Loading...
Draft Minutes 02-14-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M, CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES February 14,2006 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 2006 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Miller, SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioner: Gilbert Wong Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Taghi Saadati Chairperson: Marty Miller Staff present: City Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Ciddy Wordell Colin Jung Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the July 26, 2005 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati, to approve the July 26, 2005 Planning Commission minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-0) Minutes of the December 13,2005 Planning Commission meeting: Corrections as noted: . Page 16, Com. Saadati, first bullet, line 2, delete "the" Page 6, Com. Giefer, third line from bottom: change "He" to "She" Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the December 13, 2005 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0) Minutes of the December 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting: Corrections as noted: . Page 7: Com. Giefer: 2nd bullet, third line, delete: "that and" insert "crossing lanes into the left turn lane" .. delete remaining text of line. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to approve the minutes of the December 20, 2005 meeting as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0) Cupertino Planning Commission 2 February 14, 2006 Minutes of the January 10,2006 Planning Commission meeting: Corrections as noted: · Page 1: Add "Commissioner: Taaghi Saadati" in roll call. · Page 4, Com. Giefer: Said she asked a question regarding dry wells, and the response from Mr. Chen related to feng shui. She requested that the recording secretary insert Mr. Chen's response as portions were missing from the text of the minutes. · Page 12, first bullet, line 4. Delete "states that a tree protection is bond for" and insert "requires a tree protection bond during construction," · Page 16, Com. Giefer, first line: delete "structure itself" and insert "allow the sheer wall to exceed this height" Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to move approval of the January 10, 2006 to the next Planning Commission meeting (Vote: 4-0-0) Minutes of the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission meeting: Corrections as noted: · Page 1, Desil!n Review Committee Chairoerson and Member: Add "Com. Giefer will move up to Chair". Change motion to read: "nominate Com Saadati to serve on the DRC with Com. Giefer." · Page 29, Com. Giefer, 3'· bullet, line 5: Add "and employment potential" after "buildings" · Page 30, line 30, delete "the lots are small". · Page 30, 3'· bullet, line 3: Replace "San Jose" with "Cupertino." · Page 32, Com. Saadati, line 1: "Bill Bratt" should read "Bill Bragg" Line 2, delete "vs San Jose" Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Wong, to approve the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0) Minutes of the January 26, 2006 Planning Commission meeting: Corrections as noted: · Page 14, middle of page, Com. Saadati: "trees proposed" should read "proposed trees" · Page 17, 8tb line from the bottom of page: Delete "Ms. Kelly Snider advised that the .......sound wall" and replace with "Ms. Kelly Snider acknowledged there currently was no sound wall and a 12 foot wall was proposed." Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve the January 26, 2006 minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairperson Miller noted receipt of two items related to the Moxley application.. CONSENT CALENDAR: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 1. TR-2006-01 Nancy Hurtienne (Commons of Tree removal to remove eight trees in a planned residential development. Request removal from calendar, Cupertino Planning Commission 3 February 14, 2006 Cupertino) Alves Drive and Anton Way Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati, to remove Application TR-2006-01 from the calendar. (Vote: 4-0-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: John James, Lindy Lane, Cupertino: · Addressed the commission about the Moxley application, · He i111ustrated photos of Moxley Drive showing flow from the drain, and described the problem of the water sloping. He said some type of asphalt curb is needed after the project is approved. He noted for the record that his people were appealing that the city at least know that it exists and a corrective action occurs before the building pennit is approved, Chair Miller: · Referred to a photo and noted that Mr, James pointed out a problem to pass on to appropriate staff about the tree protection notification being down, He said he was out at the site and it was down as well. He asked staff to address the concern, Ms. Wordell: · Said that Planning staff did not go out on a regular basis, but staff would look into it. The Building Department staff goes out on a regular basis; and although they know about tree protection, that is not where they direct their attention. · Suggested that when residents see that the notification sign is down, to notify staff; and they will also speak with the Building Department about being more attentive to the trees. 2. 2M-2005-04 Brett Moxley (Knopp residence) 21925 Lindy Lane Modification to a Tentative Map (TM-2005-03) to provide access for Lot 2 from Lindy Lane. (Planning Commission decision final unless appealed) Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for a modification request to an approve Tentative Map to allow vehicular access directly from Lindy Lane to Lot No.2, as outlined in the staff report, · On July 26, 2005 the Planning Commission approved the Tentative Map for a 2 lot split of approximately a one-acre parcel. · Conditions of approval resulting from the Planning Commission's concern about preserving the visual character of the area: o Limited the future building area on Lot 2, o Requirement for slope easement along frontage of property of Lots I and 2. o Extensive tree preservation conditions, not only related to recording covenants on the specimen sized trees, but also replacement requirements. o Construction management plan to manage the construction activity, o Requirement that access for Lot 2 be taken off an existing driveway easement to the left of the property. · He reviewed a series of photos of the property which illustrated the building site, and view of the character of a section of Lindy Lane, · Staff recommends denial of the modification request in accordance with the model resolution. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 February 14, 2006 Staff answered commissioners' questions about elevations, driveway cuts, and grade differences relative to the project. John Knopp, Applicant, Lindy Lane: · Said that in July there were two options for the driveway, one to use the access off the Schmidt's driveway and it was discussed also to bring a driveway off Lindy Lane. · He said he was asked if he could persuade the Schmidts to allow Lot 2 to come off their driveway and they were not receptive to that as it is their wish not to have any more traffic on that driveway. They are clear that they would rather have Lot 2 come off Lindy Lane, He said he pursued that option, · He said the driveway off Lindy Lane would not be steeper than the existing driveway off the Schmidt's, Relative to the question about bringing the driveway on the other side of the property, it is a much steeper driveway, about 15 feet. · The split was made by staff and he said he was agreeable with the conditions about the envelope, easements, and setbacks, · The oak trees will not be affected. He said they agree with all the conditions about preserving the oak trees, and penalties for failing to do so. He said he felt that any house built should respect that. · Both arborists reported that there may be a need to trim one limb off the large oak and one off the smaller oak, to have enough clearance for fire trucks and emergency vehicles access. They pointed out if there were framing retaining walls on the new driveway, it would actually protect the root balls ofthe trees. · The proposal is to not change any of the other conditions including any trimming of the trees or removal of trees, · He said relative to the appearance of the entrance of a new driveway on Lindy Lane, they do not have the same option that Dr, Sun had which was for his Lot 1, where he was asked if he would take that entrance off his driveway rather than off Lindy Lane. He is a partial owner of that driveway, so it was an easy decision, In this case, the Schmidts own the driveway and we cannot just insist that the access come off it without their approval. It comes down to what is the rural character of what would be affected by the entrance of a new driveway. From Lindy Lane as shown in the photos, the entrance of the new driveway is shown as it attaches to the street. The new construction would not be visible, · He recalled the recent brush fire from Ronnie Lott's construction, when Central Fire admitted them back onto their property, The fire department stated it would be safer if each property had its own driveway, and if the driveways were proper fire roads. The same remark came from city staff at that time, Mr. Moxley: · Said that he was not happy to be present given the role he played on behalf of the Knopps and the hope he had back in July 2005 about being able to strike an equitable, fair and balanced arrangement on the driveway. He said he did not feel anyone would dispute that it would be preferable to take access for the new house off the existing easement; that appears not likely to be doable without some contentious outcomes, · He said it was necessary to come before the Planning Commission to ask if they could proceed with the other driveway alternative that was discussed briefly in July. · He said he felt they could understand the dynamics and the factors at play of whatever additional driveway would be of the same pitch from the existing driveway; they start at the same elevation; it would be preferable again to use the existing driveway, but if that is not an option, the second driveway isn't more technically intricate than the existing one, Cupertino Planning Commission 5 February 14, 2006 Com. Wong: · Asked Mr. Moxley when he planned to put the tree protection back on the trees. Mr. Moxley: · Clarified that he sold the lots over a year ago and no longer owned the property, and said that it shouldn't be referred to as the Moxley driveway any longer. · He said that when he was taking out the unengineered fill, he was the person who complied most fully with the tree protection measures, He said he had photos and receipts for a six foot high chain link fence rental to protect the oak trees that were in the vicinity of the unengineered fill. He said he also took erosion control measures, such as the straw swales; and he took substantial measures to control runoff at the site. · He stressed that the measures or absence of measures for tree protection currently there, is not something he had influence over, and deeply regrets that. Mr. Jung: · Showed the location of the Schmidt driveway in relation to the Knopp property. He said it was a private matter, and they would have to resolve it among themselves if they wanted an easement off the shared easement. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: · Clarified that the city could not direct them to use that easement; they can state it as a preference as far as the development is concerned, but between the two parties, they would have to perfect that easement. She said the language of the easement usually spells out the scope of the easement. Chair MiUer: . Said he talked to staff earlier and staff pointed out that on Stelling, where 25 feet is required, the road right of way is 90 feet; on this street it is only 60, . He said he was unclear that they have a full 60 feet there. He noticed that on the south side there is not much of a sidewalk on that side and not much of a dedication. Ms. Wordell: · She said Public Works said it would be surveyed as part of the improvement plans. If it came up that the ten foot dedication is not required, then it could be changed at that time. It is based on the standard, Com. Wong: · Asked if the driveway was on Lindy Lane, where would it appear on the map and what relationship would appear on the south side. Mr. Jung: · Stated that in the photo, the driveway would be in between the two rows of trees, Chair MiUer: · Said another solution would be to take the driveway from one house and the driveway from another location (referring to the photos) which would potentially solve the issue, It avoids disturbing the Oaks, it is next to a driveway and there is only one driveway off the Schmidt's access road, · He said he did not know if it was teclmically feasible because ofthe steepness of the slope, Cupertino Planning Commission 6 February 14,2006 Mr. Jung: · Said that the slope was steep in that location, and would be visible, He said it was also in the slope easement area. · It would not affect any Oak trees, and there would be more retaining walJs in that location, Chair MiUer: · He said he suggested it because according to the photos shown by Mr, Jung, there was a landscaping screen. He illustrated where there were driveways, and said that putting another driveway next to it would not impact the landscape screen which they were trying to preserve. · Referring to the photos, he illustrated an area where there was no landscaping, and the location of the driveway. He said he did not see the same visual impact of a driveway on Lindy Lane, · If it results in retaining walJs, that would make it undesirable. · He commented that it was another potential solution. Chair MilJer opened the public hearing, John James, resident: · Presented a replacement plan for the trees, He stated that as far as he was concerned those trees were dead. · Showed pictures of the trees to be removed, and of Oak trees that had falJen down, · He showed photos, and commented that they had a difference of opinion, He said he measured 18 feet but did not take into account the radius of the drive; and on the left and the right was the entrance. · He said the driveway was not 18 feet. · He stated that the neighborhood is going to be impacted by the house being built. · He is in favor of saving the Oaks, Ron Berti, Cupertino resident: · Said he was opposed to the application, · He stated that they were private streets and any development occurring on those could be perceived as private decisions to be handled privately and not involve the city. · He said there are three different driveways and there would be a fourth in very close proximity, · He pointed out that it could be anticipated that there would be a fair amount of traffic because of alJ the new homes, · He said he felt the arrangement was clumsy, · His biggest concern is the Oaks. · He said he was not confident with the city monitoring the construction. Bob Rodert, Lindy Lane: · Is opposed to any additional driveways off Lindy Lane, · Said he felt that alJ the Lindy Lane homes should be using a common existing driveway. · Although narrow, the easement is wide enough for two cars to pass, · The purpose of the easement is to alJow people other than the owners to use the property as long as it is being used properly, He feels people should make use of it. · He is in favor of keeping the Oaks along Lindy Lane, Julia James, Cupertino resident: · Opposed to the driveway being off Lindy Lane, Cupertino Planning Commission 7 February 14,2006 o Said she did not believe the trees would be protected. o She stated that she would prefer to see the house built on the flat area and a driveway off Lindy Lane further down, Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Riconada resident: o Said she was proud ofthe Cupertino residents wanting to save the trees as it is one of the last areas where there are field grown Oak trees, o The city needs to ensure that everything is done to protect these trees. The city has to require the owners and the sub dividers put up bond money; there needs to be constant monitoring, · She is opposed the driveway going in between the two trees. Susan Moore: o Said it was a shame there is an existing driveway between all of the trees; suggested that the driveway be used instead of adding another one. Candan Taysi: · Supports the neighbors on the south side, and hopes that they oppose the driveway. o Feels that the driveway will need retaining walls and will ruin the trees o They have lost many at the Moxley construction site already. She is afraid if it is allowed there will be more damage to the area, Frank Sun: o Said the best option appears to be to use the existing driveway, Now it seems like the best option is not an option anymore. · Suggested exploring the idea of the east side, so that some of the trees could be protected, At least you can protect some of the trees, o He said he would them one way or another if they need access. Mr. Moxley: o Clarified that in the initial discussions with staff about configurations of the subdivision, the issue being raised was discussed, which he was a proponent of, referred to as the Zarro option, The preference is for relatively distinct straight lines that delineate the lots. o He said if it was something they were willing to explore and it is an equitable solution, they would be open to a driveway that comes off Lindy Lane but does not impact the trees, Chair Miller closed the public hearing, Com. Wong: o Asked Chair Miller if he was suggesting a house in the area he illustrated. Com. Miller: o He said the original suggestion was to divide it that way and put the house wherever feasible. He suggested places to put the house, and emphasized that there would have to be an engineering report to define if that was really feasible or not. o The alternative was to leave the split as it currently is but have some type of driveway coming down here (shown on drawing); noting that the closer to the end the better. o The third option was to do as Mr, Moxley suggested, The split would actually be similar to allowing the driveway to come around the trees and not impact the trees and achieve the same thing. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 February 14,2006 Com. Giefer: · The real issue is whether they want to see another driveway on Lindy or not. When the Sun application and approval for subdivision was appealed to Council, Council was very specific in directing that no additional driveways be cut on Lindy Lane, They did not want to see any additional driveways put on Lindy Lane, · Expressed concern about the trees; an 18 foot wide driveway between mature Oaks with an additional driveway next to that will impact the Oaks over their lifespan. · She said she was interested in hearing from the Schmidts as they did not speak at the meeting. · She said it was a simple issue -- do they want to have a driveway on Lindy or not? · Said she supports staffs position to deny the application. Com. Saadati: · Said he preferred not to have an additional driveway. As Com, Giefer stated, the City Council stated no additional driveways; and at the southside there are there are already four or five driveways. · There was one option suggested to cut the property, divide it at an angle and put a driveway that goes behind the trees, By putting many trees there it would improve the area because it is bare now, · Said he supports the staffs recommendation, Com. Wong: · Said he supports staffs recommendation. Chair MiUer: · Said he supports the staffs recommendation, · City Council gave clear direction in terms of their requirements for no more driveways in that landscaping zone, He said the Planning Commission should follow the guidance that City Council provides. · Said he was also concerned about the health of the trees; and there were three driveways so close together. · Said he felt not all options had been explored. If the lot split was different and there was also a requirement to put more trees up, they could widen another driveway and some additional landscaping would make the streetscape better. · He said he was not prepared to support the application at this point; he would like the applicant to go back and explore the other proposals suggested, Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati to deny Application M-2005-04. (Vote: 4-0-0) Ms. Wordell: · Said that the denial could be appealed to the City Council within ten days. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 3. Schedule a study session on the Plauning Commission's 2006 Work Program. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 February 14, 2006 Chair Miller: · Said they would review their work program at the next meeting, · Goal this year will be to focus on one or two major projects. · Proposal is to have a study session on February 28, beginning at 4:30 p,m, to 6 p.m" with a break for dinner and resume to the regular meeting following a dinner break. Following a discussion about the appropriate time to meet so that all commissioners could attend, 6 p.m, was selected as the starting time, REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: · Com. Wong reported that the meeting had been cancelled, HODsin!! Commission: · Com, Wong reported there was a brief introduction to the CDBG; and that it would be continued to the next Housing Commission meeting. Mavor's Monthlv Meetin!! With Commissioners: Chair Miller reported on his attendance at the meeting: · There was discussion of the Toll Brothers, Taylor Woodrow and Vallco projects. · The senior commissioner discussed doing an inventory of the existing services and facilities for seniors and gathering demographic information and trends. · The Communications Commission discussed a concept called E Government. · There was some discussion of the upcoming ftee internet service tbroughout the city. · The Public Safety Commission said they would be running a series of meetings on keeping homes and valuables safe; discussion of property crimes versus personal crime. · Fine Arts was discussed, With the approval of the Vallco condos there is $100,000 now available for art in the city, Economic Development Committee: · Com. Wong reported that the committee meets quarterly; next meeting will be in April. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, · Ms, Wordell announced that Cary Chan was the new Commissioner. He is currently Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and is a member ofthe Cupertino Community Services Board, · Ms, Wordell said that two commissioners had submitted responses for attending the Planning Commissioners' upcoming seminar. She asked that forms be submitted in order for her to make the reservations, · No additional report, ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p,m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting on February 28, 2006, SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A. EUis, Recording Secretary