDREPORT\CC\2007\ TM-2007-03N-2007-03appealCC.doc -/. J 13-4 TM-2007-03 L CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6483 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDMDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS (ONE FLAG AND ONE CONVENTIONAL) IN A R1-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Oty of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the Oty of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public. hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: . \..- 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the Oty of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General, Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or 'the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious pubUc health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2007-Q3 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 28, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. \..-, 13 -5 Resolution No. 6483 Page 2 TM-2007-03 August 28, 2007 SECTION IT: PROTECT DESCRIPTION J Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2007-03 Tracy Hsu 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION ill: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the plan set presented at the Planning Commission meeting, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. The plans shall be revised and approved by the Communio/ Development Director prior to recordation of final map from the side by side design to a flag lot subdivision design based on the Planning Commission approval. 2. TREE PRESERVATION . All existing trees must be retained to the maximum. extent possible. The applicant must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. . 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a .covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be pre$erved as part of this approval. -/ 4. VISUAL IMPACT The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the Rl Design Review Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to the adjacent neighbors. SECTION IV: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 5. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with Gty Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 6. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 7. STREET liGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum. height permitted by the -/. zone in which the site is located. 13 -6 Resolution No. 6483 Page 3 TM-2007-03 August 28, 2007 L 8. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Oara County Fire as needed. 9. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 10. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City as needed. 12. UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider L and the Oty Engineer. 13. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the Gty of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, ~torm. drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $2,194.00 minimum . b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or c. Development Maint~ance Deposit: . d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: N / A f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,060.00 minimum $ 2,000.00 $ 593.40 $3,348.00 $15,750.00 By Developer L Bonds: a. b. c. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. 13 -7 Resolution No. 6483 Page 4 TM-2007-03 August 28, 2007 -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. J 14. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 15. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REOUlREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. --/ c. BMP Agreements The applicant 'and the City.shall enter into a recorded. agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant runnirig with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. d. Hydromodification Plan (HMP) Required The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control any combination of on- site, off-site and in-stream control measures incorporated into specific redev:elopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not increase the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre-project condition. 16. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to. be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All --/ 13 -8 \......, L L Resolution No. 6483 Page 5 lM-2007-03 August 28, 2007 traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 18. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDmONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section N. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices / s /Ralph Oualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of August 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Co~sion of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Miller, Wong, Kaneda COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s /Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki, Pirector Community Development Department Is/Lisa Giefer Lisa Giefer, Chairperson Planning Commission 13 -9 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 DRAF~ia August 28, 2007 recommendation is that the trees be set back at least 15 feet from the.leacbfield lines. recommends removal of the trees so that if they do fail or die, the applicant has an oppo to remove them. . · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the hillside exceptio removal per the model resolution. and the project engineer answered Commissioners' questions. -/ Robe vellas, applicant: · Said major issue in developing the project was the environrnen health approval. It took about 2- years to get a plan that was acceptable and approvab . Using the existing location of the bous work with, they were sensitive to siting the h se which is why there are low amounts of . g; most is fill in the terrace areas. The reusing the existing driveway and are pleased .the recommendation for the architec IllOdifications. at efforts to ensure that shear wallplanes which . . . Com. Wong closed the public h ~' Colin Jung: · Relative to leachfiel , he said that Regnart Canyon was de oped ~d approved by the city without it being h ed up to the sanitary sewer system. It w one intentionally and at the request of the h eowners previously because they wanted to h larger lots and felt they could have a ch stronger control on the density in Regriart Canyo . they all remained on septic syste rather than hook up to the sanitary sewer. He explained w the septic system and leac Ids worked. Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Appli EXC-2007-09 and TR-2007-04 per the model resolution, inclu . recommendation regarding including non-native trees and that there be a agreement between applicant and staff. (Yote: 3-0-1; Chair Giefer absent) Chair Giefer returned to the dais and chaired the remainder of the meeting. ). Y-2007-03, TM-2007-03 Variance for substandard lot widths on a proposed two-lot . Tracy Hsu ' subdivision. Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel 21871 Dolores Avenue into two parcels, 8,375 square feet, and 11,470 sq~ feet respectively. Continuedfrom the August 14,2007 Pla1Uzing Conunissiol1 meeting. Planning Commission decision final wtless appealed. J 13 - 10 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 D.l~. [::z1'!}. tl.. ~...~::! Q,~ , \'- ,.! , . t1 ;! ~~'\.J-v.r I August 28, 2007 L Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for a tentative map to subdivjde one lot into two parcels and a variance to allow two 50-foot lot width lots instead of the required 60-foot width for the two proposed parcels, as outlined in the attached staff report. . The proposed project was denied by the Planning Commission at the August 14, 2007 meeting and the applicant appealed it to the City Council in February 2007 when the Council upheld the Commission's decision to deny the project on a 2-2 vote with one councilmember absent. The Council reconsidered the application again in May 2007 and denied the applicant's request on a vote of 3-2. The applicant reapplied to the Planning Commission because the May 2007 denial was based on concerns about the procedure, and the Council provided the applicant with the choice of resubmitting the application to the Planning Commission. · The tentative map proposal is for a side-by-side lot rather than the prior flag lot proposal. The side-by-side lot design is consistent with the neighborhood pattern as most of the lots are narrow. The applicant has also addressed the side yard setback concerns and is no longer requesting an exception; and has agreed to a condition requiring 10 foot side yard setbacks along the side where the neighbors are concerned with. · Staff recommends the Planning Commission fmd merit in the proposal; and a condition be added to require the DRC approve the two house designs prior to recordation of the fmal map. Recommendation is for project approval with staff recommended changes and conditions. Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding the proposed project. \.-, Jitka Cymbal, representing applicant: · Reviewed three possible scenarios for the design of the houses; one with a · side entry garage, with a common entry driveway; one with front facing garages; and a third with side entry with two separate garages. Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding the proposed project. Tracy Hsu, Applicant: · Said that since the last meeting, she talked to 10 of the surrounding neighbors; 5 support the side-by-side subdivision, 3 are neutral, and .2 neighbors are opposed to the side-by-side proposal. She said that one of the neighbors who was opposed to the proposal, said that he would consider agreeing to a 10 foot side setback on his side; and one still remained opposed to the project. · She said two concerns regarding flag lots were fIre department access for more than one truck on a flag lot, and because the front was at a higher level that a rear lot, the drainage system would be a problem. She added that a flag lot has more pavement area for the driveway which would decrease the green space area; and she preferred living in a house with a 50 foot frontage which provided better interaction with the neighbors. Chair Giefer opened the meeting for public comment. . Rose Serio, resident: · Opposed to the project. · Asked that the Planning Commission give careful consideration to requests for larger homes on the sD;1aller lots. Said she was not opposed to growth, but on overbuilding and lack of consideration of the systemic impact to the community and inner neighbor relationships that occur because of the close proximity of the buildings. She asked that consideration also be \....,., given to the impact of the sound level, and volume of traffic in the small area. 13 -11 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 D' ..RA E?"'"e.--:-.J ~ ~..~ -n i;-- ~. " .. ii', . :iUr i August 28, 2007 Suejane Han, Dolores Avenue: . Supports the project. ~ . Asked that the Planning Commission honor the staff's suggestion that the flag lot be created only when there is no reasonable alternative. . Said that as a Cupertino resident, she supported saving more green space for the city and the flag lot results in a larger pavement area. Alan Hsu, Delores Avenue: . Supports the project. . Said that a benefit of side.:by-side subdivision of the houses allows for access for both houses from the street . Said there is more chance of accidents involving pedestrians because of the long driveways from flag lots and there is less visibility of the cars driving down the long driveway. Rachel Hwang, Cupertino resident: . Supports side-by-side subdivision of the property.. . Said she experienced difficulty exiting from a flag lot because of the long driveway. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said that Monta Vista had an eclectic nature; areas of the city are very historic, lots were subdivided in the early 19oos. In this situation you are creating two lots, each 50 feet across and much of Monta Vista is currently zoned Planned Development which allows larger homes on sma1l10ts. This would fit nicely in a Planned Development community, but this is not a Planned Development community; it is one of the areas of Monta Vista that is zoned Rl; therefore there are rules for RI. --./ . She addressed the issue of the garage being over 50% of the front expanse of the property and asked if there was a law requiring that the garage not go over 50%. If any lawn in front of the property would be less than 50% of the property; that means it is creating an area not able to have a street tree. She expressed concern about the regrowth of a tree that would be going in and stated that street trees are assets to the community. . Another issue is if you have a 5 foot setback on the inner side of each of the homes, please make sure there is a full second story setback, giving 1() feet separation between the two two- story houses. If you do allow this, m8k:e sure there is a full second story setback on the inner side; because in a Planned Development commUIiity, you don't have to have that second story setback. She said she was concerned about the application and hoped they could reach a good decision. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Staff reviewed the history of flag lots in Cupertino, which originated when Monta Vista developed as a resort area for wealthy San Franciscans, with small and harrow lots. In the past, there was a.i:J. Ad Hoc Flag Lot Policy, and if there were a predominant pattern of flag lots in the area, theyawould tend to be supported, even though it was recognized that some of the neighborhood interaction problems; there may have been some flag lots approved that came from that. It occurred for many years until the last General Plan when it was made official that flag lots would only be allowed in very unusual circumstances, not the fact that there may be a pattern of them in the area. It is more if it is the only reasonable alternative. --../ 13 - 12 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 D.~A.. PBI1fI I' ;f' . \ E;Oil fi :. "~-t.. .~.~ t'd August 28, 2007 L Gary Chao: · Said that no additional neighborhood notification was done when the application was postponed from the last meeting. He said it was not a requirement to re-notify interested parties; the application would have been postponed as part of the agenda and interested parties would follow the meeting, either through attending the meeting or Viewing it on the web site. Steve Piasecki: · If the application is denied, their only alternative would be the flag configuration; they could appeal to the Council. He said that the flag lot was previously approved and the applicant could default to that. Ciddy Wordell: · Said one of the reasons the side-by-side was recommended was that it was the choice of the Planning Commission on a previous property and they got a similar variance. There is some precedence for the Commission doing that. Steve Piasecki: . · What is key about it, if this was significantly narrower than the standard; if it was 40 feet or 35 feet, we would likely say there is no reasonable alternative but a flag lot. When you are at 50 feet, it is a break point; you can still design an attractive home that has that interface with the street and can fit into the neighborhood pattern and look good. Com. Miller: · Asked if they could approve side-by-side with reduced square footage? L Steve Piasecki : · Said that under the variance you could approve a smaller house size as part of the variance request. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: _ · Said that it was a tentative map and is just for their side-by-side yard. They are not approving the homes yet or the size of the homes, therefore it is advisable to stay with the application as it is with the tentative map. Com. Miller: · But we could require them to come back here for the homes. What the attorney is saying is that we can't have a condition saying if they chose side-by-side that we are going to restrict the size of the homes, more than the current ordinance. Steve Piasecki: · Said Com. Miller was inquiring whether they could require as a condition of approval on the variance, that the variance only be approved if the applicant is willing to record a covenant and deed restriction on the property, limiting the house size to whatever, 35% FAR, or not-to- exceed 4,500 square feet or whatever number the Commission deems is a reasonable number. .. Said the plan would be to approve the variance first with that condition; approval of the tentative map would be subject to them complying with the variance. L Com. Miller: · Said the massing is more with the two side-by-sides, with two massive houses occupying that lot and running back; however, there is no good solution, and the flag lot is not the best 13 - 13 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 ~fR\AF.. T tJ -"i ,. .'" - U ,.&.l5~..as. r~. ~:...?Q:. 'c:.. ~ U August 28, 2007 solution. The side-by-side because of the large size of the lots is not that great; if the lots were smaller and the houses were smaller, they might work better. . An alterative might be that if the applicant is agreeable and they want side-by-side, perhaps we limit the size of the house to total of 3,400 square feet instead of the 4,300 square feet and/or we require that the garage be put in the back and detached sO that some of the massing is moved from the street as another alternative to reduce the overall mass of the houses. He said he was sensitive to the drainage on the lots; perhaps the side-by-side, it is still a tossup. . Said that if the applicant was agreeable to reduce the size of the houses, the side-by-side might be more acceptable. He asked for the other Commissioners comments. ---./ Com. Wong: · Asked the applicant to comment. Tracy Hsu, Applicant: . Said they had not considered that question,. because they felt the side-by-side is conforming with the neighbors and they are trying to follow the ordinance. . Said in general the house is in Rl 7.5 zoning and they should follow the ordinance not making a special case for whoever is doing the subdivision on this neighborhood. Only two or three lots remaining in the neighborhood can be subdivided; it is unfair to penalize the owners. . Relative to Com. Miller's suggestion to detach the garage and place it in the back, she said the city has a rule for detached garages on the back, the side setback has to be 14 feet which results in the house being narrower. She said she did not feel it was doable, and said they were willing are willing to do a garage facing the side instead of facing the street or a combination. Steve Piasecki: · Said she may be referring to the driveway necessary to serve the detached garage in the back J and in this case they could develop a common driveway which would minimize that. They don't have to do 15 feet all the way on both lots. Chair Giefer: . Relative to the applicant's point, she asked if it would narro'Y the house size? They committed to 10 feet on either side, and is an agreement with their neighbors. She said she felt they were creating issues in designing the applicant's house. Com. Wong: . Said they were not denying the applicant to subdivide; his concern was the variance. Rl does allow you the 45% FAR but the neighbors are also concerned with the mass and bulking. If you use the 45% FAR and have side-by-side you are going to have a very long and narrow house which would impact the immediate neighbors. How can it be compatible with the neighborhood; by already having four flag lots on this street and to have a pattern of two side- by-side/flag lot, two side-by-sidelflag lot, it is not helping the pattern for this particular street. . Said he has voted in favor of side-by-side on other applications because there was already an immediate pattern. He said he was tempted to reduce the FAR; but would not because he felt it is an property owner's inherent right and there are other mitigating ways to reduce the bulkiness of the house which is already prescriptive in the Rl. · Said that Com. Miller had a good suggestion with putting the garage in the back, but they had a concern with the 10 feet on either side and putting the long drive down is not being friendly to the environment. · Said his preference would be more towards a flag lot. .J 13 -14 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 Da~.i~t1~}' August 28, 2007 L · Said he was troubled about the variance and did not feel comfortable granting the variance tonight. Steve Piasecki: · Clarified that they had not approved a flag cQnfiguration. The Planning Commission can deny the variance and approve the flag configuration subject to them coming through staff for the fmal map and fmal approval. They could have a subdivision and a flag lot configuration. · He said there would likely be a three foot rise in elevation in the back so they can get the proper drainage to the street which is going to elevate the back house. Com. Wong: · He said that would be his recommendation; he would support a flag lot and also include consideration to notify the immediate neighbors. . Com. Miller: · Said he did not favor the flag lot primarily because of the drainage; and disliked the side-by- side because of the massing. · Said he would support a side-by-side if the applicant was amenable to reducing the square footage in some way, either the overall square footage or moving the garages to the back somehow. Hthe applicant was not agreeable, he would support the flag lot. ~ Com. Kaneda: · Supports the flag lot. . . · Expressed concern that all the properties. on the street except for one were flag lots and wider lots; and he felt they should stay consistent with that in that part of the neighborhood. Chair Giefer: · . Said she concurred with her colleagues' comments about the configuration of side-by-side vs. flag lot. · Said staff did a compelling job of showing good examples of side-by-side, but said she felt that the variance is creating an additional substandard width lot within a 7500 neighborhood. The approved one was different because it was a rounded pie shaped lot. She said she did not feel it was the same situation; and would prefer a flag lot. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application TM- 2007-03 as a flag lot and send it back to the DRC for final review. (Vote: 4-0-0) Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda, to deny Application V-2007-03. (Vote: 4-0-0) 21410 Vai Ave. Director's referral of a Residential De . a new, two-story 6,677 square foot resident. Pi onunissiondec4ion nal unless appealed. ~ Gary Chao, Senior r, presented the staff report: · Review application for a Director's referral of a: Residential view for a new, ry, 6,677 square foot residence. He explained that two story penmtS Phone Number City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 APPEAL .V-2007-03. TJ'v1 -2007-03 , trIA c--l.( H ~ Vl 7r-o.-c '1-:-~ ~ ( A. f)1g'j f &-a.vt ~y",,~ ~. C"fet'+t~J1..O~ c...4'fS1'(' 4-0 g - 4 {~l} l;() 3D ~rncy_hsu. fi)ycA hoo ~ LOYY"\ ----../ .CI CUPEIQ"INO 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. . Appellant(s) Nam~: Address Email 4. Please check one: Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development v'Appeal a decision of Planning Commission . --/ . 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: "8/'2- ~I 07 6. Basis of appeal: ~~ ~-+l~~ r:rIL Please complete form, include appeal fee of $156.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 07-056 ($150.00 fQr massage application appeals), and return t9 the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertil1o, (408) 777-3223. Signature( s) J 13 - 16 \......, i. The decision is against the city's general policy that flag lot is created only when there is no alternative. The applicant has followed the city's policy to avoid flag lot and worked with city planning staff to propose a tentative map, two parcels with SO-foot front width. Although the SO-foot front width is variance, this lot width is a pre-dominant pattern in Monta Vista area. There are more houses with SO-foot front width lot than flag lots in the neighborhood. Currently there are two houses on Dolores Avenue are SO-foot front width lot. We are not creating a new lot pattern in Monta Vista area. "- 2. In the recent lot subdivision case in McClellan Ave, the flag lots dominate the neighborhood see the attached map. The applicant had flag lot proposal first and the planning commission asked the application to come back with a side-by-. side lot subdivision. In this case, the neighborhood compatibility becomes a less concern to commission. We request the planning commission should review the applications on the same policy. ~ 13 - 17 ~Efj I , L" I uJ > 5:. o o . --- I -=-- , 24 Mots .ml , ;:;.- I , I ~ 18 \ 17 . Z3 I , I .~ I , .J o' '-1~ 1!. .I. \~ !!I , , I , I , I" = 100' @ r---~-r--- 5 . 1. 1. ,0.. ._~'..--,.--":."~'.'~._ 114 I! ~ I 1S I 'lO 10 I '0.1' . 16 I 15 l 14 I 13 I 'IZ '!5!.s ~ . ; .: : \ ---- ---- ~ z I' I .... ,,"" 1:1 I~ II - !; .x. ~: 4 ~i .1 ~'5.t 11 t~ . I _, _ _, 30 1 It! I' rI' 1 !., IUs. ~'1.,-a ~ l~7.;t ~ f~t.O-UN. H!~ o\'J'E: · \. TRACl Nt 4 17. Q\'\' . (;\ ~ (2) ~ a;,~2 ~Of. ~.~r:~~aa ~r I .. co ..,j ~ '. " " ( ~-2007-o3, "-2007-03 L RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL CONDmONS OF APPRO" AL SECTION ill: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS This approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Ran, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", dated February 2007 (one page), except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution and/ or by the City Council at the hearing of October 2, 2007. 2. TREE PRESERVATION All existing trees shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant shall work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. L 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and one 36 inch box Redwood tree shall be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior recordation of final map, the applicant shall record a covenant on the property that ensures the pr~servation and maintenance of the above stated trees. 4. SIDEYARD SETBACK The minimum ground floor side yard setbacks along the easterly property line shall be 10 feet. 5. DESIGN REVIEW The design of the two homes shall be approved by the City prior to final recordation of the map in order to ensure that the homes are designed consistently with the surrounding homes. SECTION I\T: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 6. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided. in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 7. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in L accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 13 - 19 Resolution No. Page 2 ~-2007-03, "-2007-03 October 2, 2007 8. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. lighting fixtures shall be positioned. so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. J 9. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire as needed. 10. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 11. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 12. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the --J City as needed. 13. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of th~ Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and'shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 14. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $2,194.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,060.00 minimum --J '13-20 Resolution No. Page 3 llA-2007-03, "-2007-03 October 2, 2007 L- c. Develop~ent Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking.Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 2,000.00 $ 593.40 N/A $3,348.00 $15,750.00 By Developer Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. \- 15. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 16. AME~DED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all developme,nt and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runQff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required . The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. . The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this .plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stonriwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements , The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the pr:operty owners(s). In ad~tion, the owner(s) and the City shall enter ~to a recorded 13 - 21 L- Resolution No. Page 4 ~-2007-o3,"-2007-o3 October 2, 2007 easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access ----/ at the site for BMP inspection. d. Hydromodification Plan (HMP) Required The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control any combination of on-site, off-site and in-stream control measures incorporated into specific redevelopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not increase the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre-project condition. 17. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 18. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. ---/ The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 19. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs . Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDmONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section N. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 J 13 - 22 CITY OF CUPERTINO L 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino,Califomia 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TM-2007-D3, V-2007-DS, EXC-2006-14 Applicant: Jitka Cymbal Property OWner: Sue-Jane Han Property Location: 21871 Dolores Avenue Agenda Date: August 28, 2007 Application SUiiunary: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a.46 acre lot into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a tU-?5 zoning district. VARIANCE to allow a SO-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, the variance and the exception in accordance with the model resolutions. L *The Planning Commission continued this item from its August 14,2007 meeting per the applicant's request. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoping Designation: Total Acreage (gross): Net Acreage per parcel: Density: Low Density Residential, 1-5 DU J gr. acre Rl-7.5 .46 Lot 1- 9,685 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,686 sq. ft. 4.3 duJ gr. acre. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Yes, Policy 2-23 Yes Categorically exempt. Environmental Assessment: L BACKGROUND: On January 23, 2007, the Planning commission voted (~1-1, Saadati absent)) to deny the proposed project. The Commission was concerned about the side-by-side lot design and felt that the project did not match the flag lot pattern of the immediate neighborhood. The Commission had concerns on the requested five foot side yard setback exception. The Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council. On February 20, 2007, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision due to a draw vote (2-2) with one Council member absent. On May 1, 2007, the Council considered and denied the applicant's reconsideration request based on the p.rinciple 13 - 23 TM-2007-Q3, V-2007-Q3 Page 2 August 28, 2007 that procedurally they did not want to go back on a decision that was made by the ~ouncil with a quorum. even if one Council member was absent during the deliberation. The Council suggested that the applicant has the option to reapply and be heard by the full Council. if necessary. The applicant has reapplied for the same project. --../ The project site is located on the north side of Dolores Avenue between Byrne Avenue and Orange Avenue. A main residence, two detached cottages and a detached shed currently exist on the parcel. Single- family residential parcels surround the subject site. The proposal is to , demolish all of the structures on the property, subdivide into two lots and build two new single family homes. DISCUSSION: There are two major discussion .points for this subdivision: flag lot v. conventional lots and the proposed lot width. Flag lot VB. Conventional lots The parcel is approximately 100 feet wide and 190 feet deep. The lot is not wide enough for two minimum 60 foot widths as required by the R1 Ordinance. The site can be subdivided into two lots with a flag lot in the rear to meet the minimum lot width requirement. Alternatively, the property could be divided down the middle creating two conventional lots, resulting in lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet. General Plan The General Plan (Policy 2-23) specifies that flag lots should be created only when there is no reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot pattern in the neighborhood. lhis policy discourages new flag lots in the interest of promoting better house to street relationships in residential neighborhoods. Planning Commission The Planning Commission has approved a similar variance request (TM-2005-14, 21988 McClellan Road) allowing the subdivision to conventional lots with substandard lot widths (less than 60 feet) in the interest of better integrating the future residence into the neighborhood. However, in the case of this project, the Commission has previously felt that a flag lot design is more appropriate and consistent with the immediate pattern --.-/ 13 - 24 TM-2007-03, V-2007-03 Page 3 of the neighborhood. August 28, 2007 The applicant contends that the predominate neighborhood pattenl is side-by-side lots and that the proposed subdivision design is consistent with the lot pattern and overall lot widths of the entire neighborhood. Please see the data provided by the applicant (exhibit A). Neighborhood Outreach Since the last time the Plamling Commission reviewed this project, the applicant has attempted to conununicate with many of the illUllediate neighbors and has obtailled ten signatures of support (exhibit B). One of the main concerns previously expressed by the two adjacent neighbors to the east i\'aS that there was not sufficient side yard setback proposed (5 foot) along the project's easterly property lille. In response to this, the applicant has withdrawn the original five foot side yard setback exception request and has volunteered to provide at least 10 feet of building side yard setback along the easterly property lille (see exhibit D). 111is should be added as a condition of the project should the Commission decide to approve the project. In addition, ill order to ensure that the future buildillgs are designed consistently with the surrounding homes, a condition should be added that requires the design review of the two homes be approved prior to the fillal recordation of the fillal map. Staff supports the proposed side-by-side lot design and the lot widths primarily because the project is consistent with the illtent of the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the project is compatible with the overall established pattern of the neighborhood. It is a fact that there are more flag lots on Dolores Avenue, however the entire neighborhood consists of more nanoi'.., side-by-side lots. l1lere are not many lots left ill this neighborhood that will be able to physically permit silnilar subdivisions in the future, so either way the project will not significantly change the pattern of the neighborhood. Tree Removal and Retention: Ten trees are located on the subject property, three of which are significant (Deodar Cedars #1 & #2 and Coast Redv,'ood #5). Only the two Deodar Cedars are protected by the Tree Ordinance. According to the applicant, the Coast Redv'lOod #5 has already been removed due to its poor condition. Staff reCOl1U1lends that the two Cedar trees be 13 - 25 lM-2007-o3, V-2007-o3 Page 4 August 28,.2007 preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood should be planted ,....J to replace the removed redwood. As for the other trees on the property, the applicant has the option of removing them since they are not protected. Staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the existing trees be retained to the maximum extent possible and that the applicant work with the Director of Comml,Ulity Development to make the final decision on the re~ention of these trees at the design review stage. The applicant is also required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner .. Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ~~. ~ ~ / Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2007-o3 ~ Model Resolution for V-2007-o3 Exhibit A: Neighborhood Data Exhibit B: Petition of Support by Neighbors Exhibit C: Tree Survey & Arborist Report Exhibit D: Email from the Applicant, received on August 9, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes, May 1, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes, February 20, 2007 J Plan Set J 13 - 26 TM-2007-03 ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBOMDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO SIDE-BY-SIDE PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A R1-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: ~INGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section n of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this. matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said L application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the'design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. . 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. . 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not . likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision. or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: L That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and. other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and. 13 - 27 Resolution No. Page 2 TM-2007-03 August 28, 2007 That the subconc1usions upon which the findings .and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2006-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 14,2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. ~ SECTION II: PROlECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2007-03 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION ill: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Hari, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", received November 15,2006, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. TREE PRESERVATION All existing trees must be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees ,at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. -" 3. COVENANT. The two ~edar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. 4. VISUAL IMPACT The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the Rl Design Review Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to the adjacent neighbors. -.J 13 - 28 Resolution No. Page 3 TM-2007-03 August 28, 2007 L SECTION IV: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBliC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 5. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 6. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 7. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by tJle City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to .preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 8. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire as needed. L, 9. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 10. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City as needed. ~ 12. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and. shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. 'The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 13 - 29 :Resolution No. Page 4 TM-2007-D3 August 28, 2007 13. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Iri1.provement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $2,194.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree Bonds: a. b. c. J $ S% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,060.00 minimum $ 2,000.00 $ 593.40 N/A $3,348.00 $15,750.00 By Developer --./ -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted Py the City Council. However, ~e fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map .or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 14. TRANSFORMERS Electrical. transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 15. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality -.-/ impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. 13 - 30 Resolution No. Page 5 TM-2oo7-03 August 28, 2007 L b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (B:MPs) included,in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and coven~t running with the land for perpetual B:MP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for B:MP inspection. d. Hydromodification Plan (HMP) Required The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control any combination of on-site, off-site and in-stream control measures incorporated into specific redevelopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not increase the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre-project condition. L 16. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be, required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered .Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 18. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. L 13 - 31 Resolution No. Page 6 TM-2007-03 August 28, 2007 CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF . ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDmONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) -J I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of August 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: --./. AITEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Planning Commission J 13 - 32 V -2007-03 L CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LOT WIDTHS OF APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET INSTEAD OF 60 FEET FOR A PROPOSED TWO-PARCEL SUBDIVISION ON 21871 DOLORES AVENUE, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino has received an application for a Variance, as described in Section TI. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one Public Hearing on this matter; and L WHEREAS, the applicant has meet the burden of proof required to support the application, and has satisfied the following criteria: 1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district. 2) That granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. 3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other .evidence submitted in this mC!.tter, the application for Variance is hereby approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino; and L BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2007-03, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 14, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. . 13 - 33 Resolution No. Page -2- V-2007-Q3 August 28, 2007 ~ SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: V-2007-Q3 Jitka Cymbal . 21871 Dolores Avenue . SECTION ill: CONDmONS OF APPROVAL 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", received November 15, 2006, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. . 2. SIDEYARD SETBACK The minimum ground floor side yard setbacks along the westerly and e.asterly property line shall be 10 feet. 3. DESIGN REVIEW The design review shall be approved by the City prior to the final recordation of the -/' map in order to ensure that the homes are designed consistently with the surrounding homes. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of August 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Lisa Geifer, Chair of Cupertino Planning Commission J G:\Planning\PDREPOR1\RES\2007\V -2007-03 res.doc 13 - 34 L L L @ @ STEVEN!.!EK IIOUI,.EVAftI;I-'-- -1'- -~~- --=""=---- ~ -~; .(. 't! 1!t~~JIli t ~ I Ii .. "t.J; . III t:t JI-' = ., I....-~...~~r- !IJ8j. ' ...i"l........'...r..'I Ii &1..._. · ~ ~: . .i. i~ ~ '1111 ; F !.-~ ffi~~.' - 1!J'~""I,~i ; ,... - -~. ~'''t - -~-o;;.- ..,.-;:: '.fi ' .54 J i.. tIe [& ~ I ~ ]I. """et I;. " f;'lI ~Ii "I ~ 11.11 €>. ~ It .~i if~l 'Iaj ..~.t;rtll' II ~.JI~ ~I~:: ,--.L ;.;.;,. !.-. 1_ '. I~ - -.i::. . -- ~J_-" ~ I ~ It lito Ja ,*!aIl~ ~ 1ll:6 It. 111 ~_I r Q.l" · . F I )I : III · III III -; . li.:r II I laC ~ ~ IItlAl/1I IIa I! ~ It . Ie .~~~ /il'l 'iJ. .lIt """ i... _ r--. _ _ 'l5I .. .. '---. $ iii.' 'f 'I . . . . 1....- . . . ~ ., .~ ._~, : ~ I: = ..\...i/'.. ~ @: ---- Ia. lif ;ilftrl II; lOt " -,m II I: ~~ ~ .~,. , ~', JI..~ Ii-I I... ~'..~I!LM: .. . ...aALMADEN - _~!'- . AllDWE : . 'I =-1 i ,Ii ~ 'i . ~ 1Ii!' : €> I ~,~ I "iJlli Ii II ~ . I :' ~ 14 .1 .jJ · .. , '.1 : !1 lid -j.. ~~rqr;:~i lir., q I eUe I II..; I II t:I Ii 't.j .! II II . ... .. .. ~ - . --- ~~~. III .It j=" It ~_..,. lit =, I!. ..:--,.; . Iai I, i " II; Ie; ~ i' t ~ 'i I. ";/ .. ~ - .. l.a..l_ -"'- '.. .. .. . ~ !~" I ~ ~ ------- j.f.f~ ~ :=~ -;;. -I. ('~ot : "~" ~ : ~ ... '-" 1 ,1 I I": 1 ~p ~ t-~-.;i::- Ii .jl .~. ~- Iii I I JI- l- I J I I __ ; @ I ~ . Jl~ ~I" II III It. It .1 Ill!r It Ii I., d II ~. 1lI-'1l;I lar III I. II III I I, I. - I r_ I _1_ _ I I III . .f: ~.. . -:-_'..~ - ...... '1IWNUF:, -t. i - . ;~ - . - -- - - -- . i~" II II ~ 11 l" .. .. I .. l J.~ t.1~. .-." _ .... '" .. .. ...... "... i#F, ". Iii,.. ~. ~ ... "I - "4 : "&1.j . ~ lI'. . 1! a It...ii- '< II II ._81.. II ,..... ~ .- . I ~... '-,:r 14f.l I ~lfI "u I r-,:,.. !. il It I , II i D'" II it II' .. i I ~--. . .1_ l~__ ~. ~ - ~ ........ _ uv.a I~ A'It:NUiJ 8 i ; ~ "~'I '; I Ii:. I 1\'. L'!.-Il. -; . -;;),,!CU.PVf '_III .111 ... 1"11. r-!" ,we .. ~~ I ... .. I... iii' ~J ... ~ : '!!.' .z. II,.!&'.."'. Iw .~I"- .Ill'''' !1M .,.- i '. 11; .. I;-;rr-l-.rl,....... -r"'~i __ _ I iI :..L""'! . r": on E no fa ~ i . ~T'= i...,. .t I .11 11 Ii 11 !! .I. . .L , . ~. ~ i.J. ( I ~ L. ....:.. ioi' .. j ,.....,j I . r_.\'W alii - .. . .. .. .. .. ___Ill : I@; I! .. t ,. _1IIt J4:. '* ~ \ uts : ;l G.:, b t<;, .. ~ . .. . .: 13 - 35 @ STEVtMS CftEEK SOUL.EVARO II ,.-' _ITMC- ~ii'i=-'---;;;' I.~.n- ir~-i~ ~.~~ .e~ I ~ ~"~.I:I:: .... ~f.:' (I . J ~ 1tl~ ~f ~.~ .~!; .~. :.l,il:.... ~IIIIUI r ~ -- ! - .- ~'1" .. II l I- ~- - .......... I.... -:i- ~-. . f!!.-.- --.;' ~ 10. ---- I le'..va li.,.ff r.i Il ~ ';' "... 1--...... I @) -;.1 ~ l~-;.; ":;. hi 1* I" ~. ;W"~" IlWEIIUE IIi ,f~' -ilIlL . - llil ~'/k btJi.!- 1- ft. !Irb! r'-: 11*"'19 1. i. "t ,@ _. _,._ ft. I. i a( _ .~. "';.;; _ -= 1& - - 1 S I ; _ :;h. ;o+~~'f1 ~ ~~; ~ i _-l:l\1 11& t,._ ix i ....,. i II Ie -e ~ '=t. ~.'~ '--,. L..iL.... ;: "l. I I' ~ ~ . i : ~I! I I · .. I r.:\. _ t ~_I ~. .....," I.DMIT" . - 1.-- '-:-~ ~f ,.-1& -;; i~ ell 7. Illal " ,: . :.!..: '1; ij ~1'. r ;;1 l' \.... I" .@: .. I;l ~ I "'. J.:.-11 .~, it .. II · ..;- Ill. ... l:.. I : at: 'G. ;~ JI"" -: Ii !; . ... . . ~ ~ -.-r II~I!!, I.. -II. I ..I';;-"'~' ,:' 1-S.w.IADEH-I:- ~~...!IE ,," : .@> ,.r,1II1 !i' -Iii ~ . .Ii. II .... II E I'. _ II' ,,. . .. .. 'i .. !l liD ~1: '.~ lJ!il I: t; I ~~II. I II. l::iI Q ".i ,~ . II ::: I! I - ' '" .. r;....~ ~"':.t- oj. It !"- ~ .~. .t II ~I..!. ~ '" ;; '~.. j~ J I 'i ,,~' ~ .. '. '"" ~, p., I _111..~. .i ~ ~..- -. ,l i ~ i,!lal :' \ISI I-~!r! ~: J~ " .. i ~ ~ J~ \ I ijt It I 1 .1 ..~! ,,~~l ...~~~, ~!: JI-l ,11&, E-.. I. . '. Ii . I.' 1 li.'" I; .. J"'; --.,. -- --'- - .:- -1i\lEMUt.:. ~" ~ 1 - I. '; Ii --- - - -- . IJ:., II . U ". 11 i. · · · ~ U~.,' oat" .. - - .. .. ..- ,; 11' . H Iii...'" ~, !CO. ~ .. UI 11-. ., 11. . . ztl,.. ~<< .:...J ~-f ~,~ II _M. ~ &11& \" ~~.I..lI' [: I tiA. r~L RIo.], -Jr I "II I .' ~. I i"ll II~.;. M . '_, U'.;.. l~ 1..... . r. .:.. - r.u)l4t$ --.. _ IiIVJI PI! ~ A~ 8 I -=,.... I'; I A_I Lr'. Lfi:'lfl..; ~. J.I., I _...-'" . 1M .. re.t :-!'. r-c jI ..'!. ill 1&uJ1/1'f, ~'I ~ ~ I; I: ;~. ;:;"'"; . :. I ~.. I . tQ-vrl-rl 1'Iw :-'---! I ~ .. II 'I k ~_ ,. I; JI II ; ; .; = ::: J =V= ~ J I ~t..l U ~ __ Ij .. " ~! .~, _ : P. .,.. - - . 1 . -w .___._..l....: -R~- -- P""'''''' t ,..- . ~ n .. .. .. .. - . . ~ ~ .. .. :: .. - : I .. .. . .. .. n p .. .. .. n .. . . - ~ .. .. p . .. - .. ~ .. @ @ . lIU. 171/44 ~.~~1 t.\..",\~~ ,.to... bO~~ Tl i" soft: S(g Lot:- J i J J 13 - 36 L To: City of Cupertino I support the lot side by side subdivision at 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino to allow the exception of 50 foot lot width. Name Address signature Date ~ A\\(i\rl I-\-SLl 2.t q ~& .170\ ~.ce-s 4-ve.":'. /?f2-c:,~;. _ . ~ ~~. ~{~~D .~~.. ~~ 1/! . () ~ \.'- {, V ~ - r ~I i / ~ . . '.:::r .-J \--l1'it"i. L ~-o lL\{. ~It /fit ~t~tI/ fV\A, C).ff} 44NT 1 2-t ~G 9 0 o~~ . '2/" I . yt'PtJ/fw(}.. slMlv ':J-{F?ol ,,]>JP'(~ AirA'. jffl~ /Wa~ (t.YV' ;:;~. ;;Z V1DD i;)o \,,(~ ~~ ;/dtWf1A-L !~\ ~19~ fJ)~ 1l~r; ::J. --~ . J... t OJ;o P'/\G~?-={y..' ~ . ~,j\ ~,' 2../14 ~~~.u'__i~ 1- '. y~-~- . , ' . ~~ r;:!i S-70:1 ~08 :;e$:r W~:/ /1,~ ;f!J!f~ ,j I (j L 13 - 37 1 t- ,..J, ~ If) , s=&.. :J .. "I ~ ~ IS8 I .37 . il2lt ..----.- T - -tl~ ... ZZ' : I \I" : , I I~U SUBDIVISION, .A~ IdONTA VISTA -~ . l .f~~ -~+- 's-sl 'III' , I L&J ~ Z ~ -< 1. - 100' u IIf/I1O " ''''''5 \\10.\\ 100"5 Ii '" ~ . H 51 13' /511 1ClQ.15 143 LOT 1 ~ G.26AC. 51 70 I . :" ~ l.6 ;_ ~ -Lor-i- : 0.18 At. ~ H i:, I . I ;.' @ ,,,. II" .-U.5 @) I I I : M!~ I!l t 155. :1M -PlH 156 - I 151 : 1sa , " : .1. : ..,,~: ': . ~I r I, ----'--- ,,-,-1,;..--- I I t75" 11~ tl78f 117.... I ., I ~:.. 111 ': .!J. o I~ I 'I p .- 1 I I , , ~ ~ . z"o, '[au Me CLELl~N · ; 11 .z .0 ~ ,,,,, b ,,.,, ~"t' _ jIJ ROAO.......... P.M. 428-1-1-3 JI.M.,A ~ '5u.fp"rG -fTrr tb .p.,.,.,. S I'<L e ~ ~ '> I'd fi' ~<t~aiim/W;. 171 .:. LAWllOa Eo STt>>fE - ASSE: I:8IIIW .. ........ ..... ~ ... Il .t t Oi*. See. ... RGII YW 21101-2002 ..... (.ol , .~ ( ( c L L BARRIE D. COA. and ASSOCIATES Horlicutural ConsuIt8nts 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 408J353-1052 A REVIEW OF THE TREES AT . THE LANDS OF HSU/HAN 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO Prepared at the request of: Piu Ghosh City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate . Consulting Arborist October 2nd, 2006 Job# 10-06-204 I' / - RECEIVED 1 OCT , 7 2G06 JBY:= 13 - 39 HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 218'1 & ~LORES AVENUE CUPERTINO 1 Assignment On October 2Dd, 2006, I met Mrs. Sue Han at the property to prepare an analysis of the trees on the property. ,J The plan used for this analysis is by Westfall Engineers, Inc., titled 'Tentative Map; Lands ofHsu and ~' dated September 2006. At this time we do not have the plans that show the proposed new structures so it is not possible to provide specific recommendations for tree preservation during construction, but the enclosed notes titled ''Tree Protection Before, During, and After Construction" should be used as guidelines for ~ protection It will,be necessary to install fences to protect at least the two Deodara Cedar trees before any demolition or construction activity begins.. The suggested fence locations are drawn into the map I was provided. If those recommended fence locations conflict with proposed construction we should review the construction plans with tree preservation detail in mind Summary The site has 4 trees on it ofa size large enough to be contr~lled by City Ordinance. The most important ones are two Deodar Cedars (Cedrus deodara) which are near the south side near the front of the property. The majority of the other trees are of less important species such as Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). There is one Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in rather poor cpndition along the east property line. The Deodara Cedar trees have been severely pruned and over thinned causing them to be very stubbed looking at this point and being of much lesser value than they might have been otherwise. . ---./ ~ These trees (# 1 and # 2) are both healthy but have been dan1aged by the severe stub- cutting of each of the limbs. It will be necessary over a period of time to re-prune these trees as they respond to the severe pruning they received " J PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST 13-40 OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 2lb. 4 OOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO 2 ~ Conclusion There are nine trees on 1I1e property and one on the adjacent property to the west in this survey. Of these, only the two Deodara Cedars, one Coast Redwood are significant trees. The three Black LocustS species are brittle andthespecim.ens are poorly formed and of little importance. The rest of the trees are smaller than the size commonly covered by City regulations but are included in this report because they were shown on the plan provided. . Respectfully submitted, ~t?~ Barrie D. Coate BDC/phlg L Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Tree Protection Notes Photographs . Map .. " ~ PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST 13-41 OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 BARRIE D. COATE', and ASSOCIA YES Honc~u~ICon~.n~ 23535 Summit Roed Los Getos. CA 95033 4081353.1052 ~ ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS . . 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. Tne appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent. written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates th~ entire appraisal/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. - 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the . appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. . 9. When applying an~ pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always fallow label instructions. 10.No tree described In this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take --/ responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. . CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists' who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural'failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee'that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. 05~~~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant J 13 - 42 L BARRIE D. CuATE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos) CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND APTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the docwnent. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except.for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later L by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an un~alanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies., Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone, Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" oftnmk diameter (measured at 4 Yz ') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the drip line, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and 'inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER G Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1 n of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. A void installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. 13-43 31 MEASUREMENTS CONDITION DI8P08ITION NOTES BARRIE D. COATE ~ ~ 0 ~ w m ~ Gl W lH ~ _ ASSOCIATES II: I !i: ~ fIJ t! Gl ~ m I .5. .... tij' lH ~ C) 0 fU Ii ::2 . .... fIJ ~ ~ ~ ~ Do ,..: ::2 ' ,2J515f111lW - 0 0: 8 0 @ '? ~ . g g wClllt,C'AtDI ~ II: C Q c ~ ~ m II: .... i!; ~ 0: - ~ 0 Z W ~ i ~ ~ :J: ~ 0 W re w 8 ~ ~ w 0 !i: ~ ::& ~ W ~ ~ m m ~ ::& m C) :J ;: D. 0 ~ 8 t:: ~ :J: :J: ! II: ~ Do ~ W m 8 ~ree . ~ ~ iij D. R P ~ ~ ~ ~ !!I I~ n :J: (/) :J: ;:: tv- 1 0e0danI Cedar 20 <<l 30 1 3 4 . . p Ced1Is Deodar8 2 Deodara Cedar 24 45 35 1 3 4 . . p Ced1Is DeocIara 3 Black Locust 11 25 20 2 2 4 R RobInIs pssucloac<<:/e I 315 . 4 Black Locust 11 25 30 2 R RobInIa - 5 Coast RedwoocI 17 · 30 15 1 2 3 . . p I 6 Incense Cedar 8 10 8 1 1 2 I . Catooectus cIecutr8ns 7 Tree 6 8 12 1 1 2 PrImus 8I1118f1laca 8 Bottle Tree 9 15 12 1 3 4 Frost DamaCl - 9 Black Locust 13 ~ 10 30 20 1 1 2 . R RobInIa . 10 BottJe Tree ' 6 12 8 1 2 3 Brachvchilon DODUlneus .... Co) I t The Lands of HsulHan 21871 Dolores Avenue cupertin~ 10-06-2041Qctober 2nd. 2006 · CD WIIB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK .. RECOMMENDED + P = PRESERVE: T=TRANSPLANT: R=REMOVE 1 .. Best, 6 + Worst ... ( ( BStJIH.AN PR.oPBR.1Y. 2181t DOLORES AVBNUB CUPERTINO L ~ 2. Trees #1 & #2. '--+ L PREPABED BY BARR1B D. COATE. CONSULTINGARBORIST +- 1. Tree #1. 13 - 45 OCTOBER. 2ND. 2006 HSUIHAN PROPBltTY" 21171 DOLOIBS AVENUE CUPERTINO ~ +- 3. Tree #3 (note dead branches). "'" ~~, - ~", ,:;>-;?"" --- ,-i,,~ '. ~--:-;- - " 4. Tree #5. -+ PREPAREDBYBARRlBD. COATE. CONSOLTJNGARBORIST c:>ct6BER. 2)IfJ, 2006 L \- \....." aSUIHAN PIlOPEllTY. 21111 DOLORES A VBNtJB CUPERTINO +- S. Tree #6. ! 6. Tree #7. -----;:-e-- -- p... PlmPAREDBY BARRIS D. COATI; CONSULTING ARBOlUST 13.47 OCTOBEll2ND.2006 HSUJHAN PROPERTY. 21171 DOLOUS AVBNtJE CUPERTJNO ~ '.: ~-;-- ~.. ~., .;:... +- 7. A neighboring tree which should not be a1fected. 8. Tree # 8. -+ .'- . , ~/' ,'I .'1 ---./ ;, i , i ! ...: ..... ... .J PREPARED BY BARRIB D. COATB. CONSULTING ARBORIST 13 - 48 OCTOBER. 21<<).2006 L '-- L tiSU'HAN PROPBRTY. 21171 DOLORES AVBNUE CUPERTINO t 9. Cypress along neighbor's property line. PREPARED BY BARRIB D. COATE. CONSULTING ARBORIST 13 - 49 OCTOBER~. 2006 Gary Chao Cc: Subject: Tracy Hsu [tracy_hsu@yahoo.com] Thursday, August 09, 2007 10:59 AM Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; mmiller@interorealestate.com; dkaneda@ideasi.com; gwong212 @aol.com; Cary Chien Gary Chao; Suejane Han lot subdivision on 21871 Dolores Ave J From: Sent: To: Dear Commissioner, I am writing you this email,for the lot subdivision on 21871 Dolores Ave., CUpertin~. Most of you may still remember that our proposal was denied by the planning commission early this year. We appealed the council meeting. It was a 2-2 vote. Unfortunately we didn't realize that we could postpone the meeting, and we didn't give a chance to continue the discussion when one of members is absent. One of council members pointed out that usually the applicant is automatically granted to continue the discussion when one of council members is absent, but we didn't give this opportunity. We feel our case hasn't been treated fairly. After talked to neighbors and city staff, we resubmitted the application. The public hearing is scheduled on Aug. 14. There are two main concerns in last planning commission's public hearing. One concern is the 5-foot side setbacks variance. We have withdrew this variance. We will adhere the R1 Ordiance. The other concern SO-foot front width variance. We understand city tries to avoid variance. But if we look at the entire Monta Vista area, it clearly shows SO-foot front width lot dominates this area. The map shows 26 houses are flag lots, and 77 houses are substandard lot (front width is less than 60 feet). There are 56 out of 77 are 50-foot front width. OUr proposal is following the pre-domin~ pattern in the Monta Vista area. It's not creating a new pattern. . J Also the city's general policy is not to create flag lot unless there is no alternative. We fully agree this general policy. In the past several months, we spent a lot df time to talk and work with neighbors. There are 10 houses surrounding the property. ~e got 5 support, 3 neutral, and 2 against. We have more support than against. In the meantime, we worked with the 2 neighbors which are against the project. one of them, 21909 Dolores Ave., requests us to put 10-foot side setback next to his property. The owner explicitly told me that he is not going to against the project if we put 10-foot side setback next to his property. We have asked our project manager to add this one as a condition to lot subdivision. The other neighbor, 21901 Dolores Ave, is against the project. I visited this neighbor many times. Unfortunately the owner refused to talk to me. Please reconsider our case. I am sure you could make your judgement based on the above facts and owner's preference. Regards, -Tracy Hsu Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Hal Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow J 13 - 50 1 May 1, 2007. Cupertino City Council Page 7 L- Sandova1JLowenthal moved and second~ tv t,'h~, ibM ill. l.hc monan camea- u_nariPlo~l.x 15. Conside):' a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council'.s decision to deny a Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels of 9,685 square fee~ and 9,686 square feet,. respectively, and to deny a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width. instead of the required 60-foot width, for two proposed parcels, Application Nos. EXC-2006-14, TM- 2006-12, V-2007-01, Jitka Cvmbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871" Dolores Avenue, APN ' 357-14-026. The petitioners are Tracy Hsu and Suejane Han. Adopt a re.so1ution to either: -a) Deny the rehearing, Resolution No. 07-075; or ~) Grant the rehearing, Resolution No. 07-076; or c) Approve the application ifrehearing is granted, Resolution N~. 07-077 , . Jitka Cymbal, representing the petitioners, commented on the previous discussion concerning flag lots and side-by-side lots and stated t1uit side-by-side lots were more prevalent in the neighborhood than flag lo.ts. She also noted that there were only three lots in the neighqorhood that were of a similar size with similar development opportunities. Cindy Hsu and Rachel Chang stated their support of side-by-side lots. ~ J etmifer Griffin stated her support in this case of a flag lot rather than the creation of two substandard width lots, potentially 30 feet wide and 125 feet long with ..minimal side . setbacks. If side-by-side homes were approved she recommended the house sizes be constrained. Suejane Han and Tracy Hsu, co-owners of the parcel, commented that a majority of the adjacent neighborS were in favor of side-by-side homes for this subdivision. They ~er noted that most of the lots in this neighborhood were narrow and their design plans ,included protection of the trees on the property. Council discussed the request before them and the City Attorney's report on the findlligs required for reconsideration. The basic question was whether or not any new evidence had been presented at this meeting. ' Mahoney/Kwok moved and 'seconded to adopt Resolution No. 07-075, to deny the rehearing. The motion carried 3-2, with Sandoval and Lowenthal voting no; , , 16. Consider adopting a resolution upholding the City Manager's desi " g ,Officer's decision to deny ~ a ea1 b Ja: Kamdar e issuance of. arRevocable Encroachment Permit by the Dir, c Works for the installation of a fence adjacent to 10060 Cannen esolution No. 07-078. ~ s 'buted an email dated April 26 from Jay lCamdar withdra~g his 13 - 51 May 1, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 8 During Postponements, Kwok/Mahoneymoved and seconded to (1) Table this item, since '. the appellant had withdrawn his appeal; and (1) Direct staff to place an item on ~e May J 10 Council work session to discuss policies and procedures regarding the appeal of administrative decisions. The motion carried unanimously.' ,...- .,'..' ORDINANCES 17. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance NO'. 07-2000: "An Ordinarice' of the Cupertino City Council Amending Chapter 19.28.050 of the Municipal Code, Single Family. Residential Zones CR1) Regarding Buildings Proposed on Properties wi$ an Average Slope Equal to.<?r Greater than Fifteen Percent, Application No. MCA-2006-01.." (Continued from April 17). Patrick Kwok stated fur the record that although he was not at the meeting when this was last discussed, he did read the staff report and ,watch the videotape of the meeting. Cqmmunity Development Director Steve PiaSecki noted that at their' April I? l'D:eeting CoUncil had continued this item to. allow the neighbors to reach some agreem~nt on the R1 hillside zoning issue. Piasecki said that staff had not had the oppOrtunity to fully review their suggestions, but he hIghlighted them and their possible ramificationS. Mark Santoro (speaking also for Suzette Pangrle, Sherry Fang, aild Frank Sun) stated that . a lot of information had been' received from. the neighbors, and the conSensus was that they did not want to be,separ8:ted from the rest of the dty; they wanted the issue resolved tonight; theY did not want spot zoning; they did not want the matter to go back to the Planning Commission; they' wanted to stay Rl; and they believed~ere was confusion regarding the 10% line. 'They were i"equesting that Section 19.28.050, SectiOIl CI and C2 of the RJ ordinance be removed and replaced with the following: ,The folloWing rules apply to buildings whose slope within the footprint of the proposed building are over 15%: 1) allowable floor area be reduced by 1% for each percentage of slope over 15% within the building footprint. The maximum floor area reduction sh,all be 50%. and 2) in order to reduce the footprint of buildings on hillsides the size of the see:ond floor of a.two story building may exceed the 45% RJ limit however it shall not' exceed 100% of the first floor. Mr. Santoro cOncluded that the recommendation of the north side (including some members of the south side) was. to remove Section 19.28;050, Sections Cl and C2 from the.RJ Ordinance. However, they were willing ~ accept the south side's proposal. --..../. James Seay noted that their home was built in 1979 and he currently wanted to do a remodel which would include an elevator. 'Hewould be negatively impacted by this '~x~ce. . . Bob Rodert questioned what the problem was with the current ordinances. He could not support changes that were not directed at solvi,ng'specific community-wide problems: He reco111P1ended maintaining the cUIrC?nt ordinances~ . ---./' .~ ,......... " ' .,....' 13 - 52 February 20, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 3 L- . , , the Superior Court website to obtain applications and receive further info~ation can be fo , the Cupertino website at www.cupertino.or~. L Sandova1/Mahoney moved and secan to continue this item. to March 6. Ayes: Kwok, Mah~ney, Sandoval, and Wang. No None. Absent: Richard Lowenthal. ' on CONSENT C,ALENDAR SandovaVKwokmoved and seconded to approve the items on th~ Consent recammeIfded, with the exception of item. No.8, which was pulled for discussi Mahoney, ,Sandoval, and \Vang. Noes: None.' Absent:. Richard Lowenthal. 5. - Approve the minutes from the February 6 City Council meeting. 6. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Pavable for January 9, Resolution Nos. 07-030 to 07-032. 7. Adopt a resolutio~ acCepting Pavro.ll for Feb~ary 9, ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CAL 8. ort for the year ending June 30, 2006. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Consider approving a bin 0 ermit renewal from De Anza Force Soccer. (Continued from February 6). - , . Kwok/Mahon moved and seconded to approve the bingo permit renew~ for DeAnza Force Socce The motion carried unanimously with Lowenthal absent. opened at 7:16 p.m. There were no speakers and the public 7:18 p.m. ' TIle public hearing hearing was clos 10. Consid an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to modify the use pennit for Peet' offee to allow' an o1?eningtime of 5:30 a.m., Appli~tion No. M-2006-07, Laura Th as (peet's Coffee), 20807 Stevens Creek'Blvd., APN 326-32-051. The appellant is uncilmember Richard Lowenthal. Under postponements, this item was ~ntinued to March 6 as requested by the applicant. ' 11. Consider an appeal of the PI~g Commission's 'decision to deny an exception to allow a 5-foot side vard setback. to deny a Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels 'of 9,685 square fee~ and 9,686 square feet:, respectively, and, to deny a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for two proposed parcels, Application Nos. EXC-.2006-14, TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, Jitka 13 - 53 L February 20, 2007 Cupertino City Council - Page 4 .' Cvinbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-026. The appellant is :-J Jitka Cymbal. Director of Community Development Steve, Piasecki noted that the applicant had withdrawn the appeal for the exception portion of the application, EXC-2006-14. Applicant Jitka Cymb~ reviewed the proj.ect. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. J ohnny Wang said he was concerned about the loss of privacy with a flag lot due to the many windows that would face his .house from the side. Rhoda Fry said that she was not i,n favor of variances and was concerned about the drainage issue. She said' that ,the lots should be compared to, others on the street for . compatibility, rather than the overall neighborhood, and she did not think side-by-side lots would be compatible in this case. She said she would like to see some big trees planted in Monta Vista. Jennifer Griffin said she is.familiar with the problems of small lots, noting that she can hear her neighbor's conversations from her window. She said she was concerned about creating two substandard lots and that homes built side by side would look like Inobile homes. She 'thought flag lots were a better idea in this situation, and she also urged C9uncil to preserve the trees. ----/' Victoria Gomez said she lives across the street from the property in question. She noted that the applicant had already built two houses elsewhere and that they are beautiful. She said she would like to see diversity in the neighborhood arid urged Council to uphold the appeal to build the houses side by side. Cindy Hsu,owner, said that Cupertino ~s the only city where she has seen flag lots. She said they are not safe because fire dep!U'tinent vehicles have difficulty reaching the houses. She asked Council to uphold the appeal. Tracy Hsu, owner, said she was told 'by CitY staff to a~oid flag lots. She noted that .the Planning Commission failed to give clear guidelines to City staff and to the applicant, and that the City should stay with i~ policy of avoiding flag lo~. Suejane' Han distributed a petition in support of upholding the appeal. She said she counted 76 side-by-side houses vs. 26 flag lots in the Monta Vista area She believed that that side-by-side lots are safer, and building flag lots is an old practice. I ' The public hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m. . ----/' 13 - 54 February 20~ 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 5 L- Mahoney/Sandoval moved and seconded to continue the item to March 20 and to' have the applicant bring back plans of what ,the lot would look like as a side by side. The motion failed with Patrick Kwok and Kris Wang voting no, Orrin'Mahon,ey and Dolly Sandoval voting yes, and Richard Lowenthal ~bsent. Malloney/Sandovai moved and seconded to uphold the appeal and grant the vari~ce. The motion failed with Patrick Kwok and Kris Wang voting no, Orrin Mahoney and Dolly Sandoval 'voting yes, and Richard Lowenthal absent. The appeal is denied and the Planning'Commission decision is upheld. . UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. Consider a Community Development Director's referral of'a minor 111 approv~ the final front plaza design ~d gateway feature. for Oak Park a e along N. De Anza Boulevard required by a previously approved use permit i6ation (U-2004- 09), Application No. DIR-2907-06, Chuck Bommarito, 1074~ e AnzaBlvd, APN 326-10-064. Jennifer Griffin said that the project looked nice on pap , ut the resulting housing is too high and too dense, and creates an oddly shaped ro e along Highway 280. She urged Council to add lots of trees to the project and no that any artwork put there should be around 5-feet tall and have muted colors in ord 0 keep it looking like a wooded area. a) of traffic safety issues in the tri-school area includ~g Monta. Vista ' y Middle, and Lincoln elementary schools pprove the' minor modification' to the front e motion carri~d llDl'lnimously with Richard \.- Sandova1/Kwok moved and seconded t plaza design and gateway feature., Lowenthal absent. Council recessed from 8:55 p.m. to 9: 13. Receive stRffrecoIl1Dlen b) Defer scussion of the reopening the Scenic Circle gate into Blackberry Fann as a sep te item Rhod ry said that the City should put money iIito pedestrian safety, especially in, the Mo a Vista. area.. " ' avid Greenstein talked about traffic around the schools and sai9 the best solution is to get parent participation and to educate the public about using alternative transportation to get their children to and from school. ~ 13 - 55 February 20, 2007 Cupertino City Council P8:ge 6 . , Joe Walton, member pf Bicycle Pedestrian Commissiont suggested that the gate access J into Monta Vista High School be opened so that bikes could be ridden through and to provide better bicycle parking at the schooL He also suggested a car pool website that parents could utilize. ~e noted that the commission wanted to work with the Public Ylorks staff further on these issues and encouraged Council to do what it could to help alleviate ~c congestion around the schools. , Norm Donovan 'said that the Scenic Circle gate should be opened to allow bicycle and pedestrian access to school. Jennifer Griffin and Louis,e Levy both said that they would like to see school buses as a i; solution. ' Rabert'Levy noted that the City has na control over the busing issue sinee the schaal districts gave them up, but encouraged the City to use its surplus dollars to help wIth 't,raffic Congestion. Cauncil discussed having Cauncil member Sandaval continue to work with the neighborhood; schools; and the Valley Transportation Authority' (VTA), and ta have Mayor Wang go to Sacramento to look intp a grant. The Council also discussed having the Bicycle Pedestrian and Public Safety Commissians continue to work with staff on the traffic issue regardiri.g safer routes to schaal. Mahoney/Kwok moved '.and seconded to' accept. staffs recammendationS and ta iricorporate the discussion of the tri-school area traffic safety issues into the work program. J NEW BUSINESS 14. Review and adopt the 2007-08 City Council work program. (<;ontinued from February 6). Kwok/Mahoney moved and seconded to adopt the 2007-08 work program with the following amendments. The motion carried unanimously: . · OI?- page 1, delete items 1 and 2 (Dynasty Restaurant and Alexander's Steakhouse) in the Completed settion under Status, and strike the comments regarding the 137 Vailco condominiums adding instead, "awaiting application fr9m Vall eo" · On page 2, delete the HP Site under Project Goal, Statust and Comments · On page 2t change the Capital Improvements and Plans from 'number 1 tQ.. number 2t and strike the comments far the Mary Avenue Pedestrian Footbridge '\$ " · On page 2t add some interim dates under the Status section regarding the Stevens Creek Corridor Park, and strike the comments regarding issues to be resolved for --/' Phase II adding instead, "Resolve issues and begin the grant application process far phase II" 13 - 56 LEGEND ( txtSTlMG CJ . o o ........ ........., ""'....., ARtIt. DRI\JN '''-'' SANlT/lIrI S[\,I[R IWHlU STDI:M DtIIJN MNHLE """"""'" ....IITtR VH.VE ,,..., UGfT CLtNOJT '""<1""" lOT UMt ,,,.,.11...,", lIMIT Of" EAiEMENT "'" "'" "'" OJTTER EJJGt IF PAVEMENT OI'm..., rEJC[ FlJIWlJJlt SNmARY SE'JCR "... ..... <LmRI""- ... V..... o @ if. _-L -11-11_ -P_D_ -[-c- -":'[;-!i- -'oI-\'_ VICINITY MAP ~ 3 < I II > II I II )I. I I o-"SIWrik i~===" I II ~mu > II _ __... I IUO......... II <II ~- I :: I 1 :: . - 'd_ L_____~~____J NOV 152006 )I. ~ . SiII_O'..._ II I I ". ! II ==:::::::. J BY, =~-= ii~j I )/~ ~ F~-:_ i I ~ II ~I ,I / 'III L__________.J FlING - -.- II ':k_/, .l:l{r."""" CHEN WANG ..-;;-.:::: I.l.., Ii"'" ~ LJ"';.'" -- -- -- - -- -- - - -- -- -- - - -- -- - -- -- 'iDO~E_ 1~3i2' - - - -- - - - - - - -- -r =-_ -:.. - - - -- -- . ,,--<>" I > ~ I I r-----, rery"r......... I l, -,-,- I I I ~ I I I .r. >. -v-v- I I 0,;'''''' ElLOllTT... ,,..,,,-i J..,I{ I , I , " I ... .-------, I """" I A ,",' ElLSHE11 I I" 0 ,~...... If; I II! L~ IlOIOVE : I > I I I I I -I L____..J...u 9........ [ .~ : ! I II..,,! ~ I ElL","~ i: \(;~) /rr,{ ~:. J : I I ~ 8 I r L:J< ( .,J\--TJ..... I :> I I ~I"''' ,...(".1Y"""'\- L J ~ J'~" y"" , I I' I. l' ,'c. I ~=.J C (.- ,r, \ I" ~ I 7 A, ZI r ~J-r II \, I \:. . )'-t.y-A..vY I \ I 'I = .x '\.' ) '-r r----l I " >"L/'~ ~I' ,-\ '1 '...,;i.c,:::,~~.J"<" ....." , ""'2' ~,_J \ ~ I' I"" , r >-).. " I r: 'Iwi '~~", f~ ~I- ) v..u \.... F~--r,...~, : \ II >::l = "I,~., t ,,? ... f I \ II I Z I I I V~rFr' ~ 0f.o&> ~ ~ .I ,au' ElL""'''' I \ II w_ 'W t ".I" ........ I " I II ,I~ ", ",' It.. ,;i // 9,..l.... I II i1 II __ l. .'! ___ /' I 2 I ...~A....~ I '1.-, .._.":' ~..---- .~l~ I \ I I ...;/ ! I I '..;~,~ _~_',.J-1j-' I I \ I "I,.." I I I I \ I \ I I \ I ' ~_. r -,: .:- - ~. . \ - . "........-'~ ,,~._=~J_': --;; t-.-, i! II II Ii II II II II II PllIII'Ilro C? . . . t -h: ---!...- -... 1- SCALE SITE 1; g "".. I j:!! g l" f ~ ! ~ ~ z O! X); #r \} ( NIl JY llAT[ REVltlDN r----------l I [lI.HOlI5[ I I , I I .""" JY ~Tt W.TEo IiMKBrR 2006 SClU.E. I'm. ]-.1 vm, IESl ~ .J: BY, lCNlEl. tYKlAl.. RCE 345 DC:ICEl) kt 1IATE' JC 4 WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC; TENTATIVE MAP LANDS OF HSU AND HAN 2J871 ID..0Ilt! AVENUt. CLI'ERT1NO H58J JIG BASIN II,lV. ~TIXiA. ~ 95C70 t 408HI"-oI!44 ! I I I 1....1 , I I JElL"""" I I I I I I L_ ..mhll 2'006-133 '>€E' I "'. 13-57 CITY OF CUPERTINO L 10300 Torre Avenue, CUPetnno, Califomia 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: IM-2007-03, V-2007-03, EXC-20Q9-14 . Applicant Jitka CYmbal Property Owner:, Sue-Jane Han Property Location: 21871 Dolores Avenue Agenda Date: August 14,2007 Application Summary: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .46 acre lot into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively ina R1-7.5 zoning district. VARIANCE to allow a SO-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two propoSed parcels. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission app~ove the tentative map, the variance and the exception in accordance with the model resolutions. L Project Data: General Plan t>esignation: Zoning Designation: Total Acreage (gross): Net Acreage per parcel: Density: Low Density Residential, 1-5 DU / gr. acre' Rl-7.5 .46 Lot 1- 9,685 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,686 sq. ft. 4.3 du/gr. acre. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Yes, Policy 2-23 Yes Categorically exempt. Environmental Assessment: ~ BACKGROUND: On January 23, 2007, the Planning commission voted (4-1) to deny the proposed project. The Commission was concerned about the side-by-side .lot design and felt that the project did not match the flag lot pattern of the immediate neighborhood. The Commission had concerns on the requested five foot side yard setback exception. The Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council. On February 20,2007, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision due to a draw vote (2-2) with one Council member absent. On May 1, 2007, the Council considered and denied the applicant's reconsideration request based on the principle that procedurally they did not want to go back on a decision that was made by the Council with a quorum even if one Council member was absent during the deliberation. The Council suggested that 13 - 58 lM-2007-Q3, V-2007-Q3 Page 2 August 14, 2007 the applicant has the option to reapply and be heard by the full Council if necessary. The applicant has reapplied for the same project. The project site is located on the north side of Dolores Avenue between Byrne Avenue and Orange Avenue. A main residence, two detached cottages and a detached shed currently exist on the parcel. Single- family residential parcels surround the subject site. The proposal is to demolish all of the structures on the property, subdivide into two lots and build two new single family homes. DISCUSSION: There are two major discussion points for this subdivision: flag lot v. conventional lots and the proposed lot width. Flag lot VB. Conventional lots The parcel is approximately 100 feet wide and 190 feet deep. The lot is not wide enough for two minimum 60 foot widths as required by the R1 Ordinance. The site can be subdivided into two lots with a flag lot in the rear to meet the minimum lot width requirement. Alternatively,' the property could be divided down the middle creating two conventional lots, resulting in lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet. Gene1.al Plan The GeneraJ. Plan (Policy 2-23) specifies that flag lots should be created only when there is no reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot pattern in the neighborhood. This policy discourages new flag lots in the interest of promoting better house to street relationships in residential neighborhoods. Planning Commission The Planning Commission,has approved a similar variance request (TM-2005-14, 21988 McClellan Road) allowing the subdivision to conventional lots with substandard lot ~idths (less than 60 feet) in the interest of better integrating the future residence into the neighborhood. However, in the case of this project, the Commission has previously felt that a flag lot design is more appropriate and consistent with the immediate pattenl of the neighborhood; The applicant contends that the predominate neighborhood pattern is side-by-side lots and that the proposed subdivision design is consistent with 13 - 59 -...J --/' J L- L August 14, 2007 the lot pattern and overall lot widths of the entire neighborhood. Please see the data provided by the applicant (exhibit A). Neighbor/wod Dub'each Since the last time the Planning Commission reviewed this project, 'the applicant, has attempted to commwncate with many of the immediate neighbors and has obtained ten ~ignatures of support (exhibit B). One of the main concerns previously expressed by the two adjacent neighbors to the east was that there was not sufficient side yard setback proposed (5 foot) along the project's easterly property line. In response to this, the applicant has withdrawn the original five foot side yard setback exception request and has volunteered to provide at least 10 feet of building side yard setback along the eaSterly property line (see exhibit D). This should be added as a condition of the project should the Commission decide to approve the project. In addition, in order to ensure that the future buildings are designed consistently with the surrounding homes, a condition should be added that requires the design review of the two homes be approved prior to the final recordation of the final map. Staff supports the proposed side-by-side lot design and the lot widths primarily because the project is consistent with the intent of the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the project is compatible with the overall established pattern of the neighborhood. It is a fact that there are more ,flag lots on Dolores Avenue, however the entire neighborhood consists of more narrow side-by-side lots. There are not' many lots left in this neighborhood that will be able to physically permit similar subdivisions in the future, so either way the project will not significantly change the pattern of the neighborhood. Tree Removal and Retention: Ten trees are located on the subject property, three of wInch are significant (Deodar Cedars #1 & #2 and Coast Redwood #5). Only the two Deodar Cedars are protected by the Tree Ordinance. According to the applicant, the Coast Redwood #5 has already been removed due to its poor condition. Staff recommends that the two Cedar trees be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood should be planted \....... to replace the removed redwood. As for the other trees on the property, the applicant 13 - 60 TM-2007-Q3, V-2OO7-Q3 Page 4 August 14,2007 has the option of removing them since they are not protected. Staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the existing trees be retained to the maximum extent ,--../ possible and that the appliccui.t work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision 9n the retention of these trees at the design review stage. The applicant is also required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner <::::::::;:2~~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ~ Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2007-o3 Model Resolution for V -2007-03 Exhibit A: Neighborhood Data Exhibit B: Petition of Support by Neighbors Exhibit C: Tree Survey & Arborist Report Exhibit D: Email from the Applicant, received on August 9, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes, May 1, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes, February 20, 2007 Plan Set ------ ~ 13 - 61 TM-2007-03 ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO SIDE-BY-SIDE PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A R1-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and "-- WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for 'the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4)' That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: ~ That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and 13 - 62 Resolution No. Page 2 TM-2007-03 August 14,2007 That the subconc1usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2006-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 14, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. J SECTION IT: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2007-03 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION ill: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY TIlE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS . The recommendation of approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", received November 15, 2006, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. ' TREE PRESERVATION All existing trees must be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. .-.../ 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a covenant on the property that 'ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. 4. VISUAL IMP ACf The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the R1 Design Review Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to the adjacent neighbors. " SECTION N: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY TIffi ,PUBliC WORKS DEPARTMENT. .J 13 - 63 L Resolution No. Page 3 5. STREET ~)PENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. ' TM-2007-o3 August 14, 2007 6. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 7. 'STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than 'the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 8. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire as needed. 9. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the, Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 L permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 10. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City as needed. 12. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility nnderground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. L 13. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreemep.t with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm dram fees, park dedication fees and fees for nnder 13 - 64 Resolution No. Page 4 TM-2007-o3 August 14,2007 grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. -J Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $2,194.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,060.00 minimum $ 2,OOO~00 $ 593.40 N/A $3,348.00 $15,750.00 By Developer Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b.' Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule ' --J adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then CUrrent fee schedule. 14. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and sitnilar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 15. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) 13 - 65 J Resolution No. Page 5 TM-2007-o3 August 14, 2007 L included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements , The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running ~th the land for perpetual B:MP maintenance by the property owners(s). In additioll, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. d. Hydromodification Plan (HMP) Required The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control any combination of on-site, off-site and in-stream control measures incorporated into specific redevelopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not increase the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre-project condition. 16. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a L recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 18. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. ~ CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDmONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) 13 - 66 Resolution No. Page 6 TM-2007-o3 August 14, 2007 I hereby certify that the engineering and surVeying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices -/ Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA license 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: ' AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: -/ Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Planning Commission J 13 - 67 V-2007-03 ~ OTY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COM:MISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LOT WIDTHS OF APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET INSTEAD OF 60 FEET FOR A PROPOSED TWO-PARCEL SUBDMSION ON 21871 DOLORES AVENUE, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE. SECTION 1: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino has received an application for a Variance, as described in Section ll. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one Public Hearing on this matter; and \.....- WHEREAS, the applicant has meet the burden of proof required to support the application, and has satisfied the following criteria: 1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district. 2) That granting of fl:I.e Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. 3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity artd will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VE~: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Variance is hereby approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino; and L BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2007-D3, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 14,2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 13 - 68 Resolution No. Page -2- V-2007-03 August 14,2007 J SECTION IT: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: V-2007-03 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION ill: CONDmONS OF APPROVAL 1. APPROvED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of fuu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", received November 15,2006, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. SIDEYARD SETBACK The minimum groWld, floor side yard setbacks along the westerly and easterly property line shall be 10 feet. 3. DESIGN REVIEW The design review shall be approved by the City prior to the final recordation of the --J map in order to ensure that the homes are designed consistently with the surrounding homes. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning . Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: AITEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Lisa Geifer, Chair of Cupertino Planning Commission ~) 13 - 69 F:\PDREPOR1\RES\2oo7\V -2007-03 res.doc L CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Califonua 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TM-2007-03 Applicant: Jitka Cymbal Property Owner: Sue-Jane Ran Property Location: 21871 Dolores Avenue Agenda Date: May 22, 2007 Application Summary: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .46 acre lot into two parcels of square feet and 8,375 , , square feet to 9,374 square feet, respectively in a R1-7.5 zoning district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning CommiSsion approve the tentative map 'exception in accordance with the model resolution. L Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Total Acreage (gross): Net Acreage per parcel: , Density: Low Density Residential, 1-5 DU j gr~ acre R1-7.5 .46 Lot 1- 8,375 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,374 sq. ft. 4.3 duj gr. acre. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Yes Yes Categorically exempt. Environmental Assessment: \ BACKGROUND: d ' The project site is located on.the n?rth side of Dol r~ Avenue between Byrne Avenue and Or~ge Avenue. A mam reSIdence, two d ,ched cottages and a detached shed ~urrent1y exist on the parcel. Single-family residential parcels surround the subject parcel. The applicant proposes to demolish all of the structures on the property, subdivide into two lots and build two single family homes. On January 23, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied the applicarit's prior application (TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14) to subdivide the property into two side-by-side lots. Several adjacent neighbors expressed concerns that the side-by- side lots with the reduced side yard setba9<s proposed at the time would result in , negative privacy impacts, and they requested a flag lot design. The Commission also, felt that a flag lot design would be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood and would avoid substandard lot widths proposed (see attached Planning Commission' meeting minutes). The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to theiL City Council. On February 20, 2007, the Oty Council denied the applicant's appeal and 13 - 70 TM-2007-03 Page 2 May 22, 2007 upheld the Planning Commission's decision. A petition of reconsideration was later filed and denied by the Council on May 1, 2007. ' -./ The applicant is now submitting a new application with ':l flag lot design. DISCUSSION: The proposed flag lot design is compatible with the immediate neighboring lot pattern. The orientation of the flag lot minimizes tree removal (see diagram below). ----/' Although the General Plan discourages flag lots, staff supports the proposal since it is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction. No exceptions or variances are being requested as part of this map approval. Since this is only a subdivision request, the placement of the homes and landscaping concepts are not shown on the map. 'The architecture and site review of the actual homes will be at a later date via the Director's Two-Story Permit process, where story poles/notice boards will be erected and neighbors will have the opportunity to provide further input on the details of the two homes. J .13 - 71 TM-2007-03 Page 3 May 22, 2007 Tree Removal and Retention: L Ten trees are located on the subject property, three of which are significant (Deodar Cedars #1 & #2 and Coast Redwood #5). Only the two Deodar Cedars are protected by the Tree Ordinance. According to the applicant, the Coast Redwood #5 has already been removed due to its poor condition. Staff recommends that the two Cedar trees be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36-inch box Redwood. be planted to replace the removed redwood. As for the other trees on the property, the applicant has the option of removing them since they are not protected. Staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the existing trees be retained to the maximum extent possible and that the applicant work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. The applicant is also required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. L Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner ~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~ Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2007-03 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2007 & May 1, 2007 Tree Survey & Arborist Report Plan Set C:\Doc:uments and Settings\garyc.CUPERTINO\Desktop\ TM-2007-03.doc ~ 13 - 72 TM-2007-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 -..J RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDMDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCElS OF 8,375 (NET) SQUARE FEET AND 9,374 (NET) SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A Rl-7.5 ZONING DISTRICf, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary, public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to' support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: J 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. , 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and J 13 - 73 Resolution No. Page 2 TM-2007 -03 May 22, 2007 L That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2007-03 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though (ully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2007-03 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS This approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and , Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", dated February ~OO7 (one page), except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this.Resolution. ,\....., 2. TREE PRESERVATION All existing trees shall be retamed to the maximum extent possible. The applicant shall work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the ,retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part 'of this approval and one 36 inch box Redwood tree shall be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior recordation of final map, the applicant shall record a covenant on the property that . ensures the preservation and maintenance of the above stated trees. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 4. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 5. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall, be installed In accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. L 13 -74 Resolution No. Page 3 TM-2007-03 May 22, 2007 6. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. ~ Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so ~s to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 7. FIRE HYDRANT , Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire as needed. ' 8. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 9. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ' 10. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City as needed. J 11. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval 'of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 12. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $2,194.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 6 % of Site Improvement Cost or $2,060.00 minimum $ 2,000.00 J 13 - 75 Resolution No. Page 4 TM-2007-03 May 22, 2007 '-' d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 593.40 NjA $3,348.00 $15,750.00 By Developer Bonds: a. Faithful Perfo~ce Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. '-' 13. TRANSFORMERS , Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 14. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Storm water Pollution Prevention and , Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the'City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running'with the land for perpetual,BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded L 13 -76 Resolution No. Page 5 TM-2007-03 May 22, 2007 easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. ~ d. Hydromodification Plan (HMP) Required The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control any combination of on-site, off-site and in-stream control measures incorporated into specific redevelopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not increase the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre~project condition. 15. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the Oty's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 16. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan' shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the Oty. -J 17. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Oepartment in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering,practices Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 ----./ 13 -77 Resolution No. Page 6 TM-2007 -03 May 22, 2007 PASSED on this 22nd day of May 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning L- Commission of the 'City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Planning Commission F:\PDREPORl\RES\2007\1M-2007-03 res,doc ~ L 13 - 78 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 23, 2007 Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by COm.. February 27, 2007 Planning Commission absent) -../ PUBLIC HEARING 1.. EXC-2006-14, TM-2006-12, V-2007-01; Jitka Cymbal (Westfall Engineers) 21871 Dolores Ave. Exception to allow a 5-foot side yard setback. Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels of 9,685 sq. ft. and 9,686 sq. ft., respectively. Variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for two propqsed parcels. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Postponed, from the January 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for tentative map, variance and exception to allow 5-foot yard setbacks on two parcels located on 21871 Dolores Avenue m a RI-7.5 zoning district, as outlined in the staff report. · He reviewed the two major discussion points which include conformance with the Rl Ordinance for substandard lot widths and 5-foot side yard setbacks, and tree removal and, re~tion. ~ · Relative to the lot width, staff supports the variance request and feels that the variance findings for the lot width can be made. Staff also supports the side yard exception request. Relative to building interface issues, the applicant would be required to apply through the design reView process to ensure that the position of the house, articulation and recess are maximized to minimize any potenti,al interface issues with adjacent neighbors. · Staff recommends that the two Deodor Cedar trees be preserved and one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood tree. Staff is also requiring that the applicant work to with staff in preserving as many trees as possible. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative lllB-P, variance and exception applications in accordance with the model resolutions. · He answered Commissioners' questions relative to the history of flag lots. . Explained the rationale behind requesting the 'applicant to replace the removed redwood tree with another tree. He said it was standard practice to replace fairly large trees that are not specimen trees, to keep up the urban forest. 'Through the subdivision process there are examples of where the city has required them to protect and record trees that are not on that list of protected trees, but they may have other attributes that are important. . Ciddy Wordell: · Said they did not normally encumber a subdivision with requirements for a residential development, it should be related to the subdivision, and could be done through the design review. Jitka Cymbal, Westfall Engineers: · ' ,Said they considered both side by side lots and th~ flag lot. · Besides the issues which are strictly planning issues relating to length of driveway' for a flag 13 -79 J Cupertino. Planning Commissio.n 4 January 23, 2007 L lo.t, we 'were laaking at patentially creating a greater imperviaus swface area and there are same drainage issues because the lat slopes away fram the s1reet Putting the hause all the way in the back with the lang driveway, nat anly wauld create greater imperviaus surfaces because the driveway is very lang, and has to. have a turnaraund, but we are draining it to the back unless we fill the lat. That was anather factor that went into the design and actual request far the side by side. Com. Miller: · Said that whether it is side by side ar flag lat, the drainage issue still has to. be addressed. Jitka Cymbal: · Said with side by side lats, the hames are claser to the s1reet; they can be raised enaugh to. have the frant af the hames and mast af the raafs draining anto the s1reet which is nat impacting the people in the back. It also. pravides a large area in the backyard far ansite retentian. It creates passibilities which the flag lat daes pravide; it is nat impassible, but is mare difficult. Chairpersan Giefer apened the public hearing. Cindy Hsu, Dolores Avenue: · Supparts the liide by side split far safety reasans; said the lat in the back is very dangeraus. . Said that the fire department prefers side by side lats, nat flag lats. . Supparts the applicatian. L Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Said the lat shauld be flag lat and a 60 faat side lat; there are a number af issues. When there are two. 50-faat wide lats yau are creating substandard lats in a residential cammunity. Unfartunately when yau do. this, the resulting lats begin to look like a planned develapment. area with high density hausing. This is nat a planned develapment area, it is a suburban residential area. · Five faat side yard setbacks are nat apprapriate in this area; the hames shauld be made smaller ifyau do. have two. 50-faat wide lats. · Haw many af these patentiallat splits can accur in Manta Vista; are we setting a dangeraus precedent af having the creatian af substandard lats. AlSo., if daing 50/50 side by side, require submittal af plans far the patential hames to see what they laak like. Los Gatos requires this when the hause is gaing dawn; yau have ane year to. build and yau have to. submit plans. Shu-Jen Liau, Cupertino resident: · Oppases the applicatian. · Resides an ~ flag lat in the frant hause. . Cancurred with Jennifer Griffin that safety was nat the main cancern; the neighbarhaad is safe. The cancern is the lack af privacy with a 5 faat setback as the hames are taa clase tagether. . Prefers flag lat canfiguratian, nat side by side. ';... Johnny Wang, Cupertino resident: · Oppases the applicatian. . Resides an a flag lat in the back lat. . Emphasized theneighbars' cancern abaut privacy. · Said he wauld like to see cansistency af the flag lats in the neighborhaad. \....... · Asked the Planning Cammission to continue to. enforce Rl ordinance. 13 - 80 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 January 23, 2007 Tracy Hsu, Dolores Avenue (Owner of proposed homes) . Said the reasons they chose the side by side division was twofold: drainage because the rear ~ ' lot entry is a lot lower than the front and fire safety because the fire trucks would have difficulty to reach the rear lot. . Said she previously resided at 21869 Dolores Avenue which is the adjacent neighbor' and is aware of the problems with the flag lots. . Asked the Planning Commission to approve the side by side configuration. . The house size would be about 3600 square feet plus th~ two car garage. . Supports the application. Rafael Gomez, Dolores Avenue: . Resides across the street opposite the 21871 address. . Suggested a 4ifference look for the neighborhood as the builder has built five large identical , big houses, one in front of the other. . Supports application for side by side configuration for aesthetic reaso~s. Rhoda Fry, Cupertino resident: . Opposes application. . Said that Cupertino's annexation of Monta Vista has blighted Monta Vista. . It 'sounds like splitting the lots. down the middle is not a good solution, nor are flag lots. Anybody think of not doing it?? . . . Prior to it being a rental unit, i~ was occupied for a long time by the owner. Sue Jane Ran, co-owner of parcel: . Said that in, the past she resided in the back lot of a flag lot and it was very difficult turning the .-/' cars around because of limited space of the garage; and on occasion if there were other cars in the area, her father hit the fence. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Gary Chao: , . Relative to the fire department's position on flag lots, they don't necessarily have to access the' site to fight fires in the back area; they can drag their lines out. They would prefer to have easy access to the properties. Gary Chao: . Said the fire department reviewed the proposal, and supports the project. Com. Chien: . In the General Plan, Policy 2-23 under one of the strategies for this policy, it says "create flag lots in proposed subdivisions when they are the only reasonabl~ alternative". He suggested that it state "discourage flag lots". He said that Cupertino is a. city that encourages neighborhood compatibility and integration. He asked staff to elaborate on how the city or staff interprets the policy. Ciddy Wordell: · Said the intent was to make it stronger, to see fewer flag lots. It is created only in unusual circumstances, when there is not a reasonable alternative. J 13 - 81 Cupertino Plamring Commission 6 January 23, 2007 ~ Gary Chao: . If doing a flag lot configuration, the lot is 100 feet wide, usually the panhandle portiqn would be 20 feet, so the remainder would be 80 feet in terms of the wi~th of the smaller lot in front. Com. Miller: . My concern is that these are very large 1018,,193 feet long by 50 feet wide; if we do it this way, and on those lots you can build a house in excess of 4,000 square feet on each of them, and we are proposing to build these fairly significant sized houses which will be long and narrow and in fact impact the neighbors. They will have an impact on the neighbors from a potential privacy standpoint. . If we go with the flag lot configuration, the lots lose some width; the flag is not considered in the calculation; the eventual houses will be smaller and the separation between the houses and the neighbors will be larger. . I understand the issue about drainage, we didn't clarify what the grade is from front to back; but I also believe there are solutions to this unless there is a very severe grade, and even if there was, there are still solutions. . (staff response: 365 elevations at the streets as opposed to 363 at the rear property line, so 'about 2 or 3 feet variance) , . I assume the grade difference is the same for the neighboring houses as well. . My feeling is because of the large size of the house that the applicant can put on each of the subdivided lots, I would rather see the flag lot configuration and I don't think that the drainage issue is that significant to address. L, Com. Wong: . Supports the tentative map; but not the variance. I agree that the lot is big enough to be subdivided, and the reasoning at the time we went through the Rl to allow the exception for the five feet was mainly for an existing parcel that was substandard and had under 60 feet. Here we have an opportunity to subdivide a lot, but we are subdividing the lot into a substandard lot and that 'concerns me. . I see the exception to be used m special cases where in Rancho Rinconada where we have small lot and we only have a few in Monta Vista, but on this particular lot, you do have a way to have a standard lot by doing a flag lot. . Relative to safety concerns and concerns about small children, there are already five or six flag lots on that block, and many other flag lots in the neighborhood. . What makes Monta Vista special is the single family Rl, lots, and if we can keep the neighborhood in tact, to have a standard lot, I prefer to go that way. On some of the lots you carniot, because they were already long and narrow, but on this particular I feel this is important for the compatibility to be consistent, not to have substandard. I!:lm concerned about that 50% that it will be a burden on ~e property owner to have pavers included. ' . I agree with the neighbors regarding the density; I think that privacy has been a strong concern with the neighborhood and I also think that Monta Vista is known for single family homes and to respect the 15 feet on both sides, maybe 5 or 10 or the equivalent of 15 feet together. . He said he would al~o like further discussion on Policy 2-23 and clarification on where staff is coming from. . Said he supported a flag lot configuration. L Com. Chien: . Thanked the speakers for their valuable input; in such an application there are always two sides to that debate, and the city had to look at what is in the public interest. . Said the policy on flag lots, while the intent may be clear, is poorly written because the first words regarding flag lots written in the General. Plan are "create flag lots vyhen they are 13 - 82 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 January 23, 2007 reasonably compatible" They are in this case, and compatibility is an issue that has been discussed when looking at single family homes and has been an issue of contention; and many of the Planning Commissioners have worked to try to take compatibility out because it is very subjective. ' · Where the public interest is concerned, the city is always interested in neighborhood compatibility. The Commissioners are asked to weigh that public interest vs. private interest, and he felt in this case the private interests of the right of an owner to build on their property outweighs that of neighborhood compatibility. · Said he supported the application as the SO/50 split. J Chair Giefer: · Said the lots meet the criteria for subdivision which she did not have an issue with; but questioned how to subdivide it. · I think that we have solved drainage issues in this neighborhood in other ways with dry wells and other swales and pavers to help with runoff and absorption. · The dominant configuration for the area of Dolores Avenue is the flag lot configuration. She said she supported a subdivision for a flag configuration because it also has the least requirements in terms of variances. Jitka Cymbal: · Said the owner would prefer not to have flag lots. Chair Giefer: · Clarified for the applicant that there was verbal consensus that the preference was for flag lot configuration; that the Commission could deny the tentative map, take a vote and have ,the decision appealed to the City Councilor continue the item to a later date. --.../ Jitka Cymbal: . , · Said there were two variance requests; one for the lot width and one for the setback which creates the privacy issue. Asked if there would be a chance of getting the lot width without getting the setback. ' Chair Giefer: · Said that based upon what was heard, it was not likely that it is going to pass. Ciddy Wordell: · Said it is physically possible, but would be'up to you whether you want it that way. Chair Giefer: · We could say you could have a SO foot width; we could give you a substandard lot size and then enforce our standard side setbacks, if there were members of the Planning Commission who agreed to that. Jitka Cymball: ' · Said that is what the owners would prefer. Com. Wong: · Said he would prefer a continuance, since he needed to see the plan and could not make a final decision this evening. J 13 - 83 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 January 23, 2007 L Chair Giefer: · Said that the applicant would prefer to come back with 50/50 side by side substandard with smaller house. Com. Wong: · Said he was concerned about substandard. \..-, Motion: . Motion by CODJ. Miller, second iJy Com. Wong, to deny Application TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, and EXC-2006-14 (Vote: 3-1-0; Com. Ch Saadati absent) Ciddy Wordell: · Noted that the decision could be appealed to the City Council within 2. MCA-2006-02 City of Cupertino Citywide Location Municipal Code Amendme and Specimen Trees) Co 2006 Planning Com Council Date: Feb Chapter 14.18 (Heritage ~d from the December 12, on meeting. Tentative City '20, 2007 ' "- AId Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the st · Reviewed the background of the item which vi Amendment of Chapter 14.18 (Heritage and Spec' by the Planning Commission as outlined in the · At the December 12, 2006 meeting the PI be provided incorporating staff's recori:un the Director of Community Develop~ associated with a development appl' replacing trees in conjunction with tr removal permits be handled by the ' · She reviewed the model ordin approval authority, noticing, p list, rear yard tree removals, outlined in the staff report. · Staff recommends that the staff recommended dra retroactive tree remova port: continuation of the Municipal Code Trees) and reviewed the discussion held report. Commission recommended a draft ordinance . ons for simplifying the ordinance by allowing make determinatio~ on tree removals when not on and by providing prescriptive measures for ovals. Staff also recommended that retroactive tree unity Development Director to simplify the process. hich incorporated staff's recommendations relative to . es, tree replacements, protected tree size, specimen tree agemeiit plan, and general clean up/clarification items, as ing Cominission recommend that the City Council approve the odel ordinance and recommend establishment of the specific Com. Chien: · Asked for an expl on of the logic behind exempting backyard trees.- AId Snelling: · Said it was considerati the front trees in trees sys p ommendation by the Planning Commission at the last meeting to take into t the trees in the rear yard may not have the visible significance that a tree in may have, so that some ability may be given to allow the removal of protected rear yard that may not be very significant to the community. Also some rear yard infringe upon some of the adjacent neighbors, the canopy of the trees might, the root they may become over-burdensome that it may not allow for some property owners to gardens in the rear yard; it may create too much shading. . Chien: One of the ways a tree becomes protected in addition to being a protected species is if they 13 - 84 February 20, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 4 Cvmbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-026. The appellant is Jitka Cymbal. ---../ Director of Community Development Steve Piasecki noted that the applicant had withdrawn the appeal for the exception POrtiOll of the application, EXC-2006-14. Applicant Jitka Cymbal reviewed the project. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.Il1. Johnny Wang said he was concerned about the loss of privacy with a flag lot due to the many windows that would face his house from the side. Rhoda Fry said that she was not in favor of variances and was concerned about the drainage issue. She said' that the lots should be compared to others on the street for ' compatibility, rather than the overall neighborhood, and she did not think side-by-side lots would be compatible in this case. She said she would like to see some big trees planted in Monta Vista. Jennifer Griffin said she is ,familiar with the problems of small lots, noting that she can hear her neighbor's conversations from her window. She said she was concerned about creating two substandard lots and that homes built side by side would look like mobile homes. She thought flag lots were abetter i~ea in this situation, and she also urged ' -",' C~uncil to preserve the trees. Victoria Gomez said she lives across the street from the property in question. She noted that the applicant had already built two houses elsewhere and that they are beautiful. She said she would like to see diversity in the neighborhood and urged Council to uphold the appeal to build the houses side by side. Cindy Hsu, owner, said that Cupertino is the only city where she has seen flag lots. She said they are not safe because fire department vehicles have difficulty reaching the houses. She asked Council to uphold the appeal. Tracy Hsu, owner, said she was told 'by CitY staff to avoid flag lots. She noted that the Planning Commission failed to give clear guidelines to City staff and to the applicant, and that the City should stay with i~ policy of avoiding flag lots. Suejane' Han distributed a petition in Slipport of upholding the appeal. She said she counted 76 side-by-side houses vs. 26 flag lots in the Monta Vista area. She believed that that side-by-side lots are safer, and building flag lots is an old practice. . The public hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m. ,~ 13 - 85 February 20, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 5 L- Mahoney/Sandoval moved and seconded to continue the item to March 20 and to have the applicant bring back plans of what the lot would look like as a side by side. The motion failed with Patrick Kwok and Kris Wang voting no, Orrin Mahoney and Dolly Sandoval voting yes, and Richard Lowenthal ~bsent. Mahoney/Sandoval moved, and seconded to uphold the appeal and grant the vari~ce. The motion failed with Patrick Kwok and Kris Wang voting no, OrrinM.ahoney and Dolly ,Sandoval voting yes, and Richard Lowenthal absent. The appeal is denied and the Planning 'Commission decision is upheld. ' UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. Consider a Community Development Director's referral of' a minor mo . approve the final ,front plaza design and gateway feature. for Oak Park V' along N. De Anza Boulevard required by a previously approved use pennit ap 'on (U-2004- 09), Application No. DIR-2907-06, Chuck Bommarito, 10745 N. a Blvd, APN 326-10-064. 13. Jennifer Griffin said that the project looked nice on paper, high and too dense, and creates an oddly shaped roo . Council to add lots of trees to the project and noted around 5-feet tall and have muted colors in order t e resulting housing is too ong Highway 280. She urged, any artwork put there should be it looking like a wooded area. '-- Sandoval/Kwok moved and seconded to plaza design and gateway feature. Th Lowenthal absent. ve the minor modification to the front otion carried unanimously with Richard Council recessed from 8:55 p.m. to 9:00 B a) The evaluation of; c safe issues in the tri-school area including Monta Vista <idle, and Lincoln elementary schools . b) on of the reopening the Scenic Circle gate into Blackberry Fann as a d that the City should put money into pedestrian safety, especially in, the area. Da~' reenstein talked about traffic around the schools and said the best solution is to ,arent participation and to educate the public about using alternative transportation to, their children to and from school. L 13 - 86 jI\<<-y , , d- 00'" COLU\c.\ \ ~e.-K Y\j 15. Consider a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision to deny a Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels of9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively, and to deny a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width. instead of the required 60-foot width, for two proposed parcels, Application Nos. EXC-2006-14, TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, Jitka Cvmbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-026. The petitioners are Tracy Hsu and Suejane Han. Adopt a resolution to either: J a) Deny the rehearing, Resolution No. 07-075; or b) Grant the rehearing, Resolution No. 07-076; or c) Approve the application if rehearing is granted, Resolution No. 07-077 Jitka Cymbal, representing the petitioners, conimented on the previous discussion , concerning flag lots and side-by-side lots and stated that side-by-side lots were more prevalent in the neighborhood than flag lots. She also noted that there were only three lots in the neighborhood that were of a similar size with similar development opportunities. Cindy Hsu and Rachel Chang stated their support of side-by-side lots. Jennifer Griffin stated her support in this case of a flag lot rather than the creation of two substandard width lots, potentially 30 feet wide and 125 feet long with minimal side setbacks. If side-by-side homes were approved she recommended the house sizes be constrained. I ---./ Suejane Han and Tracy Hsu, co-owners of the parcel, commented that a majority of the adjacent neighbors were in favor of side-by-side homes for this subdivision. They further noted that most of the lots in this neighborhood were narrow and their design plans included protection of the trees on the property. Council discussed the request before them and the City Attorney's report on the findings required for reconsideration. The basic question was whether or not any new evidence had been presented at this meeting. MahoneylKwok moved' and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 07-075, to deny the rehearing. The motion carried 3-2, with Sandoval and Lowenthal voting no. J 13 - 87 LEGEND ( ommHli c:J . o o 'UlDII<<; -...00 CURB 1tt.E:T '-REA DRIlThI PDlE SANlT,IlRY SE"lJER IWHl.E STIW4 DiMtN HH4I-O..! nRf HYllRANl ...."TER VAlVE ST1lE!:TL1GfJ CU:AIQJT - LOT LII<: CEHTERUII: LIMIT Of EASEMENT CURB CURl AND liJTTEIi: [DGE DF PAVEItENT COHTWR "NCE F"lOVLIf'E SANITARY SEY~ STDllNJIRADrl rLrcTRlCAl.. '" '" TER o @ it. ~ ( VICINITY MAP ( In 11'1' ElATE , 1 , I , ! i I ! I' Id II' ___ III ------ I i'\ I! iq =~=~= !!> =:=:=:=,.:"i' ~ i ;)0 =:=:=:= ::1 ; ; i ;)- '11 i i> iI/ II, 11\ II' III , :, ! r '" :1 wi '> ::J ' :1 Q! i, >1 i I <[' !, ! II""~~,- I' 0:: I 11.g, I' D I 1\ q. I' ! !I ! I I I I I , I I I PflIlPIlSEJl c:J . . . . @ Ie . ~ -----...- S1lE '" < N ~ < REVISION 'If::' I .. I I I I I ! ! I I I I , I I r'-"". 1L , I , I , I .....- - , ; - Ii II II ~f-"''''' L-i'r: f,:~ 1iI:..1lMi_ I.a.&.a:_~ ~_......... r.....---......... e.-.......t-l__ ='~~ CHEN D'''II'' ! ~-~ I .... Q". : d ai !~.~,;! ... i ... ; g ~I ~I o~.t.~llOf' ... EllHOljSE ...{......1~ .. .~ ifl ""'I' I ,', '- oJ_ , tt.~ r"i""~.,:":::,:,,,,-,,+:,, r~.(~ I ,I ....~"" i I- : ~~ \~7i F \r 1 ____ rlJU. -ti>':--- ---- ---'-'------ -".-- I: "", "'., 11 1 j .~~ : ! j l i j i j , i i! i 1 ! i i I rt DIHE MID fJRUARY 2007 4 $CALEI t-Ot 1'-10' YEllT, DaJ~ .J: BY. KAREl eYMIAL, RCE 34534 O€OCCII KC DATE. X 'r-y............... 11171.....;.- ~CA""4 "'- lftlICM---.... 1elD~""'" _c...". ...~ Pa:J61.Qi1 - -1';;..8'r- L..~ '._..1 ! PARCEL 1 8.,37Saq.fL _ _ _ _N~l 19!-4L.. .~T~ '-. ""'""'- '.,"",,<~ WGtItRlCMW:.l.(W_B1~. _ -----_.._~ , - , , EX. COTIAGE L __ ~_ _ .._ -.i~p -j'-, i~:~ '" g .n.l.7" ~ i --- ;"JG,;J, . > s A ~""~OO~P~tE 1~ - - -.,.o/.:-~,. -. -0.;'---- --,- '". RAOHAKRlSHNA WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. 1~5BJ BUi BllSIN WAY, SARATlXiA, CA 95070 C4D8>967-'Oe'!04 Ell HOUSE SCALE l' =10' "IL" !...-_----------- RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2007 WANG - 9i&cr .~72 "'1- , ' " " g-~~ ~"j. ... ~~ !: J ,~ \..! ~.~_.~ ~~'~! , , , , ! l~,~~i [g.374~!l.n<<} EllCOTTAIiE ~I. I . I = ~::- _ _ ..1~>" '~~ r.-----..-- -".. ---l I "HOUSE I ;-'.'-'--.~'l BY -l;- EllSHEll Jti<.t:I, :!!>!.~ 1 j~ ~ z ... < 8 i!' ... < i ~ ~ < a: lEX. HO ! ~~ .. TENT A TI VE MAP L4NDS OF HSU AND HAN g.M 21871 JlCLtRtS AVElU:,. CUPERT1NJ .JllIl1ll 2DOi-l33 SlnT I Of, EXJmIOI CJ . a o o t ~ _E__ ------- ------- -.-.- -..t: --f.-- -v-v- ( LEGEND ...-. - .... DLlT .....- I'IU: MllTMY .... IWID.E 111M _-.: -- VAIIIt wt.YI: '"'"' ..... ....-rr - LOT UIC -- """..- .... .... - ....... -..- - ..... ...... LIC ..._ lEWD 111IIl_ ILmIlIl:M. ... ...... I i , 1 II i II 'I " " ' cr:. II I I --- 11._', I II '-', I II j',1 _.._,._ II , . -a-I.I. 1 ---'I" , -0-0- II 1 -v-v- II , II I II , II , II ' II , II ' II I II" , II'!. ~I fl- F I , I II Iw II ,::;)1 II I~I II '>1 II 1<[ 1 II " I ....-- II l~+_ /".- I I II 'Q::I -.' II ,!B, 'I' II '0 II 11=111 I II ' II I II 1 II ' II I,J,,. I I ~ II , , I ",,, I II I I ~ II , I I II I I ~ II i I I: : I II I II I II I ..,. VICINITY MAP IllEYJIJ - ~-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -r-' - - - --en.. _ '---1 _.(,.-.( ,. ". I I -,.,'7 - - -'~I - :-1' ~.i - ')~ == Ii ~ r ('ji?';; I' I l; ( r II a ,_ ..t..- -, ~"'~ ,,) '. \ I I '- ,11.-"", ,_. ;1" I, ~ ( .)"I,..r l-)" \ I ~::i ,,) . ,,'...'_.. J ..j... -LJ l! =i.,-,_'.1 _ ~--I- - \ -,-'i.~_ __.l-__I__~ ..~. -,~-.d I ~ I I t~ ;- (':"1/;, -r I \ (,~J ,~" ,..._ I II PRCPOSEO RESlOEN~>-l-' I - I I;; F',F',ELJ88.2 / ~2.... I I \ PAD JeJ.2 // I I \ ,,.,,, I I I \ _I : I \ - ----{---I---l \ ~ - - - -- - - -.::- -G-;'''-~ ___~,;::--.:~J..'" _ __-::-"'~_ ~~ "'tr"!t ~ '_ PMSAV FOICE/llETAlNINCl WALl. 1 'MAX. ...... 9 . i ~ I " I o I 0tEIl IT 4 WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. IIl\lEt IiIEI'Tu.R ICI07 ....v _. 1YtKMD.. c:...-... lEI ..... ( FENCE/llET_~ I WALl. 2'MAX. _ao'E 1114Z' ~-- ---~--- r----.:~ ( ..., SCALE l' =10' I I I 1_ __ __-.J'U"1 PRCPOSEO RESIIlEJlCE' , F',r,ELJe7,O I .r"-'''.~ PAD 314,0 I,;. 1_ -. .L. \i~ L~j ~ \ ~(__J"j,)__'-' I I _".4.J" _ i I ~ I PREk~M~Ne~YH~5AR~~GH~~AN 11171 ..... MIlK. CU'ERTlfII ..- 111 MlUf IMT, IMA1IJM, CII M7a (..817..... L From: "Hung Wei" <hungweichien@hotmail.com> To: planning@cupertino.org CC: suejanehan@hotmail.com Subject: re: side by side subdivision at 21871 Dolores Ave., Cupertino Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:21:06 -0700 Dear Cupertino Planning Commissioners: Ct /O/~/07 #/3 EXHIBIT I'm writing to express my support for the side by side subdivision application re 21871 Dolores Ave. in our city for the following reasons: 1. Safety is of top priority for our residents and it is common knowledge that houses with easy street access are safer during emergencies such as fire/earthquake than houses on flag logs. Therefore, our city should avoid building houses situated on flag logs unless it is absolutely unavoidable. 21871 Dolores can be safely subdivided into two side by side units with minor building code variations. Therefore, the application for the variations should be approved, so that both houses have easy street access. 2. We'd like to keep as much green space in Cupertino as possible. Flag logs take up tremendous concrete space in order to access the house in the back log. To subdivide 21871 Dolores Ave. into two side by side units will maximize the use of land for bigger backyards for both houses - it will be great for families with young children to run and play in their own backyards, perhaps with a slide & swing set, and tricycles too. Therefore, it is logical to subdivide lots into side by side units to preserve maximum green space usage. 3. In this particular area where 21871 Dolores Ave. is located, there are already many lots with the same frontage that have two side by side units built with the same variations approved for the above reasons. ' So, this application is not an isolated case; rather, there are references upon which you can base your approval for this application. Thanks for taking the above into consideration when you review this case. I hope that you will find these arguments reasonable and logical; therefore, grand the application in the applicant's favor. Sincerely, Hung Wei Cupertino resident 10969 Maria Rosa Way Cupertino, Ca. 95014-4719