PC 08-09-04
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
AUGUST 9, 2004
CONFERENCE ROOM C
Following a recess of the Study Session, the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 9,
2004, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati.
MONDAY
6:45 P.M.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL taken at Studv Session
All Commissioners present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the July 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong second by Com. Giefer to approve the
July 12,2004 minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Chen ahstain)
Minutes of the July 26, 2004 Study Session:
Com. Giefer requested the following changes:
· Page 2: 1" bulletin under Mr. GilIi, 7'h line, "nerving way" - check audio tape as
language is unclear.
· Page 3, Mr. GilIi, last bullet, second last line: insert "the" before "things"
· Page 5, Com. Giefer, second bullet: Change "support" to read "supports"
· Page 5, second last line: Change "will it" to read: "it will"
Chair Saadati:
· Noted that Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, was not in attendance at the study
session.
Chair Saadati requested the following changes:
· Page 8, 1" bullet, lines 1 and 2: Delete "it is not going to increase, it will still be
maintained; so"
· Page 8, second bullet, line 2: Delete: "they are"; Line 3: Change "toward that" to read
"toward"; Line 4: Change "help keep" to read "help to keep"
· Page 8, 4'h bullet, lines 1 and 2: Change "over 35% up to 50% and another" to read:
"35% up to 50% to another"
Minutes of the July 26,2004 regular Planning Commission meeting:
Chair Saadati requested the following changes:
· Noted that the page nnmbers were missing
Planning Commission Minutes
2
August 9, 2004
· Page 5, 6th bullet, second line: delete "he thought"
· Page 5, 7th bullet, Delete "It is" on first line; last line: change ~~to over-built" to read: "to
be over-built"
· Page 12, under Bicycle Committee: Change 3'· liue to read: "walk to school to be
discussed in future months."
Motion:
Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Wong, to approve the July 26,
2004 study session miuutes as amended, and the July 26, 2004 regular
Planning Commission minntes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Chen abstain)
There was consensus that the corrections to the minutes be emailed to the recording
secretary prior to the meeting and not list the changes again in the body of the subsequent
minutes.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
2.
TR-2004-04
Li Mei Yee
8062 Park Villa Circle
Tree removal of a protected tree at a
planned residential development.
Request postponement to Planning Commission
meeting of August 23, 2004.
3.
TR-2004-05
Nathan Lewis (Westridge
HOA) 10166 English Oak
Way
Tree removal of a protected tree in a planned
residential development. Request postponement
to Planning Commission meeting of
August 23, 2004.
7.
M-2004-04
Etsuko Kuromiya
19990 Homestead Road
Modification of a use permit (U-2004-02) for late
night activities: extending the hours of operation
of a karaoke studio to 2 a.m,
Planning Commission decision final unless
appealed Request postponement to Planning
Commission meeting of September 13, 2004.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone
Applications TR-2004-04 and TR-2004-05 to the August 23, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting, and postpone Application M-2004-04 to the September
13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARING
4.
M-2004-05
Mark Lavoie (B.J.'s
Restaurant & Brewhouse)
10690 No. DeAnza Blvd.
Modification of a use permit (U-2002-01) to allow valet
parking at an existing restaurant. Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed
Mr. Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director presented the staff report:
. Application is to modify the use permit to allow valet parking at BJ.'s Restaurant.
Planning Commission Minutes
J
August 9, 2004
· The restaurant has had valet parking for some time; the parking ordinance requires Planning
Commission approval for special parking arrangements.
· B.J.'s has 94 onsite parking spaces, plus lion the adjacent office parcel that are available in
the evenings Monday through Friday, and all day Saturday and Sunday.
· A number of options were explored in 2003 because of overflow parking from BJ.'s onto the
adjacent Apple site (Options listed in staff report). The options did not work except possibly
allowing some valet parking, and the applicant was encouraged to apply for the valet parking
arrangement.
· Some employee parking has been provided offsite on an adjacent office building lot.
· B.J.'s parking demands exceed its supply; the supply is consistent with the ordinance; other
parking options in terms of using adjacent lots or on-street seem infeasible or inadequate; valet
parking works by allowing to roughly double load spaces and stack parking aisles; it can be
adjusted to be flexible enough to address peak and non-peak periods.
· Some of the issues with the valet parking used thus far include placement of cones and
delineators in the public right of way; the vehicle queue spillback onto DeAnza Boulevard; the
desire by motorists for self-parking option and not having it, and obstructing the driveway to
Mariani Avenue.
· Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application, with conditions added
that there be no driveway obstruction to Mariani Avenue; no obstruction of bike and vehicle
lanes on DeAnza Boulevard; the applicant seek approval of Public Works for any vehicle
channeling plan that might affect the public right of way; strive to move self-park areas up
front; the valet system to be a secondary back-up option and not appearing to be the major
option; and that they diminish the valet parking if the parking demand increases.
Com. Giefer:
· Requested that the stipulation be included that the handicapped spaces have to remain self-
park at all times to allow for people who have limited mobility to have easy access to the
spaces.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Questioned how the Public Works concerns would be resolved, including no backing into
Mariani Avenue, bike lanes not being blocked, Mariani Avenue not being blocked.
Mr. Piasecki:
· They would need to demonstrate to the Public Works Department under no circumstances will
they cause the kind of problems they have had in the past, staff feels by making the self-park
area in the front and allowing more queuing to occur, that would address the issue.
· If there are problems, they would need to come back and tell us how they are going to get
those cars out of the street. It is built into how we are structuring the conditions; we should
not have these problems in the future.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he has been through this process before and illustrated when the valet parking is in one
area, the queue goes not only all the way through the parking lot and extra parking lot, but also
snakes through the street. Asked if staff was suggesting that the queue be located in another
area illustrated.
Mr. Piasecki:
· That is one option; we would ask the applicant what the condition is today, whether they think
they meet that requirement.
Planning Commission Minutes
4
Åugust 0, ~004
· In the past, the valet parking has been out toward the street and people have been queuing up
and spilling back; now with the valet further back, we don't expect that to be happening.
· He said they could open it for public comment and then go back to the applicant, or ask staff to
apply conditions that will ensure that things happen.
· Relative to Vice Chair Wong's question about Public Works, the applicant would have to
demonstrate to Public Works that the valet station will be sufficiently far back to provide
enough stacking.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to
speak.
The applicant was not present.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the questions heard are addressable by conditions: handicapped access, sufficient
stacking subject to Public Works review.
· All the conditions and recommendations have been discussed with the applicant and agreed to
at this point.
Chair Saadati:
· On the handicapped, if BJ.'s has valet parking and they park the vans when they come in, is
there also a need to provide the handicapped parking, if there is an assistant present all the
time?
Mr. Piasecki:
· They have to provide handicapped parking and what Com. Giefer is suggesting is that should
be a self-park area; it shouldn't be a situation where a handicapped must get out of their car
and turn it over to valet parking.
Chair Saadati:
· Suggested that they be out in front; then drive their car; they might not need to self-park but
the valet parking will have to drop them off at the front and take their car and park it and bring
it back.
Com. Giefer:
· Said her concern was that they not penalize individuals with limited mobility by having them
drive to the back of the lot to the valet area, get out and then find their way to the restaurant.
· Said she was also concerned that in some instances, the valet is busy and the handicapped
individual would have to wait quite some time while at some other place.
· Also questioned if there would be legal issues involved.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said he felt they should keep the spaces open and self-park.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked staff for the history of the valet parking at the restaurant.
Planning Commission Minutes
5
August 9, 1004
Mr. Piasecki:
· They elected to do valet parking at their own discretion; they did not follow ordinance
requirements to gain approval first; the effect of doing that has caused some problems already
observed, down the street, directing cars to go certain directions.
· Staff has encouraged the restaurant for a period longer than six months, to go through the
proper process with these conditions; and staff is comfortable in allowing them to continue a
limited amount of valet parking.
· Said the applicant would protect the public interest, accessibility to the handicapped, won't
channelize people on DeAnza Boulevard, and leave some spaces available at all times for self-
park. Staff feels they have it under control and are comfortable with the conditions.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked if when it was passed prior to his being on the Commission, was it passed including the
employee parking as well as the patrons, and how did they build a restaurant.
· Said they wanted what was best for the restaurant.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The restaurant meets the ordinance; the ordinance doesn't always cover restaurants that are as
highly successful as this one has been.
Chair Saadati:
· He recalled that they left it up to the restaurant to address the need for parking, and they opted
to use valet parking because they didn't want to turn customers away.
· They suspected there may be some issues related to parking.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Chen, to approve Application
M-2004-05 per the model resolntion; and in addition look for the addition of
the snggested restrictions mentioned by Vice Chair Wong and Com. Giefer.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
5.
TM-2004-07,
V -2004-02
Qi Gary Li
21851 Lomita Ave.
Tentative Map to subdivide a .46 acre parcel into two lots
of .22 acres each. Variance to reduce lot width from 60
feet to 50 feet to match neighborhood pattern.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· Application is for a tentative map to subdivide a 19,871 sq. ft. lot into two parcels,
approximately 10,000 sq. ft. each in a RI 7.5 zoning district; and reduction of lot width from
60 feet to 50 feet to match the neighborhood pattern.
· The tentative map illustrates the two lots are long and narrow; there is a concept of what the
house would be like; it wouldn't be required to be this footprint; the applicant intends to take
the existing house on the lot and reorient it. It would not be required to do that because you
are not blocking in this house into the plan, but it does show what could happen. It shows that
there would be some non-specimen trees lost, and it gets into the issue of the garage frontage
discussed earlier and also in a similar tentative map in this area a couple of meetings ago.
· It is pointed out in the staff report they are showing a 10 foot and 5 foot setback which
normally is not locked into a tentative map, but we did on the one similar to this, and
recommend that we show a 10 foot and a 10 foot setback on the lots, so that the applicant
would be encouraged to not put the garage in front of the house.
Planning Commission Minutes
6
August 9, 2004
· Another condition of approval in the variance for the lot frontage requires the house to come to
Design Review Committee (ORC); if the Planning Commission or the DRC chooses to control
the orientation of that garage.
· The finding for the lot width is based on the fact that about 60% of the lots along this frontage
on Lomita are less than 60 feet. As shown in the graphic, the lots with the dots are those that
are less than 60 feet.
· Staff recommends approval of the tentative map and the variance with conditions mentioned
related to the 10 foot setbacks shown and also provision that says it meets the DRC
requirement.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she was confused because the examples of the subdivision show the existing structure
rotated in the existing guest house with an additional garage in front of the lot; yet staff said
that it is not the intent to preserve the home or move it.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it was something controlled through the tentative map; they can choose to show it on the
map but it is not required to be built.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked if a flag lot was considered.
Ms. Wordell:
· In looking over the discussion of a similar project, it was brought up as a concept at that time;
not certain if staff discussed it with the applicants.
· The point from a previous discussion was that the pattern in this area doesn't have flag lots and
staff does not encourage flag lots if there is no pattern for them.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it was possible that parcel No. 143 was a flag lot; but flag lots are not encouraged because
they don't integrate as well with the neighborhood. When there is a prevailing pattern as in
this case, it seems to make sense to go with the prevailing pattern; the narrower 50 foot wide
lots instead of encouraging a wider lot and then another lot hiding behind it.
· They are encouraging that it go that way as opposed to putting in a flag configuration.
Com. Miller:
· Asked if staff had concerns with having the side of the house facing the front; on a corner lot
you have to have the side facing the front, but this is in the middle of the street.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said they had concerns about that, but since this goes to DRC that could be addressed; some of
the techniques used in the past are to create some features that at least break up the side lot and
make it look so much like a side and it is possible that even if the existing house were rotated,
that it could be changed if that is what the DRC wanted.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Staff is suggesting that it be put into the design process and have noted in the staff report that
there is a challenge to incorporate that existing house, and it should be something the applicant
is aware of.
Plann;ng Commission Minutes
7
Áugust 9, 2004
Chair Saadati:
· In order for a car to drive to the back, what is the minimum width of the driveway.
Mr. Wordell:
· 12 feet.
Chair Saadati:
· They would have to make the house smaller.
· Asked ifthe other homes in the area have setbacks of 10 and 10.
Ms. Wordell:
· It is the regular 10 and 5.
Chair Saadati:
· Because the current discussion is regarding the smaller lot with the 50 foot width to be 10 and
5.
Mr. Piasecki:
· You could allow them to have 5 on one side if they incorporate a driveway to the back, that
way it would give them the flexibility you are describing of at least 12 feet.
Morey Nelson, Nelson Engineering:
.. Said he questioned the reasoning and said he felt his client was being penalized by asking for a
10 by 10; as the lot is only 50 feet wide and gives him only a 30 foot building envelope.
· If the condition is imposed, the applicant cannot go forward with his proposal of rotating the
house.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Asked Mr. Nelson if he would be agreeable to a tentative 5 if they had to put the driveway to
the back.
Mr. Nelson:
· Said he felt they could do it; if a driveway was needed to the back, they could get the required
12 foot width with some sort of easement on the other lot.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the chairperson suggested that they may allow flexibility on one side yard as long as they
agreed that the driveway or the garage go back. If that works for the applicant, it could be
something they would discuss.
· Said staff member Gary Chen, who worked on the parking ordinance, pointed out that in the
new parking ordinance, there is a requirement that the building has to be set back 2 feet from
the driveway; so you couldn't have that building, if you had a 10 foot wide driveway, you
couldn't have the building right up to the driveway.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said it would conflict with Com. Giefer's question if they intend to keep the current home.
· What is the combined FAR between the existing home, guest house and the garage; the three
structures?
· Relative to the garage, asked if the intent is to put the garage in the front facing Lomita,
according to plans.
Planning CommissiQn Minutes
g
August 9, ~0ß4
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that the applicant could be asked if he wanted the application continued, to come back
and see how these different options can work, which would result in the Planning Commission
having all the information before they take action.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked if comments would be submitted from all the commissioners, as he was concerned
regarding subdividing the lot and has not had the opportunity to bring up that concern.
Chair Saadati:
· Clarified that he asked for questions before he continued on to the applicant.
Com. Giefer:
· Said her question about what the FAR is, had not yet been answered.
Chair Saadati:
· Said that was the reason to ask for a continuance, to bring it back and respond to all questions.
Com. Miller:
· Questioned if the applicant had the answer to how many square feet are in the garage, the main
house and the guest house combined.
Applicant:
· Said it is shown on the tentative map.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that with a minor chop to the house, it may all work; it appears to be a protrusion sticking
out of the back of the house.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked if it made sense to have the discussion regarding the subdivision, since they were
deliberating and reviewing it at the present meeting.
Chair Saadati:
· Concurred that they need not go into detailed discussion
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
John Marshall, South Stelling Road:
· As a long time resident after many years of people trying to get the Monta Vista area annexed,
he said it was disheartening to hear such things as "is it ten feet, is it one foot?" To hear also in
the meetings that they are going to try and keep the character ofthe area, and work with people
to see what they can do, not going to require sidewalks; and now the city is saying they are
going to have a sidewalk, and quibbling over the homeowner cutting off one foot of his house
to make it fit onto the lot to keep with the character of the area.
· He said he felt the applicant should be permitted to subdivide, as long as he passes the design
review, work with him in making the side setbacks to fit into their magic number, whether it
be 5-1/2 feet on one side, or 4-1/2 feet on the other side.
Planning Commission Minutes
9
August 9,2004
· He said it was wrong to try and come up with a new law, require a parking strip and require an
extra 2 feet; none of it was brought up when they were asking people to build to annex,
basically at that time it was said we are going to leave the homeowners alone, work with you,
not "we are going to start strangling you even more,"
Chair Saadati closed the public input portion ofthe meeting.
Com. Chen:
· Said she would support the proposal with the right conditions, and said she felt it fit into the
neighborhood and also it is in line with the effort to increase Cupertino's housing stock;
di~iding the property into two pieces helps somewhat.
· Supports the proposal.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said his biggest concern was they were asking for a variance and by making the lots smaller in
the front, was concerned that the garage be put in the back.
· It is a large lot; in the neighborhood, it is about 50/50; some of the lots are 100 feet wide, some
are 50 feet wide, and on the next street there are two flag lots. By making these three
scenarios, more problems will be encountered such as Mr. Marshall suggested; the Rl
ordinance is not that flexible, and that is why we were doing them right now.
· By making the Franich lot smaller, said he could not support the variance at this time.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she went through the neighborhood and the illustrated section of Lomita is very
patchwork, with existing homes, remodeled homes and new homes, and wide lots across the
street.
· Most of the homes on the narrow lots are very small; and would not have the same type of
massing that rotating those homes would have if they were divided down the center as two 50
foot lots.
· Said she did not support subdivision of the property; and would reconsider a flag configuration
to keep it more in line with the front end of the neighborhood with wider lots; but there will
have to be too many conditions, too many barriers to make it work.
Com. Miller:
· Said as Com. Giefer stated, it is a challenging situation; there are lots in Cupertino that are less
than 60 feet wide and they present a challenge in terms of how the setbacks are going to work
and how that is going to affect the neighbors, and what kind of house is actually going to be
put on the property.
· Said it seemed like two different neighborhoods, one side of the street is completely different
with wider lots and newer houses on it, and the other side where every lot is a challenge and
redevelopment is a challenge.
· Also, because it is financially difficult to do redevelopment work on this, and it does seem like
it is more from a financial standpoint; it might be better if the lots were not subdivided, and
there is a lot of flexibility to do whatever you want there.
· Another concern is related to the subdivision, the intent of not building another house there,
but just rotating the existing house; what would be facing the front is the side of the house
instead of the front of the house, and that will engender a considerable amount of remodeling
in order to make that front fit in with the current RI ordinance.
· Cannot support subdivision of the lot at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes
10
August 9,2004
Chair Saadati:
· Said he drove by the neighborhood and there are mixes of different types of homes, 60 foot
wide and wider, and there are some new homes &¡H>Ft across from this proposed subdivision,
· Said considering the challenges that are going to be faced to subdivide this, it may not work
and he felt the applicant needs to go back and look at possibly a flag lot, although staff
mentioned that the city discourages this.
· Said he felt not enough thought went into this, and more evaluation should be done to see how
the house fits in whatever way it is going to be divided.
· Need more information before making a decision.
· Does not support dividing the parcel at this time.
Com. Chen:
· Said she wanted to clarify for the benefit of the applicant where the Planning Commission
stood.
Com. Miller:
· Said he was not totally opposed, and would consider flag lot subdivisions as well.
Com. Giefer:
· If the applicant came back with a different suggestion for flag lots, she did not want to set the
expectation that it would address all oftheir concerns because she may have other issues if that
application is brought back.
Com. Chen:
· Said she wanted to help the applicant proceed with his subdivision application, and would
support flag lots.
· If the housing stock can be increased and the design is acceptable to the DRC community
standard, she said she would support the subdivision.
Com. Miller:
· Said there wasn't an ideal solution; but felt the flag lot, although not a good solution, was
better since he felt there was more flexibility in the house that goes on the front, and the
applicant's ability to not have to move the house at all.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he concurred with Corns. Chen and Miller and appreciated giving the option to the
applicant.
· Said he understood staff's feelings regarding discouraging flag lots but the Monta Vista
neighborhood is unique with some planning and developments, some narrow lots, and big lots.
· The City Council is trying to add more housing in the community and this is an opportunity to
add more housing stock.
· The applicant would not have to rotate the house; certain the engineer could work to get a 20
foot driveway on one side of the house and add another lot to the rear.
· Said he was not opposed to continuing the application to bring it back as a flag lot.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to continne Applications
TM-2004-07 and V-2004-02 to the next Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Planning Commission Minutes
11
August 9,2004
6.
TM-2004-09,
EA-2004-EA12
Art Dave; 11081
So. Stelling Rd.
Tentative map to subdivide a 1.25 acre parcel into five parcels
ranging from approximately 7,630 to 10,270 square feet
Tentative City Council date: August 16, 2004
Com. Miller recused himself from discussion of the application as he had a business interest.
Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
· Application is for a tentative map to subdivide an approximately 1.25 acre parcel into five
parcels, ranging from 7,200 sq. ft. to 9,300 sq. ft.
· Noted a slight variance in the parcel size from what was advertised because the applicant made
minor changes to the subdivision plan after the noticing went out.
· The existing house on the site will be demolished as part of the application.
· The 28 foot wide private roadway to the project provides sufficient room for two II foot travel
lanes and a 6 foot parking lane on the side of the street.
· A homeowners association and private road maintenance agreement are required for submittal.
· Twenty five trees are proposed for removal as part of the project; all but one tree are non-
specimen trees.
· Staff recommends approval of the project in accordance with the model resolution.
Chair Saadati:
· Referring to Item NO.4 on the site plan, questioned what "providing less abrupt return in front
of Lot 2" meant.
Mr. Chao:
· The applicant has made some adjustment to the site plan; originally the illustrated return was
abrupt, almost 90 degrees; we wanted to make sure the return was smooth.
Chair Saadati:
· 20 foot radius meets the Public Works; so we don't need to have that condition in any more.
Com. Giefer:
· Questioned if staff was able to find out what the parcel size of Classic Court was, as she was
unable to walk the parcel, and wanted to understand what the relative size difference is.
Mr. Chao:
· Said he was unsure of the exact lot sizes, but in the entire area the zoning is RI-6 which
minimum lot size is 1,000 square feet. What the applicant is proposing is well beyond the
minimum lot size; 7,000+ to 9,000+ square foot lots, so they are well beyond the minimum of
6,000 square foot.
Com. Giefer:
· The homes on classic Court are quite large, and I suspect they were built prior to our current
RI ordinance; I was concerned about crowding on this parcel, which is why I was interested in
relative size.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Referred to the assessor parcel map for Classic Court; which shows that the lots are averaging
98 feet by 70 feet; they are smaller than what is proposed.
Planning Commission Minutes
12
August 9, 10ß4
Art Dave, Applicant:
· Interested in developing the property; preserving the trees and all the natural beauty of the
subdivision so that it becomes a model subdivision.
· Was proposing a driveway with permeable materials to allow them to take all the natural water
and store it under the lot and be available for most of the trees around it.
· Proud to be a resident of Cupertino and part of the development.
Mr. Chao:
· You had asked regarding the return of the cui de sac; the site plan is not the most recent site
plan; staff suggests that the condition still remain on the resolution and if the return actually
looks like this, staff will be supportive of it, but the updated site plan shows the pre angular jog
and staff would like the applicant to smooth it out.
Mr. Dave:
· Said he would like to have the cooperation for a variance in this particular subdivision.
· It was originally proposed to make that particular lot oblong, which would allow access of Lot
2 from the cui de sac. By making it flatter, access will be from the cuI de sac rather than the
street.
· Regarding the Public Works issue, he said they were asking that Public Works take only that
dedication required for the sidewalk; so the three trees would fall inside inside the property of
Lot I, thereby making Lot I owner responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the space
and not having to be able to demolish it.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it would be appropriate to stipulate that the owner of Lot I would be responsible for the
maintenance of those trees if the Planning Commission desired to do so.
Com. Chen:
· Clarified that approval was for subdivision ofthe lots; not approving anything on the lots.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comments.
Daryl Wong, Brandy Place:
· Asked if Stelling Road was going to widened and if the stop sign would still exist.
Glen Goepfert, Public Works:
· The stop sign will still exist; the improvements should fall on the curb line on the property to
the north of this area. Theoretically if the property at the corner came in for development,
they would have to dedicate right of way so that the same right of way line could be continued
around the corner.
· It would be widened there for now but extensively follow the curb line.
Mr. Wong:
· Said he was concerned about speeders who run through the stop signs.
Unidentified resident, So. Stelling Road:
· Resides on the comer lot; said he was not opposed to the development.
· Said he had confidence the homes would be within the city guidelines.
Chair Saadati closed the public input portion ofthe meeting.
PI9.nning Commi~~ion MinutM
D
Åugust Q, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked for clarification of the radius.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The outcome referred to is the desire to elongate the illustrated lot and the configuration does
that.
· Staff is saying they need to have a radius so that fire trucks can negotiate the turn.
· Said that the surface area of the private road was not included in the lot size calculation.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Supports the project.
Com. Chen:
· Supports the project.
Com. Giefer:
· Regarding the dry well, is that actually infilled or how is that mitigated as part of this
development?
Mr. Goepfert:
· Generally it will have closed top and fill it with rocks to be able to percolate the water down.
Com. Giefer:
· It will be filled off so it will not be a safety issue to the residents of the area.
· Supports the project; it adds to the city's housing inventory and will be a positive influence in
the neighborhood.
Chair Saadati:
· It is a requirement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, to fill it up according to certain
standards, and they have to inspect it.
· The applicant divided it appropriately and it will add to the neighborhood when all the houses
are built.
· Supports the project.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen, to approve Application
TM-2004-09 and EA-2004-12. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Miller abstain)
Com. Miller returned to the meeting.
Chair Saadati declared a short recess at 8:20 p.m.
8. R-2004-17, TR-2004-13
John Ghashighai
10230 Scenic Blvd.
Residential Design Review of a 1,929 sq. ft. addition to
an existing residence that requires an exception to the
front yard setback requirements. Director's minor
modification with referral to the Planning Commission for
removal and replanting or replacement of an existing oak
tree. Planning Commission decision final unless
appealed.
Planning Commission Minutes
14
Åugust 9,2004
Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
· Application is a request to add 1,929 square foot to an existing residence that requires an
exception to the front yard setback requirement and a request for tree removal of a specimen
size oak tree.
· The project is a flag lot along Stevens Creek Boulevard; from the aerial it is not an ordinary
flag lot in that it does not have a parcel with a house on it in the front. The parcel in front of it
is an open space that belongs to the adjacent planned residential development project.
· For the flag lot the access drive corridor is not counted toward the total square footage of the
lot in terms of calculating the FAR; also it is not counted toward measuring the setback which
is required by codes to have 20 feet. The intention of the rule is that appropriate building
distance or interface is given from the flag lots to the building in front. In this case, there is an
open space easement in front which ensures that no development can be allowed in that area.
· On the plans, the proposed front yard setback is approximately 6 feet, 10 inches +/-, but should
be approximately 5 feet, 10 inches to accommodate a full conforming two car garage which
has 20 x 20 interior clearance.
· The project conforms to all aspects of the RI ordinance with the exception of the front yard
setback reduction requested.
· Discussed tree removal as outlined in the staff report.
· Staff is supportive of the exception requested and recommends approval of the project
including the tree removal request in accordance with the model resolution.
Com. Miller:
· Asked if the applicant is going to address exactly what the cellar will look like.
Mr. Chao:
· It is a partial semi-exposed basement; because of the topography of the lot, it is very steep off
to one side; the applicant is proposing to put the semi-exposed basement underneath the
existing house; that is going to be open on one side because of the grade differences.
· Said the wooden retaining wall would be removed and a new retaining wall installed.
· Said there were trees by the trash enclosure; if within the footprint, they will be removed; the
trees are not specimen sized trees.
· Said there was not enough space for replacement trees; and that there were already many trees
on site.
Chair Saadati:
· What is the height of the retaining wall?
· Also you showed the picture with all the shrubs, are those shrubs going to be removed or are
they going to remain?
Mr. Chao:
· The height ofthe retaining wall is approximately 6 feet high.
· Some will have to be removed because the retaining wall is going to be pushed back; the
applicant can address that because their intent is to save as many trees as possible, including
shrubs.
John Ghashighai, applicant:
· Relative to the shrubs along the western side of the house, uphill, toward the retaining wall,
there is still going to be a lot of shrubs after the new retaining wall on our property and the
neighbor to the west also has a lot of brush and shrubs on her property. The neighbor is
Planning Commission Minutes
15
August 9, ~0ß4
receptive because from a privacy standpoint, it is going to be extremely blocked so she won't
have a view ofthe proposed garage or the driveway.
· The reason they were attracted to the property was because of its current look of the wooded,
natural setting.
· Minimizing the scale of some of the homes in the neighborhood; want the current low roof line
cottage look.
· Illustrated examples of properties in a slide presentation.
· The result is a win-win, within the spirit of every ordinance; the neighbors who have seen the
plan have written favorable comments as well.
· The spirit of the setback as Mr. Chao said, they are still completely off the street, there is an
open space easement, and no intrusion of privacy; as far as the oak tree is concerned, it is
specimen size by 2 inches.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Supports the project.
Com. Chen:
· Supports the project.
Com. Giefer:
· Supports the project.
· Said she appreciated the courtesy shown to the neighbors.
Com. Miller:
· Supports the project.
· Said the applicant did an excellent presentation and he appreciated an applicant who has
thought the project through and is working with his neighbors and the city in the spirit it is
hoped they all should be working toward.
Chair Saadati:
· Drove by the site and wasn't able to see the oak trees that are being removed because of the
shrubbery.
· The applicant indicated he will maintain the shrubbery, which he said would be good for the
neighbors and the area.
· Appreciated the applicant's efforts in trying to keep the area as green as possible.
· Supports the project.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen, to approve Application
R-2004-17 and TR-2004-03. (Vote: 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
Planning Commission Minutes
16
August 9, "-DOLI
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
Com. Chen reported that the next meeting was Wednesday, August 11,2004. She reported that the
previous meeting was cancelled.
Housin!! Committee
Com. Giefer reported that the August meeting scheduled for Thursday was cancelled.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetin!! With Commissioners
Vice Chair Wong said there was a meeting scheduled for the next week.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Piasecki:
· Reminded everyone that Tuesday, August 17'" there was a study session scheduled with the
City Council at Blackberry Farm at 4:30 p.m. Com. Giefer said that she would likely not
attend the study session.
Chair Saadati:
· Reported that there was a BART land use tour scheduled for August 27'\ 5 p.m. He
encouraged the Planning Commissioners to attend as he found previous ones attended
informative.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Announced that a Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group Luncheon will be held in San Jose in
August.
· Noted receipt of a notice of an August 10th meeting in Conference Room C regarding an
upcoming invitation for Planning Commission members to attend a neighborhood meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the Joint Study Session with the City
Council at 4:30 p.m. on August 17,2004 at Blackberry Farm.
SUBMITTED BY:
~
~
. Ellis, Recording Secretary
Approved as amended: August 23, 2004