The URL can be used to link to this page

12 Lindy Lane City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No.!J- Agenda Date: March 21. 2006 Application: M-2005-04 Applicant: John Knopp Property Location: 21925 Lindy Lane RECOMMENDATION The City Council can take any of the following actions: 1) Uphold the appellant's appeal of M-2005-04 and approve the modification of the tentative parcel map to allow a driveway to Lindy Lane from Lot #2; Or 2) Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the proposed driveway to Lindy Lane; Application Summary: Consider an appeal (Exhibit A-I) of the Planning Commission's denial of Application No. M-2005-04 to modify a condition of approval that requires Lot #2 to take vehicular access frorn an existing access easement/ driveway to the west of the property. The parcel map modification would allow vehicular access directly onto Lindy Lane from Lot #2. BACKGROUND: On February 14, 2006, the Planning Commission denied the tentative map modification that would allow direct vehicular access to Lindy Lane (Exhibits B-1, C-l & D-l). DISCUSSION: Applicant Comments: For the last six months, the applicant has been unable to obtain a voluntary agreement with the easement grantor (Schmidt) for the use of the driveway ¡;)-I M-2005-04 Page 2 for Lot #2. According to the applicant, he has tried their past goodwill, offered to accept all road maintenance obligations and persuasion through legal counsel to no avail. The lack of legal certainty of Lot #2' s access has prevented the owner from obtaining title insurance, which is needed to complete the sale of the properties upon the completion of the final map. March 21, 2006 Nei~hbor Comments: The neighbors who testified were against having another driveway on the north side of Lindy Lane in such close proximity to two others. They oppose having the driveway routed between the oak trees and expressed little confidence in the City to protect the oaks if construction is allowed in the vicinity. Plannin~ Commission: The Commissioners commented on the actions taken by the City Council with respect to the appeal of the adjoining Frank Sun subdivision. They felt the Council direction was clear that there was to be no new Lindy Lane driveways as a result of subdivision activity. The Commission voted 4-0-0 for denial of the 'subdivision rnodification request. Enclosures: Exhibit A-1: Appellant information Exhibit B-1: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6373 Exhibit C-1: Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 14, 2006 Exhibit 0-1: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from February 14, 2006 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: -, '~7(L -'1:",-. I~ ¡Lat' ch... 'Ie ~t/ Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development Approved by: Q>¿ David W. Knapp City Manager G:Planning/POREPORT / CC/M-2005-04appeal.doc /;)-;) tI- c:< OtJ~ - 0-/ " _ )0 h !1 J)ÍJ () ,kJJÎ , ( v ,~)lfJhV! .l(nh;Dp ¿;¿ / 9 r25' Lì /?d~ Phone Numbe(jðf)cfßt - /rfStJ 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: J# Address Email 8. rI'\ BIT; A-I City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL Lvl1é , C 1/ e r-I; I'lJ 4. Please check one: o Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development %.. Appeal a decision of Planning Commission o Other 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: D2 }~/()t I 6. Basis of appeal: ß~s¡- clfCìcS)ð/7 iy PI¿?l7lli;¡ tjM/J1/S5ìð f; --'¡;'r c::/¡--; 1/ ¡J µ) a tj d {' (' ¿:>.s s: Signature(s) I?ø' Q b .I'. -1/ /£1 ~. ;).})7 /7~ ¡;p !/ Od Please complete form, include appeal fee of$145.00, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. /~-3 E~'rWß\í: 8-1 M-2005-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION No. 6373 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A MODIFICATION TO A TENTATIVE MAP (TM-2005-03) TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR LOT #2 FROM LINDY LANE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: . M-2005-04 Bret Moxley (Lands of Knopp) 21925 Lindy Lane SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision modification is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. The rural character of the hillside would not be preserved and disturbance to natural landforms and existing vegetation and trees would not be minimized (General Plan Policies #2.53 and #2.56). b) That the improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. The improvements would introduce grading impacts and retaining walls on a vegetated slope, which can be avoided by utilizing an environmentally superior alternate driveway location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application M-2005-04 for a Modification to a Tentative Map is hereby denied, and That the subconc\usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning /?.-If Resolution No. 6373 Page 2 M-2005-04 February 14, 2006 -------- Application M-2005-04, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of February 2006, 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: Chairperson Miller, Vice-Chair Giefer, Saadati, Wong COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: Is/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Is/Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g:jplanlling/pdreportjresjM-200S-04 res.doc I;;J. -5 'EXtT\ß\I~ c..-\ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: M-2005-04 Agenda Date: February 14, 2006 Applicant: Bret Moxley Property Owner: John & Karen Knopp Property Location: 21925 Lindy Lane, APN 356-25-014 Project Consistency with: General Plan ~ Zoning ~ Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Application Summary: Modification to an approved Tentative Map (file no. TM-2005- 03) to allow vehicular access to Lot #2 from Lindy Lane. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Modification of the Tentative Map (M-2005-04) in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND: On July 26, 2005 the Planning Commission approved a 2-lot subdivision of an approximately 1.0 acre site with each lot to be about 20,000 net square feet (Exhibits A & B). The decision was not appealed and became effective 10 calendar days later. Issues with grading, preservation of existing tree cover and visual impact prompted the Commission to: 1) Require a slope easement across the fronts of Lot #1 and #2. The easement would ensure the preservation of existing landforms, trees and vegetation by precluding future development in the area other than the necessary under grounding of utility lines (Conditions #2 and #3). 2) Limit vehicular access for Lot #2 to the access obtain from an existing ingress! egress easement located to the westerly side of Lot #2. The Commission recognized that access via this existing driveway would have minimal grading or visual impacts compared to other alternatives (Condition #6). Please refer to the following illustration, which depicts the spatial relationships between the development area (building pad) and the preservation area (slope easement area). 1;)-(0 2 Slope Easement I I I Future Allowable Building f I All,"'" Dri',~, ^""" At the hearing, a letter from the son of the grantors of the access easement to the Knopp property (Exhibit B) was presented to the Commission, indicating concerns about the overburdening of the easement with the traffic from another residence and about the use of the easement for utilities (Exhibit C). DISCUSSION: The applicant seeks to modify the tentative map approval to allow driveway access directly off Lindy Lane instead of the ingress/ egress easement. This application has 1")-7 3 been pending since September 2005 as the property owner and applicant attempted to negotiate a voluntary agreernent with the easement grantor (Schmidt) for the use of the driveway for Lot #2 (Exhibit D). According to the applicant's letter, they have tried their past goodwill, offered to accept all road maintenance obligations and persuasion through legal counsel to no avail. Also, the lack of legal certainty of Lot #2' s access, has prevented the owner from obtaining title insurance, which is needed to complete the sale of the properties upon the completion of the final map (Exhibit E). As depicted on the tentative map, the proposed driveway is situated in a 20% sloped area between Coast Live Oaks numbered 10 and 11. There is about a 6-foot rise in elevation in this area, so the necessary retaining walls on both sides of the proposed driveway can be maintained at 4 feet or less per condition #2 of the tentative map approval. The City Arborist report on the potential impact of the driveway on the nearby oaks (Exhibit F) states that the driveway could be aligned and built between oaks #10 and #11 without causing unacceptable levels of harm to the subject trees, if the suggested construction methods are followed. The properties along the north side of Lindy Lane retain a semi-rural appearance as viewed from Lindy Lane, which is of concern to adjacent neighbors on the opposite side of the street. Staff has received email messages opposing the project (Exhibit C). The band of mature vegetation along the lower slope or street side can continue to screen the subdivision of land and construction of larger residences if its maintained without the encroachment of new development. Staff believes it is important to screen the new homes behind the tree grove, which would be more difficult by introducing another driveway and retaining walls along Lindy Lane. The driveway would also hinder further oak growth in the area that can add to the vegetative screen. General Plan Policies 2-53 and 2-56 provide that hillside developments must preserve the rural character of the hillside and minimize the disturbance to naturallandforrns and existing vegetation and trees. This can best be achieved by utilizing the existing ingress! egress easement for access, rather than creating a new driveway through the vegetated slope easement area. Staff recommends retaining the existing tentative map condition of approval (#6) that requires access from the ingress! egress easement, by denying the modification request, M-2005-04. Similar to the adjacent Sun property subdivision, which created a slope easement along Lindy Lane and required access at the top of the property, staff believes that the steep slope and rural street character should be retained. The applicant can continue to pursue obtaining access from the easement. 1;;2-2 4 Enclosures: Model Resolution Exhibit A - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6313 Exhibit B - Draft July 26, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting minutes Exhibit C - Letter to the Planning Commission from Bill Schmidt dated July 25, 2005 Exhibit D - Letter of Justification from Bret Moxley dated January 31, 2006 Exhibit E - Forwarded email message from Tim Ward to Bret Moxley regarding title insurance Exhibit F - Arborist Report prepared by Barrie Coate and dated October 4, 2005 Exhibit G - Public comments on application Revised Tentative Map Prepared by: Colin J ung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development G:planning/ PDREPORT / pcMreports / M2005reports / M-2005-04 ,-... /..-) , ;rt l'--C /-¿'.XLV C }z. J t./~~ /;)-'1 M-2005-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A MODIFICATION TO A TENTATIVE MAP (TM-2005-03) TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR LOT #2 FROM LINDY LANE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: M-2005-04 Bret Moxley (Lands of Knopp) 21925 Lindy Lane SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirernents: a) That the proposed subdivision modification is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. The rural character of the hillside would not be preserved and disturbance to natural landforms and existing vegetation and trees would not be minimized (General Plan Policies #2.53 and #2.56). b) That the improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. The improvements would introduce grading impacts and retaining walls on a vegetated slope, which can be avoided by utilizing an environmentally superior alternate driveway location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application M-2005-04 for a Modification to a Tentative Map is hereby denied, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning I J.../6 Resolution No. Page 2 M-2005-04 February 14,2006 Application M-2005-04, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. ------ PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of February 2006, 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 Marty Miller, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g:jplanninglpdrepart/resjM-2005-04 res.doc I J -1/ S'I. 1-\-\ biT. A- TM-2005-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6313 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.0 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET EACH IN SIZE IN AN Rl-20 ZONING DISTRICT AT 21925 LINDY LANE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2005-03 Bret Moxley 21925 Lindy Lane SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial envirorunental damage nor substantially and avoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems. f;)-/:J. Resolution No. 6313 Page 2 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005 ------------------------- --------------- ------ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2005-03 for a Tentative 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 TM-2005-03, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of July 26, 2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approved is based on the tentative map entitled "TENTATIVE MAP, LANDS OF KNOPP, 21925 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO, CA" by Nelsen Engineering, dated May 2005, and consisting of one sheet labeled 1. 2. FUTURE BUILDING AREA The applicant/ owner shall submit a revised tentative map clearly delineating the limits of development to closely reflect the illustrations included in the Planning Commission staff report dated July 26, 2005. In addition, no retaining walls over 4 feet tall (measured from the natural grade) shall be constructed on the project site. 3. SLOPE EASEMENT The applicant/ owner shall submit a revised tentative map clearly delineating the required slope easement to closely reflect the illustrations included in the Planning Commission staff report dated July 26, 2005. The easement is required to be recorded on the property ensuring that the existing landforms, trees and vegetation be preserved, and precluding any future developments or improvements in this area, except for necessary undergrounding of utility lines that do not adversely affect the specimen size native oak trees. 4. TREE PRESERVATION No trees are to be removed as part of the tentative map approval. The tree protection measures outlined in the City Arborist's report dated June 29, 2005 shall be conditions of this project. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the City Arborist shall confirm the implementation of the tree protection measures. Prior to the final occupancy, the City Arborist shall confirm that the protected trees have been preserved and survived the construction activities. In the event that any protected trees must be removed due to reasons deemed appropriate by the COlmnunity Development Director, then comparable diameter replacement tree(s) must be planted at the same location or locations visible to the public. / ;)-/3 Resolution No. 6313 Page 3 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005 ------------ Prior to final map approval, a covenant shall be recorded on the property, notifying future property owners of the kinds and numbers of specimen trees protected by City Ordinance and the requirement for a tree removal permit for these trees. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 5. DRIVEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Prior to final map approval, a driveway maintenance agreement shall be recorded for existing driveway benefiting Lot #1. 6. DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR LOT #2 Vehicular access for Lot #2 shall be taken off the ingress I egress easement to the west side of Lot #2 in order to limit grading impacts. 7. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A comprehensive construction operation plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits addressing the following: · Staging area · Tree protection · Construction hours and limits · Construction vehicle and truck routes · Dust and erosion control · Garbage and debris container location and pick up schedule · Signage advising contractors of the restrictions In addition to the construction rnanagement plan described above, the following additional construction activity limitations apply: · No grading is allowed during the rainy season - October through April. · On Saturdays, grading, street construction, demolition, underground utility work and other construction work that directly involves motorized vehicular equipment are prohibited. · On Sundays, construction is prohibited. 8. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The project and future developments shall adhere to the RHS Ordinance or the R1 Ordinance whichever specific regulation in each ordinance is more restrictive. 9. NOnCE OF fEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice I ;J.-/'f Resolution No. 6313 Page 4 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005 of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 10. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS Prior to the approval of grading or building permits, a detailed geotechnical, design-level investigation shall be performed in accordance with the recorrunendations outlined in a letter from Cotton Shires & Associates to Colin Jung, Cupertino City Planner dated June 29, 2005. 11. CALCULATION OF NET LOT SIZE OF LOT #2 For the purposes of subdivision, floor area ratio and building coverage, the area of the ingress/ egress easement shall not be subtracted from the lot area to calculate net lot size. SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 12. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 13. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed m accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 14. 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. 15. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shaH be located as required by the City Engineer. 16. TRAfFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shaH be placed at locations specified by the City, as required. 17. STREET TREES Street trees shaH be planted within the Public Right of Way and shaH be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. / ;) -/5 Resolution No. 6313 Page 5 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005 =============----============--=== 18. 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. 19. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones unless the City Engineer deems storm drain facilities necessary. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 20. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City, as required. 21. 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. 22. 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 undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,130.00 minimum $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost $1,000.00 $ 1,293.87 N/A $ 2,000.00 $15,750.00 Bonds: /;).-/b Resolution No. 6313 Page 6 TM-2005-03 July 26,2005 --------------------------------- 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. 23. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures sha\1 be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 24. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer sha\1 dedicate to the City a\1 waterlines and appurtenances insta\1ed to City Standards and sha\1 reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 25. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMF's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans sha\1 be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan sha\1 be provided. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of July 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the fo\1owing ro\1 call vote: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Vice-Chair Miller, Saadati & Chairperson Wong COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chen AYES: ATTEST: APPROVED: / s / Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Corrununity Development /s/ Gilbert Wong Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Cupertino PlamÜng Commission g.jplanning/pdreportjresjTM -2005-03 res. doc /;)-/7 Cupertino Planning CornrHlssion 22 ~- \ \ . L ·r, CYVl1D,1: \~ July 26, 2005 Applicant: . Agreed to the-continuance, to return on September 13th to respond to the outstanding issues. D~Ft P \ Motion: Motion by Vice Chair MiUer, second by Com. Saadati, to continne Application M-2005-02 to the September 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent) Chair Wong declared a short recess. 7. TM-2005-03 John Knopp (Moxley Properties) 21925 Lindy Lane Subdivision of a 43,583 square foot parcel into two 20,000 square foot (net) parcels. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed within 10 days Colin Jnng, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Distributed a letter from Bill Schmidt, owner of property north of the applicant's property; and a sheet illustrating Figure 3 from the geotechnical report. . He reviewed the application for subdivision of the 43,583 square foot parcel into two parcels as outlined in the staff report. He noted that the property as well as a number of other properties were on the north side of Lindy Lane and have been part of the General Plan discussions, particularly relative to whether the designation -should have been changed on the properties from its current designation of low density residential, 1-5 dwelling units per acre, to a more hillside General Plan designation which is very low density residential that has the application for slope density fomlUlas. o Neighborhood issues: The main concerns are preserving the semi rural character of the hillside area; preserving the large oak trees present on the property; 'addressing the geologic concerns regarding landslides; ingress/egress easement granted to Mr. Knopp for his property; and the question about whether utilities would be allowed on it, or whether there is an overburdening of the easement by creating an additional lot that would also use the ingress/easement; various construction issues relative to parking by construction vehicles, hours of operation, noise, and staging of operations. o To address the concerns, staff is proposing to limit the size of the building footprint and preserving the oak trees with a slope easement to maintain the semi-rural appearance and to protect the oaks on the property. An additional condition of approval would be requiring a design level geotechnical study when a residence is proposed. He noted that it was a subdivision of property with no proposal for a residence at the current time; the owner is interested in subdividing property, and not interested in building a second residence; that would be left up to a future of the property itself. o Lastly, have the applicant and the driveway property owner resolve the issues regarding the ingress/egress easement and if that is not possible, the Planning Commission may need to consider a separate access for the lot taken off Lindy Lane. This is a new condition being proposed by staff. The Deputy City Attorney will probably want to weigh in on that. o Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map. Com. Saadati: o Asked why the applicant proposed a 10 foot retaining wall when there is no plan at this point to build any unit. Mr. Jung: o Responded that there was no proposal to build a retaining wall; it was a conceptual plan I;;¡ -18 Cupertino Planning Comrmssion 23 July 26, 2005 submitted by the civil engineer to show the feasibility of developing the property. It was an idea he had and not a part of the application. Mr. Piasecki: · Noted that the conditions state that along with creating a slope easement, staff has suggested a condition that would limit retaining walls to a maximum of 4 feet; they would have to work out how to place the home and accomplish that, because staff does not want 10 foot retaining walls. Com. Saadati: · Asked about the history of sliding in the area of adjacent homes or the existing home. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that the drawing illustrated some regarding or unengineered fill going on that may not be directly sliding, but may relate to that. Suggested that the applicant address what has been going on the lower hillside area. Mr. Jung: · Relative to the drawing of Figure 3, in the city geologist report he expressed a concern that if a house was built below the unengineered fill, it is most likely the most difficult constraint on the property itself and he would most likely require that either an unengineered fill be removed and recompacted, or that there be a retaining wall put in with deep enough piers to make sure that if the fill ever became loose, it would be held back by the retaining wall. Com. Giefer: · Given the new information regarding access on the shared driveway, if it was necessary allow vehicular access nom Lindy Lane to the new lot, where would that driveway be. Mr. Jnng: · It would likely be where the proposed driveway was drawn; it is the area of the nontage of the lot which seems to be the least steep. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that staff would not suggest that option until there was a very precise drawing. Everything seen thus far is predicated on the idea that it would be gaining access nom that existing driveway and the easement. · They did not want retaining walls greater than 4 feet, and putting in a new driveway in that location would give much higher retaining walls and might be cause to reconsider whether the subdivision makes sense. Com. Giefer: · With this new information, why are we considering this instead of continuing it? Mr. Piasecki: · Y Oil may end up continuing it; it is similar to the issue you had with the Bunker application where you said there seems to be three options available; you can apply a similar condition to this application and proceed with it. You could have that kind of condition saying work it out and we will approve it only with the condition that you work it out, and it hasn't been able to be worked out in the other case. ! :J -/1 Cupertino Planning Comnnssion 24 July 26, 2005 Mr. Jung: · The applicants had a conversation with Mr. Schmidt after the letter was written; you will likely want to talk to him about that. Com. Giefer: · In reading the city geologist's report, it seems we have some different ideas to pursue; but it appears that we have either the retaining wall as part of the home or we have removal of the non-engineered fill which would probably take out the trees above it. Is that correct? Mr. Jung: · That is likely. Com. Giefer: · Asked for a review of the reason for the recommendation to split a lot at the division line running east/west vs. north/south. Mr. Piasecki: · It was felt that the least visible building site is located between the oak tree groves Mr. Jung pointed out; which exist to the west side of the lot; we felt that with the slope easements on the frontage of the eastern lot that you could preserve the semi-rural character as you come down Lindy Lane; and that it made more sense to keep that as part of the existing house because they are looking out on to it, and they would be more likely to want to keep it highly maintained and clean. One of the maps shows that their water access comes off Lindy Lane directly from the site anyway, so we feel that the north/south division sets up an even more constrained new lot with a limited building area with an easement that is going to prevent them from climbing up the hill and take advantage of the views; and the property owner would not have the option of coming in and saying let me develop that sloped area under the slope easement. There is a lot of reasons why we felt that was the better solution for the neighborhood; probably not the better one from the applicant's standpoint; they would probably prefer an east/west line, but I think in terms of ensuring the objectives that the north/south makes more sense. Com. Giefer: · Another question was regarding the Rl vs. RHS, because the average slope of the lot is greater than 15%, they would actually be governed by the RHS in any future development for this lot. Mr. Jung: · The Rl is written that if you have a slope of over 15% which is the case in this particular lot, it is either the RHS or Rl regulations whichever is more restrictive. In this particular case as far as the FAR the more restrictive regulations, the RHS regulation which has aFAR percentage up to a 10,000 square foot lot, has a smaller increment for lots larger than 10,000 and there is a slope penalty that starts deducting the square footage as the slope gets steeper. · The calculation was already done under a nonnal Rl relatively flat lot; for a 20,000 square foot lot you have a theoretical maximum that is close to a 10,000 square foot house, but with RHS regulations on it, you end up with about 3,720 maximum. Com. Giefer: · If this lot where the Knopp house currently sits, was redeveloped in the future, if the person who buys it, subdivides it and decides to build two homes and scrap the lot of the Knopp house and that is redeveloped, would that lot also have to adhere to the RHS as opposed to the Rl? /;;. ·~O Cupertino Planning Comnllssion 25 July 26, 2005 Mr. Jung: · It would still be subject to the same rules regarding the slope as ·well. Most likely if they were interested in expanding, they would be intruding on some of the steeper slope areas as the building pad itself is confined to just the flat portion of the lot. · If the house is larger than what the ordinance presently requires, it would be considered a legal non-conforming structure and they would have the right to rebuild that to the same square footage. It is a case that if it is a voluntary demolition, they would have to comply with the new rules. Vice Chair Miller: · Noted that were some other technologies besides removing the non-engineered fill and replacing it with engineered fill and other technologies to investigate as an altemative to saving the trees. John Knopp, property owner: · Said that his property is only one of four properties that the rezoning could subdivide. · There have been recommendations and suggestions about what would be built and how it would be built, but this is just the subdivision and I do not intend to actually build myself, those matters would have to be brought up with whoever buys the house and that would be the time to consider retaining walls, etc. · There never was a utility easement on that driveway and there doesn't need to be; the only utilities that are affected by the new lot is the sewer coming down from the existing house. I understand the recommendation is to move that over to the common line of the two lots. · The Schmidts sent a letter stating that their concem is they don't want the driveway dug up, don't want it altered in any way, and don't want any utility easements on the driveway; there never were any and they were not proposing that in any regard. · They said that the existing property would still have ingress and egress easement. They would prefer the new lot have its own access off of Lindy Lane. · I talked with them before the meeting and I think they would be willing to grant ingress and egress for the new lot also, especially since it is only on the lower part of the driveway. They would not want it tom up in any way and I agree with that. There is a possibility of putting a new driveway beside it; it would mean putting in a new culvert and putting pavement next to it so that could be done; again that has to do with the development of the property itself. · Thanked the Planning Commission for extending a second notice to neighbors affected; the notice was sent out to a broader area than the standard 500 feet. The neighbors encouraged him with the subdivision and they shared the same concerns about construction noise, etc. · My neighbors and I are concerned about traffic noise, construction noise, etc. Again, this is one of only four or five properties that could be subdivided; we are proposing one more and it will be another year of construction noise, etc. Code enforcement has encouraged us to call if there are any violations by construction crews. Recently there was a backhoe on one of the lots; a call was made and they were shut down immediately. · Briefly discussed the slides and movement in the 70s and a small slide in the 90s; there has since been no other earth movement. Brett Moxley: · I am sympathetic to the concerns about the impacts of construction, and I think it could effectively be addressed in the construction management program which can be attached to conditions; we don't object to that and recognize that it is really well addressed or should be well addressed in the exercise of the enforcement by the building department. / ;)-,;).{ Cupertino Planning CommIssion 26 July 26, 2005 · He reiterated that they were not proposing a 10 foot retaining wall and it was not part of the proposal. They have not proposed any house footprint and feel that it is best left to careful deliberation on the part of those who are designing the house that would go there and the dialog that would go on either with staff or a Design Review Commission. · It is currently zoned Rl and would be subject to design review. There is some concern that in the hillside ordinance currently if that was not redrafted, there isn't a provision for design review provided you are within the constraints of the RHS ordinance. · As opposed to the current relatively prescriptive comments in the staff report, I would like you to consider the alternative that design review does have a fiTI11 hold on what goes in there and it gives the opportunity or the DRC the opportunity to judiciously evaluate a more carefully considered proposal for the house. · I would like you to contemplate that that the Rl growth calls for design review; if it were to go to RHS it wouldn't, we would be happy to stipulate that any future work that happened at the house would be subject to design review, in exchange for a relaxation of the current relatively restrictive and I think early judgments on what could and should go there, subject to more careful review by a designer. . · Weare going to need to bring in utilities, and I think this may not have been the intent of the slope easement, but I bring it to your attention. · The sewer district does not like the current lay of the sewer pipe; the new house would go in on the newly created lot, and they would like to see a new sewer line put in across the slope. · I suspect the slope easement that staff is proposing addresses larger above surface improvements, and doesn't speak to underground utilities which would not have any impaiTI11ent to the trees here. I want to ensure that we anticipate that if it were a slope easement and no underground utilities along there, we would be obliged to object. · Relative to the retaining walls and the mitigation of the unengineered fill there are three obvious solutions, and other solutions that haven't been discussed that could be evaluated. · If there is a concern about preserving these trees here and stabilizing unengineered fill, I feel pretty confident we can do that and not compromise those trees with a hybrid approach to some retaining wall, some unengineered fill removal, replacement, or retaining walls varying the footings so the retaining walls stand far enough out from the trees but are structurally sound and achieve their objective. · The retaining walls in some cases could be a part of the house foundation. I appreciate that those would not be technically retaining walls; as I understand from staff, a retaining wall is a structure separate and apart from the house envelope and the foundation. · The issue of the Schmidt easement probably will be a moot point for several reasons. It is similar to ingress/egress easements that were present on my family's lots and in retrospect, they do not specifically and prescriptively restrict use to one house. If that was the case, the houses upslope of my family's lots would not be able to be subdivided and there hasn't been any discussion of restricting subdivision in that area because the ingress/egress easements don't specify the number of houses that they serve. They are generic and they are not that restrictive; on the legal merits, that argument might not stand up. I appreciate staffs comments that the city does not want to adjudicate matters like this and I don't think any of us would want the city engaging in that; I think we can work it out. It looks favorable that will be able to enjoy agreement with the Schmidts for access along that driveway. . I appreciate that we have a supportive staff report. I suggest that the site and community are better served by availing everyone to the design review process as it was intended and should appropriately apply here and give the person who would be coming in and doing a careful design, the opportunity to engage the design review committee or staff or the community in coming up with the most elegant, least disruptive design there; as opposed to prescriptively tying the hands of a future designer unnecessarily. / J.;)g. Cupertino Planning Connmssion 27 July 26, 2005 In response to an earlier question from Com. Giefer about the existing house, staff said it was 2100 square feet. The footprint is such that you would not want to expand beyond, but want to go up. Com. Giefer: · (To Mr. Moxley). Would you be trying to develop and build on these lots once they are divided and the Knopps decide they are leaving the area; would the lots be sold for future development? · Were you suggesting that the RHS house size calculation should not be used in favor of design review? Mr. Moxley: · Yes. · No, not at all; 1 would gladly recognize that the RHS formula is appropriate here and applies, and the location of the house is its relationship to trees, retaining walls, of whatever size, are appropriately addresses in a design review context. I did not mean to suggest that the RHS formulas apply in addition with the slope penalty, 28% slope, which calculates over a 3,700 square foot house. I think that is entirely sufficient and I don't believe we have ever had any objection to that, nor would be raise any. Chair Wong: . Vs. north, south, east, west; what did you prefer; the current plan or the other one; it looks like there is an easement going over the new subdivision. Mr. Knopp: . As the owner, 1 want to get the value out of the land; so whatever is reasonable I will go either way. If I was to develop myself and years ago if I were to put up my own house, I would have done it east/west and then developed the lower lot; put the house down so it had a valley view; but then you have a long bowling alley type house, so that is purely aesthetics. Either one is fine. I think staff thoroughly investigated all the pros and cons and that is why they came up with that recommendation. Vice Chair Miller: · Part of the existing driveway is now going to become a part of the new lot, and the existing house will then have an easement through there. Mr. Moxley: · You are referring to the ingress/egress easement, which is correct. We had a number of conversations with staff about different permutations of using the site and one would be to push the driveway up slope which would require retaining walls and move a house up slope which in some regards captures more of a view. I think some of the intent was that it might provide more screening from the trees. · This is an ingress/egress easement for use of the house and part of the reason for that is that a driveway here doesn't benefit anybody. Vice Chair Miller: · The part of the driveway that the current house uses will now be on the adjacent property; who maintains the driveway? Mr. Moxley: · I would argue that the house that enjoys the benefit of use of that driveway. · It is my understanding that subject to the RHS aspects applicable here, that a driveway /;)-;}~ Cupertino Planning Cormmssion 28 July 26, 2005 maintenance agreement is a requirement. Vice Chair Miller: · That is fine; but the new parcel you are creating has no motivation or incentive to put any money into that driveway, because they are not going to use it. Mr. Moxley: · Unfortunately crafting a road or driveway maintenance agreement when the same owner owns both parcels, becomes an easy argument for that person to settle and record as part of a road maintenance agreement. Vice Chair Miller: · You can do it any way you want but you would like to do it so that you have a goal of congruence; even though you are forcing someone to do something, there is some motivation for them to do it, otherwise it creates a conflict between the two neighbors over time. Mr. Moxley: · Illustrated that a 12 foot driveway would be required per the fire code to serve the house; and showed where access to the site would be feasible, transgressing across the slope easement for a few feet, not disturbing the trees. Vice Chair Miller: · I have no objection to that as long as an engineer approves it and it doesn't generate retaining walls that don't fit in with the general guidelines that the city would like to see. Mr. Moxley: · I agree, I don't foresee any problem. Vice Chair Miller: · Also, relative to comments about other solutions to the non-engineered fill, it is from my viewpoint as long as an engineer approves the solution, you are free to pick the best solution for you. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Bernard Tischee, Terra Linda Lane: · About 10 or 15 years ago the residents of the large lot requested to subdivide their properties and at that time the request was rejected because of the consideration of the high density and slides in those hills. · Unfortunately when they developed Lindy Lane I don't think it was done properly, the Lindy Lane road is like a valley; when it rains it becomes a river, and if you build more homes the overflow of the rain will make the road even worse during the rainy season. · I don't know the reason why this decision was changed that allowed that hill to be subdivided but there must be a reason. · I oppose this subdivision, not only this subdivision, but all the subdivisions because there is a lot of construction going on in the hillside now, and it has destroyed the hillside view. I think there are some potential hazards in the future such as landslides or overflow water, and we have been living with nuisance of construction noise the last 4 months; it negatively impacts the surroundings and residents' right to enjoy their homes and yards. I ;) -~tf Cupertino Planning Comrlllssion 29 July 26, 2005 · If the decision is made to subdivide the hillsides, at least make a decision and change the construction ordinance that construction takes place only between 8 and 5 p.m. during the weekend and no construction on the weekends. · The property owner has a right to develop his property; but when he purchased his property he knew that there was an ordinance prohibiting subdividing his property. When we purchased our home, we realized that the hills would not be subdivided, so we would be able to enj oy our home; everybody knew the rules in the beginning; somehow the rules have changed. Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident: · In this proposed lot split, there was a great deal of thought given to preserving the oak trees on the property. Everything needs to be done to preserve the oak trees, they are the legacy for Cupertino for generations to come. · Asked if it was the last subdividing of the lot; could the lots be split into quarter-acre lots; could the future purchaser of the lots come back in the future to split up the lots further? · You should publicly look at constraining the maximum size home; how large a home can be . built on the lots; 10,000 square feet is a large house; do we want two stories on the property. · Please preserve the oak trees. . Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Mr. Piasecki: · Said under the current zoning, you could not subdivide further. · Relative to changing the construction ordinance, changes can be made but· there are consequences of changes since it affects homeowners as much as contractors. It normally takes about a year to make changes, to gather input from the public, conduct public hearings and prepare reports. · He said under the construction ordinance, the hours of construction were 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekends. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: · Said she was participating in meetings about the construction hour zones; and noted that code enforcement has been on Lindy Lane at least a dozen times in the last month regarding concerns about construction noise, radios, and grading on the weekends. They are attempting to enforce the law and changes in the ordinance are under discussion. Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified the definitions of daytime as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends. · Maximum house size is 3600 to 3700 +. Mr. Jung: · The square footage requirement applies to all building structures and would include any granny unit, any greenhouse, 3720 maximum. Pools are not included. Mr. Piasecki: · That was the purpose of the slope easement area, to make sure that is a non-buildable zone, no pools, no poolhouses, and you could use some undergrounding of utility that is not included. Com. Giefer: · If these lots had been rezoned to RHS vs. continuing to have the R I designation, what would 1J-;)5 Cupertino Planning Commission 30 July 26, 2005 be the minimal lot size. Mr. Piasecki: o We haven't done the slope density calculation and under the RHS I would expect that you would not be able to subdivide this property. o If it was changed to the hillside land use designations, it would be unlikely that you would be able to get another lot there. Mr. Jung: o Said the General Plan designation that controls the subdivision; it is not the zoning, the RHS zoning ordinance says specifically refer to the slope density formulas that are found in the General Plan designation. . It is not the RHS that controls the lot size in this particular instance; it would be the slope density formula if you had a slope density formula General Plan land use designation on the property. Com. Giefer: o Expressed concern with the condition of Lindy Lane. It is worn down as well as Regnart Road. The developer pays a street maintenance fee, but when will those issues be addressed by the city; how is it prioritized. Mr. Piasecki: o Said that Public Works would respond. o 1 don't think there is a requirement when you build you have to pay an extraordinary fee; if you damage something we know it holds. Com. Giefer: o I thought the developers paid a city maintenance fee that specifically addressed streets Mr. Piasecki: o I don't believe so; private streets you would have such a setup potentially where the maintenance would be controlled Com. Giefer: o One of the issues that several residents mentioned is they felt their street is getting chewed up by the construction vehicles. Mr. Piasecki: oWe can ask Public Works how they can handle that. Vice Chair Miller: o If this project does proceed, I would propose that it include some kind of road maintenance agreement for the current driveway from the existing house out to the access road. o I don't feel we can rule on this tonight because there is contention over whether or not the shared access can be shared by the lot and if the applicant is proposing an alternate driveway, then we need to see that on the General Plan. o I propose we continue the application until that issue is resolved. Chair Wong: o (To staff) When the applicant came to us were you satisfied with their comment or do we need /-;).-~h Cupertino Planning CommIssion 31 July 26, 2005 to resolve that, regarding them talking to the applicant. Mr. Piasecki: · We received that letter today and we were not aware that it was an issue until we saw the letter; we could handle that either with a condition that said the example we cited the Wolfe Camera issue that had three options, and the applicant could demonstrate to us that he has satisfied those. If they are seriously looking at creating another driveway, I agree with Vice Chair Miller, that we would like to understand what it looks like, how it impacts trees, what do you need for retaining walls, etc. · We would continue it for that purpose; again I would ask if the applicant is willing to take a continuance and come back with a definitive answer. The driveway is usable, it would be our preference that they use the existing driveway. Chair Wong: · I agree. Com. Giefer: · I would agree with Vice Chair Miller; until we see that there is not an issue from the Schmidts, I would be more comfortable with that. · Another suggestion is to record the trees that are there; the reason I asked Mr. Moxley if he was actually going to be developing the property himself is that once Mr. Knopp and Mr. Moxley are out of the picture, the future owner may come in and clear cut the lot, thinking they can get away with that. As the property deed is changed, I would like to record the heritage trees to give them some protection, more for the future. · I suggest that we add conditions for construction stating that the neighbors feel antagonized by all the development going on. That has been the primary complaint I have heard. · There are concerns about landslides; we have the geologist report they retained; the city geologist is more negative about the soils there. I would like to require that there is no construction on weekends for this project; neighbors need some relief as part of this project. · I don't know if the street repair is a developer issue; we as a city need to understand that this is getting worn down and should be looked at as a higher priority. · I would support Vice Chair Miller, if we do act on this tonight, I would like to suggest we record the trees and add the condition of construction management that they do not work on weekends or have a very limited schedule. Com. Saadati: · Said he concurred with the statements made by fellow commissioners. · Relative to construction time, some of our neighboring cities have construction time limits 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. during the week, and no construction on weekends. Exceptions for working on the weekend can be granted, but not for noisy work that would impact the neighbors. · I concur with the recording of the trees. · The issue that they share access needs to be resolved; if it can be done at the staff level, I support that; if not, it be continued to come back. · Overall, this lot can be subdivided; regarding building of the house, slope stability; those will be added at the time the house is proposed and design is proposed and specific geotechnical report will be required for that site, prior to building pennit action. Chair Wong: · I support the tentative mapping of the project with the condition about recording the trees; having limited construction hours on the weekend; and regarding the concerns of the residents (;:)-()7 Cupertino Planning CommIssion 32 July 26, 2005 on Lindy Lane. o I also agree with Com. Saadati that if the applicant can satisfy staffs concern regarding the easement with the Schmidts, I feel comfortable leaving that decision to the competent staff. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application TM-200S-03 with the modifications suggested by the Planning Commission. Com. Giefer: o The concerns of the neighbors include the heavy construction noise all of the time. I agree there may be interior construction that could be done that is less noisy; however, the heavy equipment, and backhoes are too much to have going 24/7 which is what the neighbors feel they are living through. o I would suggest that on Saturday, there not be any heavy equipment and dirt trucks. Ifwe limit heavy construction, cut and fill type of activities, that would reduce a lot of the noise immediately, where they didn't have trucks reducing access to their homes. o Limit construction on Saturday to no heavy equipment, perhaps from 9 a.m. to noon, and if there is only quieter construction, things not requiring heavy equipment during that timeframe. On Sunday, give the neighbors a break and not have any Sunday construction. Vice Chair Miller: o Added another condition that no grading be done during the rainy season. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the suggestions: o Said there was a desire to see a road maintenance agreement recorded prior to the recordation of the final map on the private drive over the westerly lot to the benefit of the eastern lot. o That there would be a construction management plan as required by the conditions and that there be no heavy equipment construction occurring on Saturdays; no construction on Sundays and work with the applicant to define the meaning; it can be written into the construction management plan. o That they would record the trees that are protected under the tree ordinance and they would record the fact that there would be no clear cutting; staff will define it. o That the applicant shall demonstrate that there is access as proposed over the private drive to the west of the site; and there would be a clearance from that property owner who owns the easement; there be no grading during the rainy season as defined by the ordinance. It would be recorded against both lots. o They would record the slope easements in which case there would be no above ground construction allowed. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent) Mr. Piasecki: o Noted it was a final decision of the Planning Commission unless appealed within 10 days. Chair Wong: o Said that relative to the General Plan for the neighborhood, they made a recommendation and iftheyare still interested, they should follow up with the City Council when they make their final recommendation. 1-;). -;;3 Ey-\'Ì'\ 81-': c 25 Jul 05 Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10350 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Subdivision of parcel ~ 21925 Lindy Lane Atten: Commissioner's Apparently the Planning Commission is taking up the application to subdivide the adjacent parcel located at 21925 Lindy Lane at Tuesday's (26 Jul 05) meeting. Your department should note that the "existing" ingress / egress to this parcel via T.E. & Marion Schmidt's driveway is limited to (1) parcel not (2) and more importantly it does not contain any right for a utility easement as shown on published proposal. The Schmidt's only concern to this proposed subdivision is that the use of their private driveway remain as it has for the last (50) years and without further burden. This information is furnish on behalf of T.E. & Marion Schmidt, who's age & health prevent them from attending this scheduled meeting. 'J3ie;t regards, /0-7 / " "" ,\>·Æ(:_·~(. ,~l. ~~}:~:.o_~~:~,( {F_...; Bill Schmidt (on behalf oty T.E. & Marion Schmidt 21945 Lindy Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 , .¡::.. /-' r-v~D \ I .< "-' -I. . 1'-1' t" r--4' ~J."""., I:..:.~,' ,.j: '/;~ -_L:J~ I JUL 2 5 [005 I ~{:~rJ~;G~ 6<~:J (. /?--,;]q T. E. & Marion Schmidt 21945 Lindy Lane Cupertino, CA. 95014 14 Feb 06 Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10350 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Application #: M-2005-04 Location: 21925 Lindy Lane (APN: 356-25-014) Hearing date: 14 Feb 06 Atten: Commissioners Please note that we opted not to appeal the original TM-2005-03 approval based on John Knopp's 03 Aug 05 written assurances that access to proposed lot #2 would come off Lindy Lane. Our position regarding the use of our driveway to access proposed lot #2 remains unchanged. We are the owners of the parcel adjacent to subject parcel referenced above. We are the original grantors of the access easement, which was granted by us to the original owners of subject parcel (George & Gladys Langstaff) in 1960. At the time the easement was granted in 1960, it was the intent of both parties that the easement would apply to only one residence on subject property, as at the time only one residence was allowed by the City to be built on that parcel. The current access easement area is a one-lane curving driveway that progresses from Lindy Lane up a hill to our residence. To exit our residence down that easement driveway to Lindy Lane, we occasionally meet a vehicle entering the easement driveway from Lindy Lane, we are required to make difficult curving reverse up the hill to allow the oncoming vehicle to approach up the easement to the turn-off to the existing residence on subject parcel. If an additional residential parcel on subject lot is also allowed access on the one-lane driveway easement, between all of the construction vehicle traffic for construction of a new residence and the resulting ongoing vehicle traffic to the new residence (which in households today could be from two to six vehicles making multiple daily trips along that easement) it would significantly increase our burden in exiting our residence down the easement driveway to Lindy Lane. It would require much more than our current occasional need to make that difficult reversal up the curving driveway to avoid vehicles entering the easement from Lindy Lane. We therefore request that any access to the new parcel being created on the above referenced lot be made directly from Lindy Lane without using the one-lane existing roadway easement. 1.;1-36 Planning Commission City of Cupertino 14 Feb 06 Page in Finally, we ask that the City planners articulate to the commissioners at tonight's hearing what factors dictated splitting the Knopp parcel in a North/South direction in lieu of the more practical East/West direction, thus allowing even more opportunities to access parcel #2. An East/West split would have avoided the need for yet another easement agreement between lots #1 & in. We also, trust that the City planners will explain any objections they may have to adding one more driveway to North side of Lindy Lane in light of the fact that the South side of Lindy Lane has multiple driveways. Best regards, T.E. & Marion Schmidt 21945 Lindy Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 / J -3/ £\ '\ l.. D' ;Lh, :11: January 31, 2006 Mr. Colin Jung Planning Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3232 Subject: Application for Planning Commission Hearing to Modify the Approved Tentative Map Vehicular Access Requirement for 21925 Lindy Lane Dear Mr. Jung: The Knopps are requesting a Planning Commission Hearing to address modifying the approved tentative map vehicular access requirement for the 2 lot subdivision of 21925 Lindy Lane. The Planning Commission previously approved the 2 lot subdivision and required vehicular access be taken off of the private easement owned by the neighbors, the Schmidts. At the time of the Planning Commission approval of the subdivision, Mr. Knopp presumed that he would have no difficulty persuading the Schmidt's to rescind their position that an additional house would excessively overburden the easement. The Knopps were confident that they would easily achieve resolution with the Schmidt's because the Knopps had just recently granted the Schmidt's an access easement across the Knopp property (for free) to allow the Schmidt's to adjust the course of the Schmidt driveway. Quite naturally the Knopps were appalled when the Schmidt's the repeatedly refused to reciprocate in any way whatsoever. Both directly and through legal counsel, we have tried numerous times to persuade the Schmidt's to acknowledge our right to use the easement for the second lot. We have offered to accept all of the road maintenance obligations for the portion of the road which would serve both homes on the Knopp properties. We have tried every effort to reach an accord with the Schmidts with out success. We were then ready to proceed with recording the final map when the title company, First American Title Company, informed us that they would not underwrite the title insurance due to the potential for an easement overburdening litigation. We subsequently requested a preliminary underwriting evaluation from both Stewart Title and Chicago Title Company. They provided the same response as First American Title Company. 1;)-3;) Without the Schmidt's friendly consent, the litigation alternative would require a quiet title action in Superior Court to establish the Knopps entitlernent to use the easernent. Unfortunately this will require up to one year (or more) and will no doubt require significant court costs. The Knopps have been in contract to sell their property for some time now (subject to the subdivision), after which they will retire. The terrns of their contract and their personal plans have been stalled while we have tried to resolve this easement matter. Based on the foregoing, we are reluctantly forced to return to the Planning Corn mission to request approval to take vehicular access from Lindy Lane to serve Lot #2 in light of the fact that the Knopps property has approximately 250 feet of Lindy Lane road frontage and that Lot #2 itself will have approximately 125 feet of road frontage. The modified vehicular access for Lot #2 will require a 12' wide driveway frorn Lindy Lane. The driveway engineering feasibility has been demonstrated by Nelsen Engineering in the revised tentative rnap, and the City Arborist has reported that the driveway will not adversely impact the Oak Trees along Lindy Lane. The Knopps have made significant efforts to resolve this matter without using the Lindy Lane frontage, unfortunately due to the Schmidt's recalcitrant position we now are forced to pursue vehicular access with a 12 foot wide driveway from Lindy Lane. Please call me if you have any further questions or need any additional information, and thank you for your consideration of this rnatter. Sincerely, Bret Moxley I ~ - B3 Page 1 of2 Ev.\\\b;-t-· L Colin Jung From: jbmoxley@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday. February 01. 2006 3:37 PM To: Colin Jung Subject: First American Title Refusal to Provide Title Insurance Colin: Attached is the response from Tim Ward, Senior Regional Underwriter, to my request for an explanation of First American Title's refusal to provide title insurance for the Knopp subdivision due to the easement matter. Stewart Title and Chicago Title were not requested to render their positions in writing. Each declined with verbal responses to inquiries from John Dozier and John Knopp respectively. Bret ______________ Forwarded Message: -------------- From: "Ward, Tim" <Tward@firstam.com> To: jbmoxley@comcast.net Cc: "Rhoden, Jim" <jrhoden@firstam.com>, dbyers@landuselaw.com Subject: RE: Case Law Relating to Easement Burden Increase Date: Thu, 12 Jan 200601 :14:21 +0000 Bret: As I recall our discussion last Friday, Mr. Schmidt stated that the additional use of the easement would overburden it. As I mentioned on Friday. First American is not in the position to insure the ingress. egress easement, recorded in 1965, unless Schmidt records an amendment to it, which states that the easement is appurtenant to lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision. We agreed to review the cases below. and discuss this matter with our counsel in Santa Ana. Our position has not changed; we decline to insure the easement, and we view the cases below as a possible defense to a challenge made by Mr. Schmidt. It would be up to the court to decide whether your defense against Schmidt's claim that the easement is overburdened has any merit. You may provide copies of my email to the seller and/or the City. Please feel free to contact us. Tim Ward Senior Regional Underwriter First American Title Insurance Company 6665 Owens Drive. Pleasanton, CA 94588 (925) 201-6655(direct line) (925-463-9683(fax) From: jbmoxley@comcast.net [mailto:jbmoxley@comcast.netj Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 4:22 PM To: Ward, Tim Cc: Rhoden, Jim; dbyers@landuselaw.com Subject: Case Law Relating to Easement Burden Increase Tim: /;1-3'1 2/2/2006 Page 2 of2 Thank you for arranging First American Title's swift elevated review of the merits of an overburdening argument by the easement grantor. It is my understanding that California case law is very clear that the natural and reasonable contemplated future needs of the dominant tenement resulting from the probable evolution of its future use do not increase the burden on an easement excessively. Camp Meeker Water System v. Public Utilities Commission. 51 Cal3rd 845866 (1990); Hill v. Allan (1968) 259 Cal App. 2nd 470 486. If you need any additional information on this matter please feel free to call Mr. Dave Byers, Esq. at (650) 377-4894 xt 13, who represents me. Sincerely, BreI Moxley (415) 971-7720 2/2/2006 /').-35 B D COATE 408 3531288 RECOMMENDA TIONS FOR TREE PRESERVATION AT 21925 UNDYLANE CUPERTINO Prepared at the request of: Colin Jung City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist October 04, 2005 Job# 02-05-0248 02/08/06 10:2Zam P. 00Z V[\\ F2i \^ ,t, ì~ ¡- '. /~-3{¿, B D COATE 408 8531288 02!08!0S 10:22am P. 003 RECOMMENDATJONS FOR TREE PRESERVATION AT 21925 LJNDY LANE Assignment T was asked by Colin Jung to review the proposed entry way drive location to 21925 Lindy Lane, Cupertino to determine its effect on the existing trees. Summary Plans used as reference for this report are titled "Tentative Map, Lands of Knopp prepared by Nelsen Engineering Cupertino, dated August 2005. Summary Tfthe angle of the proposed roadway is changed to confonn to the orange lines r have drawn on the soil and judicious tree pruning is done on trees #9, 10 and 11, there is no reason this roadway cannot be constructed without causing unacceptable levels of harm to the subject trees. Observations There are three trees that have the potential for being affected by the proposed driveway, identified as Trees #9, 10 and lIon the enclosed map section. The largest of these three trees is tree #10, which would require removal of three 6-8" diameter limbs to accommodate 14' tall trucks within the 18' wide confines of the proposed entry drive. Tree # II is a specimen with a strange structure. Approximately 30% of the tree's canopy is composed of one 8" diameter limb which points directly east, directly into the proposed driveway location. Removal of that limb back to the main trunk would not destroy the fonn of that tree, and would actually improve the form, and would remove conflict with 14' tall trucks on the west side of the driveway. The existing power pole would have to be removed. Recommendations I recommend that: 1. That the east facing 8" diameter limb which emerges at 5' above ground on the east side of tree # 11 be removed entirely back to the branch bark ridge. 2. I recommend that the three lowest 6-8" diameter limbs on tree #10 which point to the south and southwest be removed back to branch bark ridge tissue on the trunk. . PREPARED BY BARRJE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST OCTOBER 04,2005 1;)-37 8 D COATE 408 3531Z38 OZ¡08¡08 10:Z2am P. 004 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREE PRESERVATlON AT 21925 LINDY LANE 2 3. I recommend that the lowest west facing limb on tree #9 be removed back to the branch bark ridge on the trunk, and that small branches !Tom the limb directly above it be removed. 4. I recommend that the power pole be moved as necessary to move it out of the proposed driveway alignment 5. I recommend that chain-link fences be installed 4' from tree #11 and 14' from tree # I 0 to conform to the fence location as shown on the enclosed plan. 6. 1 suggest that any soil cuts be made no closer than 6' from tree #11 or 16' from tree #10, or 16' from tree #9. If possible, these should be made in winter (December-January). 7. Any roots of 2" diameter or larger which are encountered during the soiJ excavation must be cut cleanly with a tree saw and covered immediately with a plastic bag tied on with rubber bands or coated with latex paint to prevent desiccation. 8. I suggest tllat either the walls be built within a week after the soil cuts are made or that used carpeting be draped in such a way that it covers the vertical walls and be wet down daily to prevent desiccation of the exposed root zone. Conclusion In my opinion, if all of these procedures are carefully followed, there should be no reason these trees will suffer from the proposed construction activity. Respectfully submitted Barrie D. Coate BDC/phlg Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Map Photographs PREPARED BYBARRlE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST OCTOBER 04, 2005 };;2-38 ~@ ::;.¡:E '\I f:: '¡:'.r "D :-< 2 / O~ /'11 A 3::?S e »» --I 5jT1 O;a o U1 "1 / - - ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ 1'1' X(J1 -I ""'0 \I "r1>-O co ,.., t::I 0 (") ..... CO CO $?- .... -< CO ---> ---> , f-rj>-.j CO ,.., t::! 0 o ..... CO g ..... .... <: CO z:~ I -< § 01'1 , .,.,?< ""'OT1 »0 < ~ 1'1 Z t-t-l Z\ ©t; .-< CJ rr1 Q o :Þ :::J o \ z ~~ C;,;',r7< . -1 IjJe77 : ,71 T QC1 ..-' P,7I ..-' 71'7! P~?:T.R'::::=: Rt7I-b "'::tIH1Ì:I II R . -- -- / :J: o 0;0 O::! zO (J)C Cc¡ c¡c -;0 z» G>,- :»0 ;00 "'Z 0", ;oc Ü),- -j-j ",:» z -j '" I ..._~---- --.--.---- ~~;.> ~ = = =- ~"'" i~§G:;~ Þi;¡J ô? ~¡ ~ Ç2 8 --< =- ~ -< ~ ~ ~o-" @ () ð" ~C80-g r:~ 0' 0 g.z Ciì ~ $1 §:-\Q, :: ßOOO{")o b g-o~c ~ V' ;; þ):> II 0 ~ -.þ.~~ g. §' CD rvoêo <- g ~ ro § '" '" ~ : a. ~ CD :J, ~ P 5' V! ~~ ~ (pI; ~ U1::J õ· ~() ::J .. I - c¡ Page 1 of3 E'i-\-T\8IT: ~ Colin Jung From: Ciddy Wordell Sent: Wednesday, September 21,20054:49 PM To: 'tahoejej@comcast.net' Cc: Colin Jung Subject: RE: No Notification re plans to subdivide Lindy Lane Hillside Lots - NO RESPONSE FROM CITY - . SECOND REQUEST \( (\PH' ~~)"A".hSi;"'\ ~'Ìoc'\xf1 c,·h"^- The radius for mailing the Knopp notice was 500 feet. and you are on the mailing list we received from our mailing selVice. Sun mailing will be a 10ÖO feet radius, and the notice hasn't gone out yet. Your opposition to the driveway is noted; perhaps you will want to attend the October 11 hearing. Thanks for your comments. Ciddy Wordell -----Original Message----- From: tahoejej@comcast.net [mailto:tahoejej@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 4:21 PM To: Ciddy Wordell; Arzeno, Sara; Patrick Kwok2; Steve Piasecki; Charles Kilian; Igiefer Cc: Bob Rodert; Mohammed Hossain; TAYSI3@aol.com; Andrew Teng; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET Subject: RE: No Notification re plans to subdivide Lindy Lane Hillside Lots - NO RESPONSE FROM cm - SECOND REQUEST Is across the street more then 300 feet? 1 never got notified and don't like where I HEARD his , driveway is going. From Chicago, John James -------------- Original message -------------- Hello Sara: Mr. James writes about noticing for the R1 hillside ordinance. The R1 ordinance was noticed to all Cupertino residents. It contains a provision that property owners in the R 1 zoning district with average slopes greater than 15% must deveiop according to the hillside ordinance. or R1, whichever is more restrictive. It was not possible. nor was it necessary, to determine exactly which properties those were so that they could be notified individually. Your concern about notification of subdivision activity is a separate issue. The subdivision applications are mailed to nearby property owners. In the case of the Knopp subdivision approved by the Planning Comm. on July 26, notices were mailed to properties within 500 feet of the Knopp property, as was Knopp's request for a modification for access scheduled for the September 27 Planning Commission The Sun subdivision is scheduled for October 11. and a 1000 foot notice- will be sent. All of these notices exceed the distance required in the municipal code, which is 300 feet. Please let me know if you have further questions. Ciddy Wordell -----Original Message----- From: Arzeno, Sara [mailto:Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:01 AM To: Ciddy Wordell; Patrick Kwok2; Steve Piasecki; Charles Kilian; Igiefer Cc: Bob Rodert; Mohammed Hossain; TAYSI3@aol.com; Andrew Teng; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET; tahoejej@comcast.net Subject: FW: No Notification re plans to subdivide Lindy Lane Hillside Lots - NO RESPONSE FROM cm - SECOND REQUEST 1~-LfD 9/28/2005 Knopp Plans for Subdivision "fLindy Lane Hillside - Three voters at 21902 Fervently Op... Page I of 1 Colin Jung From: Arzeno. Sara [Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com] Sent: Friday, September 23,20058:27 AM To: Giddy Wordell; Steve Piasecki Cc: Golin Jung Subject: RE: Knopp Plans for Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside - Three voters at 21902 Fervently Oppose Knopp Subdivision Thank you Giddy. From: Ciddy Wordell [mailto:CynthiaW@cupertino.org] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:25 AM . To: Arzeno, Sara Cc: Colin Jung Subject: RE: Knopp Plans for Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside - Three voters at 21902 Fervently Oppose Knopp Subdivision confirmed -----Original Message----- From: Arzeno, Sara [mailto:Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 10: 14 PM To: Ciddy Wordell; Igiefer; Steve Piasecki; Patrick Kwok2 Cc: tahoejej@comcast.net; Uner & Canden Taysi; Mohammed Hossain; Andrew Teng; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET; Bob Rodert; ronberti@comcast.net Subject: Knopp Plans for Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside - Three voters at 21902 Fervently Oppose Knopp Subdivision Importance: High Message number two from the three voters at 21902 Lindy Lane We FERVENTL TY OPPOSE the Knopp Plans for subdivision of the Lindy Lane Hillside. The Arzeno Family PS - Giddy et al - pis confirm receipt of this message. Sara Arzeno Manager. Medical Writing CV Therapeutics, Inc. (650) 384-8816 f ;J-Lfl 9/26/2005 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 February 14, 2006 · Said she did not believe the trees would be protected. · 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: · Said she was proud of the Cupertino residents wanting to save the trees as it is one of the last areas where there are field grown Oak trees. · 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: · 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. · Feels that the driveway will need retaining walls and will ruin the trees · 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: · 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. · He said he would them one way or another if they need access. Mr. Moxley: · 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 Zorro option. The preference is for relatively distinct straight lines that delineate the lots. · 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: · Asked Chair Miller ifhe was suggesting a house in the area he illustrated. Com. Miller: · 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. · 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. · 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. / ;2-'f~ 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 staff's 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 staff's recommendation. Com. Wong: · Said he supports staff's recommendation. Chair Miller: · Said he supports the staff's 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: }!,me -NliJW BUSINESS. 3. ~chedule a study sessIOn ou tñe1'lauulng CUlUlllission's-2006-W"rk-Program.- u -.. .-- 1;)-'-13 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 walls in that location. Chair Miller: · 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 walls, that would make it undesirable. · He commented that it was another potential solution. Chair Miller 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 fallen down. · He showed photos, and commenteq 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 all 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 all 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 allow 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. /;J.-L/tf Cupertino Planning Commission 5 February 14,2006 Com. Wong: o Asked Mr. Moxley when he planned to put the tree protection back on the trees. Mr. Moxley: o 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. o 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: o 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: o 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 Miller: o 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. o 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: o 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: o 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: o Stated that in the photo, the driveway would be in between the two rows of trees. Chair Miller: o 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. o He said he did not know if it was technically feasible because of the steepness of the slope. 1;;2 -Lf S 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 of the 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 ITom 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 ITom 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 offthe 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 ITom 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. I ~-4{¡; Cupertino Planning Commission 3 t:.''"\'\\ß\T: t,-\ February 14, 2006 ------€upertino-)-AJves 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 illlustrated photos of Moxley Drive showing flow om the drain, and described the problem of the water sloping. He said some type of phalt curb is needed after the project is approved. He noted for the record that his peo were appealing that the city at least lmow that it exists and a corrective action occurs ore the building permit is approved. Chair Miller: · Referred to a photo and note at Mr. James pointed out a problem to pass on to appropriate staff about the tree prote on notification being down. He said he was out at the site and it was down as well. asked staff to address the concern. Ms. Wordell: · Said t Planning staff did not go out on a regular basis, but staff would look into it. The B - ing Department staff goes out on a regular basis; and although they lmow 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 ~k with tÞ.s ¡¡,¡ikling DlOf'arIm.m aèe'>Ì ¡'.iRg merg atl0Bti". 10 tÞ.. tr...s. 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 ftom 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 ftom 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 prèserving the visual character of the area: o Limited the future building area on Lot 2. o Requirement for slope easement along ftontage 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. / )-47 Colin Jung c (~_ fY-r,J~ J j-z) Li-Q~ -dþ-) 7- Subject: Jim Moore [Iacorre@comcast.net] Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:20 AM Richard Lowenthal; Kris Wang; Patrick Kwok2; Dolly Sandoval; Orrin Mahoney; Colin Jung; Arzeno, Sara; Candan and Charlie Taysi; John and Julie James; ronberti@comcast.net; Sue Moore; brodert@comcast.net Knopp appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny a modification to a Tentative Map (TM-2005-03) From: Sent: To: Dear City Council members, We are opposed to this modification being requested by John Knopp. This modification has been denied twice by the Planning Commission. This Knopp modification requests access to Lindy Lane via a driveway which, if allowed, would be within 20 feet of three adjacent outlets onto Lindy Lane, and would endanger a grove of heritage oak trees. This grove of oak trees has already suffered severe losses due to prior and existing construction on three hillside lots developed by Moxley and Knopp. Additional destruction of these trees would occur if another driveway is constructed through their midst. Additionally, having another outlet/driveway, the 4th, in such close proximity would be a traffic safety issue. When the current approved construction is completed, there will be eight homeowners each placing up to three collection containers at the base of the three existing outlets/driveways on a Monday morning. Having up to 24 containers waiting for Monday pickup at this curve in the road will diminish visibility for traffic going up and down Lindy Lane. Adding additional containers for Monday pickup will only add to this traffic safety hazard. Please deny this appeal by John Knopp. James and Susan Moore 21962 Lindy Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 (Cupertino homeowners since 1976) References: IIConsider an appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to deny a modification to a Tentative Map (TM-2005-03) to provide access for Lot 2 from Lindy Lane, Application No. M-2005-04, Bret Moxley (Knopp residence), 21925 Lindy Lane, APN No. 356-25-014. The appellant is John Knopp. " CITY OF CUPERTINO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION NUMBERS TM-2005-03 AND M-2005-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at its regular adjourned meeting of Tuesday, March 21, 2006, the Cupertino City Council will conduct a public hearing to an appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to deny a modification to a Tentative Map to provide access for Lot 2 from Lindy Lane. The appellant is John Knopp_ The project is located at 21925 Lindy Lane, APN No. 356-25-014. Council will meet at 6:45 p.m., Council Chamber, Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. If you wish to challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino City Hall at, or prior to, the public hearing. /KIMBERLY SMITH/ CITY CLERK 1 ARZENO Family OPPOSED to additional Driveway on Lindy Lane - Knopp appeal ofPL.. Page 1 of 1 C~ rt~~Jt~ ~f'--I -:t~-/Y'-- :t-I-L Colin Jung From: Arzeno, Sara [Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com] Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:02 AM Richard Lowenthal; Kris Wang; Patrick Kwok2; Dolly Sandoval; Orrin Mahoney; Colin Jung; Arzeno, Sara; Candan and Charlie Taysi; John and Julie James; ronberti@comcast.net; Sue Moore; brodert@comcast.net; sharminsalim@sbcglobal.net Subject: ARZENO Family OPPOSED to additional Driveway on Lindy Lane - Knopp appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny a modification to a Tentative Map (TM-2005-03) Sent: To: Dear City Council Members - (a short message to be read at tonight's meeting) As many of you know, our family has been opposed to further development of the North Lindy Lane Hillside since Mr. Moxley first proposed his plans to the Cupertino City Council over 7 years ago. Specifically, we are opposed to the modification requested by John Knopp which has already been twice denied by the Planning Commission. Safety - An additional driveway on Lindy Lane poses real safety issues for those living in that area of Lindy Lane and for those who drive that very curvy stretch daily. Again - please remember how many accidents have occurred on this small section of Lindy Lane. Oak TreeslWestern Bluebird Habitat - Another driveway will further the destruction of Heritage Oak Trees and Western Bluebird habitat (Audubon nesting boxes have been on John Knopp's property with his permission) in our neighborhood - where we have witnessed three years of hillside devastation. Please do not allow another driveway on Lindy Lane. Thank you and kind regards, The Arzeno Family 21902 Lindy Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 3/21/2006 Grace Schmidt LL 3/)...))0& * I S-~3~ #- /;¿ Mahmood, Kutubuddin [mahmOOdk@medimmuE.·· .]X H , B ,[;!~' Wednesday, March 22, 20064:00 PM :.... '~ City Clerk I, . Item#12:: .... . From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Me Grace, I was at yesterday's meeting but I will not be able to make it to today's meeting for the iterrn #12 that was postponed from yesterday night's meeting. I would like my comments and concerns to be addressed at this meeting discussing the iterm # 12 with regard to the appeal. This is regard to the Tentative Map (TM-2005-03) for access to Lot#2 My name is Kutub, and I am a resident and home owner on 21832 Lindy Lane and neighbor to this property located on 21925 Lindy Lane which is under consideration for Lot # 2. The lot #2 development should not affect any of the oak trees that are currently located. If these trees were to being removed it will affect the ecosystem of this area and these trees also help prevent any landslides. On the issue of the access to this lot # 2 for 21925 Lindy Lane, the access has to be from the existing driveway and I highly oppose any new planned access from Lindy Lane. Please consider my request for the trees and to use the existing driveway while making you judgement. I thank you for your consideration Sincerely Kutub 1