Loading...
17. Berry Ct. subdivisionCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 70300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95074-3255 C U P S RT I N O (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 Summary Agenda Item No. ~ Agenda Date: March 17, 2009 SUMMARY: Status Report on the Berry Court Subdivision (Formerly 21711, 21713 and 21731 Alcazar Avenue) BACKGROUND: On March 3, 2009, the City Cotu~cil heard fiom Sheaun Tsai and his wife, property owners of 21720 Alcazar Avenue, duritZg the oral commtuzications portion of the agenda. The Tsais expressed their concerns about the location and alig7unent of the private street, Berry Court, that is being constructed across the street from their home. They stated their concerns about possible traffic safety hazards and vehicle headlights that could impact their home with the proposed private street alignment. As a result, the City Cowzcil requested staff to prepare a status report on the development of the private street for the subdivision. The Berry Court subdivision was approved as Tentative Map Approval, TM-2006-04, by the Plaruzing Commission on January 10, 2006 during a public hearing. The project involved the subdivision of three lots unto a total of four single-family residential lots on the north side of Alcazar Avenue. The development of the private street was also specified u1 conjunction with the tentative map approval. Duriuzg the Plaizning Commission public hearing, Mr. Tsai expressed concenzs about the width of the private street entrance along Alcazar Avenue, and the location of the private street facuzg directly towards his home that he felt would create vehicle headlight impacts unto his home and be inconsistent with the principles of Feng Shui. As a result, the Plaiu-ting Commission discussed moving the private street further west to mitigate the impacts of the driveway facuzg directly into the Tsai's home and added a condition of approval (See Condition No. 2 of Exhibit B) to reduce the width of the private street along Alcazar Avenue to 20 feet. During the Plamzizg Commission motion, the Commission did not specifically include shifting the private street further to the west; therefore, it was not included in the conditions of approval. However, the intent of the Plamzing Commission's recommendation to move the private street to the west was incorporated u2to the design of the street during the Final Map 77-7 Villa Serra Construction Activities March 17, 2009 Page 2 approval process. Tile Fiial Map showed the private street entrance shifted an additional one-foot to the west. This was as far west as the private street could be shifted while also meeting the City standards that call for the edge of the driveway to be a miulimum of four feet from the property line. The project is currently nearing completion, including the construction of the four single- family residences along Berry Court, with the exception of the home on Lot 4, and Berry Court- DISCUSSION: hz January of 2009, Mr. Tsai stated that he believed the intent of the condition of approval required by the P1aiulizg Commission to shift the driveway to the west was not followed. Public Works and Plaiuling staff reviewed the conditions of approval and minutes (See Exhibit C) to the January 10, 2006 Plaiuzilg Commission meeting, and explained to Mr. Tsai that the driveway was shifted as far west as possible in accordance with the conditions of approval and City standards, but that the Public Works Department would further review his proposal. Si1ce jaizuary, the Public Works Department has been working with Mr. Tsai, the developer of the Berry Court subdivision and the adjacent neighbor to the west to reach an acceptable compromise to move the private street further west. The Public Works Department has attached a memo (See Exhibit A) dated March 10, 2009, explaining that Public Works met with the neighbors and developer, and was aUle to reach a compromise with them to move the private street an additional 1 i/z feet to the west, leaving a 2 1/z foot-setback from the western property life, as opposed to the originally approved 4-foot setback from the western property line. Public Works further explained that the private street could not be moved further west against the property lire due to the transitionizg needed for a handicapped accessible sidewalk ramp adjacent to the private street entrance. I-3owever, Public Works explained that as an additional option, a slightly raised directional marker could be placed in the middle of the entrance to Berry Court to direct outgoing velucles to exit facing further to the west, if the neighbors and the developer are agreeable to this additional option. This would allow vehicles to exit at aiz angle to minimize vehicle headlights ilto the Tsai's residence across the street. i7 Lookizn north ilto Berry Court Looking south towards Tsai home Villa Serra Construction Activities Page 3 Prepared Uy: Aki Honda Snelling, AICP Reviewed Uy: _S o // gyp' City Plaiuler /~ A,~pro d Uy~ ~,~~ - Steve iasecki Coinirtunity Development Director March 17. 2009 Gleiuz Goepfert Assistant Director of PuUlic Works David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments ExhiUit A: Memo from PuUlic ~Norks Department dated March 10, 2009 ExhiUit B: Resolution INTO. 6,151 approving T?vI-2005-13 ~v/plan set ExhiUit G Minutes to the Jai~uary 10, 2006 Plamli~g Coninussion Meeting 17-3 Sidewalk transition along Alcazar _ City Hall ~h~b~t ~ 10300 Torce Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 DEPARTMF_NT OF PiIT3LIC WORKS Ralph A. Qualls, Jr., Director MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2009 TO: Aki Honda Snelling, Plannuig Department FROM: Glem7 Goepfert, Public Works Department SUBJECT: Berry Court Driveway Alignment and Other Issues Berry Court Ali>?nnzent As you are aware, one of the neighbors across the street from the Berry Court development Sheaun Tsai approached the City on or about January 13 of this year about the alignment of the Berry Court driveway intersection with Alcazar Avenue. He felt that the not-yet-constructed driveway could be pushed filrther west than was shown on the approved improved improvement plan. Indeed, at the time the Planning Commmission approved the Berry Court project, the Commission specified that the driveway be located as far west as possible after hearing Sheaun Tsars request to that effect- Public Works noted that the City standards call for the edge of driveway to be a miiumum of four feet from the property line, which is how it was designed and sho~~i on the approved improvement plan. But since the Planning Conunission had asked for the driveway to be located as far west as possible and there did not appear to be an overriding safety issue in allowing an exception to the four-foot-from-property line standard, Public Works was amenable to moving the driveway further west if the neighbor to the west did not object- The neighbor to die west did object, as did the neighbor across the street adjacent to and west of Sheaun Tsai, as well as the developer of the Berry Court project. Public Works asked the neighbors and the developer to meet with the goal of arriving at a compromise. In order to facilitate the discussion, Public Works held a meeting of the neighbors on February 18, and found that the neighbors of the project seemed to be willing to compron-tise with Sheaun Tsai and agree to the driveway being located about one foot further to the west. The neighbor inzniediately west of Ben-y Cotu-t rioted that his new driveway was close enough to the property line that he was concerned that moving the Berry Court driveway further west might interfere with his unprovements. Public Works retunied to measure unprovements on the site again to determine what constraints the new driveway to the west might have on moving the Berry Court driveway west. We found that the existing accessible sidewalk ramp on the east side of the existing driveway would preclude moving the Berry Court driveway more than about a foot-and-a-half to the west. That is how Public Works directed that the driveway be built. 17-4 Tentative and Final Mans The California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410-66499) and the Cupertino Municipal Code (Title 18) require a tentative map and final map for the division of land. The tentative map is made for the purpose of showing the design and improvement of a proposed subdivision and the existing conditions in and around it. The final map, when approvedby the governing body of the goverrunental unit with jurisdiction, accomplishes the subdivision of the land. _- - - __._. __. _ ___ __- - _ _ _ _.. ---__tz- __ _ _ ___ ~'' Exhibit B ~ 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertiuzo, CA 95014 CITY OF (408) 777-3308 U ~ E ~"'~" ~ ~ ~ FAX (408) 777-3333 ^~ rrer January 18, 2006 Jair~es Chen P.O. Box 20302 Sail Jose, Ca. 95160 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION LETTER - TM-2005-13 Tlus letter confirms the decision of the Plaiuiii~g Conunission, given at the meeting of January 11, 2006, approving a Tentative Map to subdivide a .9 acre parcel into 4 (four) parcels of rangu2g fiom approximately 7,500 to 8,800 square feet, located at 21713, 21731 and 21711 Alcazar Avenue, according to Planning Corrunission Resolution No. 6351. Please be aware that if the Tentative Map permit is not used withuz a three-year period, it shall expire on January 10, 2009. Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be made witlvn 10 calendar days from the date of this letter. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearuzg, w1ucH will be scheduled before the City Council. Sincerely, ~~ ~~~~ 1 Alci Honda Senior Plaiuzer G: \ PZanzzizxg \ Post Hearizzg\Action Letters \ action Iettez- bzz2005Z3_doc CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6351 TM-2005-13 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .9 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR PARCELS, RANGING FROM APPROXIr/IATELY 7,500 TO 9,200 SQUARE FEET AT 21713, 21731 AND 21711 ALCAZAR AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Applicatiozz No.: TM-2005-13 Applicant: James Chen Location: 21713, 21731 8z 21711 ~.lcazar Ave SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Plaruung 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 Orduzances of the City of Cupertino, and the Plaruiing Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WI~REAS, 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 uizder the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially harm fish aizd wildlife or their habitat. e) That the design of the subdivisions or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Resolution No. 6351 TM-2005-13 - January 10, 2006 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this- matter, the application TM-2005-13 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved as modified, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution begiruzing 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-2005-13, as set forth in the Minutes of Planiui~g Co~-+-+m~ssion Meeting of January 10, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY TI LE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS This approval is based on the exhibits entitled "Tentative Map, Four Parcels Subdivision, Alcazar Place" consisting of the tentative map (Sheet 1) and preliminary grading plan (Sheet C-1) dated November 16, 2005, revised December 29, 2005, except as amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. PRIVATE STREET ALIGNMENT Prior to final map, the applicant shall reconfigure the map by narrowing the private sheet to a maximum width of 20 feet, for a distance of 20 feet in length along Parcel 1, beginning at the entrance to the private street from Alcazar Avenue. The private street may be widened to 29 feet in width past the first 20 feet in length to allow space for street parkuig along the west side of the private street. 3. DEMOLITION All- existing structures shall be demolished prior to recordation of the final map, in accordance with City demolition procedures. 4. NOTICE 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 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 Govenunent 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 exactiois. --- _»-s Resolution No. 6351 TM-2005-13 January 10, 2006 Page 3 5. COVENANT-FOR TREE PROTECTION a. The applicant shall prepare and record a covenant that runs with the laud, prior to final map approval, acknowledging the protective status of the English Walnut Tree (#28 on tree survey), Deodar Cedar (#11), two Southern Magnolias (#1 aizd #2), and the Windmill Palm (#10) on the subject site. The covenant shall also notify future property owners of these trees to be protected, the requirements of the Heritage and Specimen Trees Ordinance aild that approval of a tree removal permit is required prior to removal of any of these trees. The covenant shall be reviewed aizd approved by the City Attorney. b. All protected trees on site shall be fenced off during construction, watered on a regular basis and no trenching shall be done within 6' of the tree truiztcs. c. In the event that any trees need to be relocated or removed due to required improvements, a tree removal application shall be made to the Director of Community Development. d. The applicant shall post notices on all protective fencing aroui~d trees to be protected and retained on the subject property, stating that such trees are to be protected and retained. e. The applicant shall comply with all tree protection measures recommended in the arborist report prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associated dated October 11, 2005, includuzg instructions that no material storage and/ or dirt be stored beneath the tree canopies of protected trees. 6. TREE PROTECTION BOND The applicant, prior to approval of i:he final map, shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $10,000 to eivsure protection of existing trees on the site. The- bond shall be returned after recordation of the final map, subject to a letter from the City arborist indicating that the trees are u1 good condition. 7. BELOW MARKET.RATE HOUSIN<~ Applicant shall comply with the policies in the City's Below Market Rate Housing Manual. Public Works Conditions: 8. STREET WIDENING Street. widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specificatiors and as required by the City Engineer. 9. CURS AND GUTTER IMPROVEMlENTS Curbs and gutters and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. __ _ _..... __..____ -. - ----- __17-9. Resolution No. 6351 TM-2005-13 - ~ January 1 O, 2006 Page 4 10. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, San Jose Water Company and Santa Clara County Fire. 11. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 12. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City EnguZeer i11 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. 13, DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development 111 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. Drailage"shall be self-sustaining on the project site to the extent possible. The applicant shall install improvements that employ detention/retention of storm water, such as interlocking pavers and paving on site, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Catch basins, as required by the City Engineer, shall be installed in the private street. ~ Pre and Post storm drain calculations are required 14. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed. 15. 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. Resolution No. 6351 - TM-2005-13 January 10, 2006 Page 5 16. 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 feF~s, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking 8s Inspection Fees: $ 5 % of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,785.00 iiliil. b. Grading Permit: $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,000.00 min. c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 1,273.91 e. Power Cost: *~ f. Map Checking Fees: $ 6,750.00 g. Park Fees: $ 15,750.00 h. Street Tree ~ By Developer '~*Based on the latest effective PGBiE rate schedule approved by the Public Utility .Commission (P.U.C.) Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor 8s 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 rnap or issuance of a buiIdiuig permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 17. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above gromzd equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and Iandscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible izom public street areas. 18. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the Cit~r all waterlines and appurtenai~ces installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. n-~~ Resolution No. 6351 TM-2005-13 Tanuary 10, 2006 Page 6 19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES iJtilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturUs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. 20. DRIVEWAY EASEMENT The developers of Parcels 1,2,3 and 4 shall prepare a reciprocal driveway easement agreement, approved by the City Attorney, which shall be recorded prior to recordation of the final map. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10~ day of January 2006, at a Regular Meetuzg of the Planning Com~-n;ssion of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Wong, Vice-Chair Miller, Saadati, Giefer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:. none ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: / s / Gilbert Wong Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Cupertino Plasu-ung Comm;ssion Zanrcin dre ort ~ es M-2005-13 ~•es. doc ~ ~ - ~ 2 S~~P $~P P ~' ~' CITY OFCUPERTINO 103 00 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Exhibit C CITY OF CUPERTINO P=CANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES 6:00 P.M. JANUARY 10, 2006 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission meeting of January 1C~, 2006, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Chair Wong. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Gilbert Wong Vice Chairpers~~n: Marty Miller Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Comnzzssiozzerr Taaglzi Saadati Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Ciddy Wordell Senior Planner: Colin Jung Senior Planner: Alci Honda Public Works: Glenn Goepfert Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MII~TUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. POSTPONEMENTSlREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL CONIIVIUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. TM-2005-13 Tentative Map to subdivide a .9-acre parcel into four parcels, ranging James Chen from approximately 7,500 to 9,200 square feet. Planning Conznzission 21713, 21731, decision final u~:less appealed. 21711 Alcazar Avenue. Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for a Tentative Map to subdivide a .9-acre site into four parcels, ranging from approximately 7,500 to 9,200 ;square feet. The proposal is to reconfigure four existing parcels into four new lots, currently only three of the lots are developed with single 17 - 13 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 January 1 O, 2006 family homes; the fourth parcel exists as a driveway access for one of the existuig properties. She reviewed the site analysis and tree removal as outlined in the staff report. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approves the tentative .map in accordance with the model resolution. James Chen, applicant: • Said he worked closely with the Fire Department, Planning Department and Public Works when submitting the tentative map. The proposal meets the zoning and Public Work Departments requirements. • He requested that the tentative map be approved. • He answered Commissioners' questions relative to the proposed project. Mr. Piasecki: • Noted that Condition 13 on the Tentative Map speaks to the driveway easement; they will record the driveway easement agreement so that adjacent property can also use it. Ms. Wordell: • Responded to Com. Giefer's questions about public and private roadways. • There is no difference between width of public and private roadways; it is what Public Works Department will approve in terms of adequate access for this number of lots. Glen Goepfert, Assistant Director of Public Works: • Said that Public Works would typically have a wider street section for a publicly maintained road. Generally the city would have a substandard down to 28, typically a street would be 30 or 36 feet, if it were expected to be publicly inaurtained. There would typically be sidewalks except in an area where it has already been approved by Council as semi-rural area. • 7n this particular case Public Works would consider a narrower road. In order to have the 29 foot width, Public Works would indicate that they need to snake it a private road. The standards for a typical road presently is 36 feet. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Steve Malan, Imperial Avenue: • Referring to an overhead map of the city streets, he illustrated the area around Imperial and Orange Avenues where a drainage problem has existed for 15 years. During major rainstorms the heavy flow comes from different directions and floods his lot and the neighbor's lot. Each yeaz they have cleared it out manually. • He recommended installation of curbs and gutters in the general area and another catch basin installed; and some type of site drainage plan for the entire azea to catch it before it hits Alcazar. • The density of the project seems high, but livable. It improves the area. Drainage is the main concern. Sheaun Tsai, Alcazar Avenue: • Expressed concern that the old lots had two street entrances, the new ones only have one entrance; traffic will be concentrated on the one side. The traffic and the car lights will impact his house. • The court set up is another concern; it does not match the neighborhood. • According to feng shui, a court with a driveway directly facing the house is not good for the house owners. The width of the street entrance is also a concern. 17 - 14 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 10, 2006 • He is opposed to the project. Jennifer Griffin, resident: • Commended the city for requiring bond mor-ey be put up for the protection of the trees on the property. It is a very useful way of making sure the trees on the property are not damaged by bulldozers or mysteriously disappear. • She expressed conceni particularly with the Walnut trees, stating she would like them replaced on the property with a covenant recorded that two walnut trees have been replaced because they are trees recognized by the city as being of historical importance. Cupertino needs to try and retain big trees; English Walnut trees are; a heritage type tree for the city. Suriel Chawla, resident: • Said he liked the idea of newer homes in the neighborhood. • Expressed concern about flag lots. He referred to the adjoining property as an eliminator, meaning that he loses 15 feet of open space. • He said that adding higher density and newer development would create major privacy issues for his property. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Mr. Goepfert commented on the drainage issLies: • Explained the process followed in reviewing an application for a storm drain. He said in this particular case, he was unsure if they considered the quantity of runoff being added in the area; it is a difficult spot but they would seek a solution on the improvement plans to convey the runoff from the site, not just the added runoff, past what was described as a low point, which is a problem in the area. • It is about 250 feet to Orange where there will be a storm drain main line built by a public system, and is further to go to Imperial to make sure the runoff is conveyed. We will look at how we can safely convey that without adding to the existing problem. The alternative would be that we would not consider denying something of this, it is not a significant contributor on the basis of existing drainage problems. Th.e level of improvement and the cost to extend or pick up the rmioff from the roadway is something we could consider- It would not be a total solution to just work on this roadway. In other cases, Public Works would look at detention on the lots; I am not sure if there is an existing problem because there is an existing problem here, if that would be appropriate for one new route. In the new pavement area, but Public Works would look at what it would take to minimize: the contribution to the existing problem. Mr. Piasecki: • Pointed out that Page 1-6 and 1-7 contain the Public Works conditions. Curb and gutter improvements a speaker talked about wanting to see curbs and gutters, it does stipulate that they shall be installed in accordance with standards as specified by the city engineer. Condition 6 refers to drainage which is also referring to the drainage system, shall be to the satisfaction of the city engineer. • If the Commission feels there is some additional work that needs to be done in those conditions, you can specify it; you can ask the city engineer to focus on the additional contribution made by this project and to dete:nnine if there is a way to upgrade the drainage in the area that he thinks is reasonable that he ~~ould require of the applicant. The issue that Mr. Goepfert is refen•ing to is that we cannot ask- this applicant to solve the problem for the whole neighborhood when they are not contributing; very much to that problem. i~-ts Cupertino Planning Con~.mission 4 January 10, 2006 Ms. Honda: • Responded to NIr. Tsars concern about the impacts created by the private driveway direction. • Explained that it was currently a tentative map application; when it returns for development of the properties, they can look at site specific mitigation measures which could include some additional trees at that time. Com. Giefer : (original text in draft minutes) • There is indication on one of the plan sets that the arborists made their notes on, that they intend to put dry ~;ells on each of the lots. On the other subdivision map, they are lacking. To aide in the drainage with the houses that are there now, she said she understood that the down spouts would tie into those dry wells. 1s the developer going to put in the dry wells underground for each home because it would solve some of the runoff problems, and from the rooftops; that water would not collect in the street? The following is test added per Com. Giefer's request: Com. Giefer: (revisions per verbatim tape) • One of the plan sets that we have, it's the one that the arborist made their notes on, there is indication that they intend to put in dry wells for each of the lots; and on the other subdivision map, those are lacking on then-r. My question is, to aide in the drainage from the houses that would replace the houses that are there now, my understanding is that the downspouts would tie into those drywells to try to meet the runoff from the rooftops. I ani tryuig to ascertain if the developer is going to put in the drywells miderground for each home, because that would solve some of the runoff problems and at least from the rooftop, my understanding would be that that water would not collect in the street. That is the way my house is; my downspouts feed a drywell. Ms. Honda: • The engineer/applicant is the best person to answer those questions. Mr. Chen: • Our first proposal is the use of a dry well to reduce the water that drains into the street; individual lots will have their own dry wellss, just like the tree report shows and after Public Works review because the new California Water Quality Control Board has a uew criteria, they try to reclaim it. Thewater goes underneath to the ground and it might affect the under ground water, so we route it back to the sump pump and put another pump to riy to reduce the water draining. The entire private street we will use interlock pavers The water can drain and be absorbed into the ground • Vice Chair Giefer- so that would be a pervious surface that would absorb the rainfall) Mr. Chen: NOT SURE HOW TO EDIT THIS PART. This IS the missing answer to my question. I didn't ask about feng shui_ I thick Steve vas follosving-up on Marty or the neighbor across the streets question after this paragraph • Correct, that is my personal opinion; we don't (in shifts ??) (insist ??) the drywell or pump out water; it depends on the Public works; if Public works requests us to use dry well, for sure we like to use dry well, so eve will work closely with Public Works. Whatever the Public Works will like us to do, we will do. 17 - 16 Cupertino Planning Cormnission January 10, 2006 Mr. Piasecki: • It might be beneficial ask the applicant to speak to the issue of lights shining on the neighbors to the south, if the Commission is concerned about that; perhaps the alignment isn't as bad as they anticipated. • He asked Mr. Chen to address the comment from one of the neighbors that lights would be shinuig into their front windows. He asked him to address it based on his familiarity with the site and the alignment of the driveway and if there is any simple fix that would remedy that. Mr. Chen: • This is very hard issue for me; I am an engineer, not the feng shui scholar, but to my personal understand the Chinese feng shui they always have some other way to correct the bad evil, what temple; the drywell faces to his window and the car lights might shine to his window and we can put the tree in between the dri~reway and the window in the front yard or in the sidewalk, or street, or sidewalk blinlung ?? area, that way the blinking can stop the traffic light; that is one of the ways. But I think the owner could share this problem with the owner to solve some feng shui problems and maybe hire some home fung shui scholar to work out something of the feng shui at home; that is all I can suggest. Based on the engineering points, I don't see any problem with that; that is based on the fung shui, I ani Chinese and I hear about feng shui and I luiow the feng shui, but th~~re are some other ways to prevent the feng shui problem so I thu~-k that the owner and the neighbors can work it out together with a feng shu scholar to solve this problem. Chair Wong: • Can we have that private driveway start at 20 feet and then open up to 29 feet, is that possible, so that when they exit from their Mr. Piaseclci: • Requested the applicant's comment on the lights shining onto the neighbor the south. Mr. Chen: • Said it was a difficult issue for an engineer. He said personally he understood the concept of Feng Shui which alleges that it is not good fir the homeowner to have a driveway that directly faces the house. Relative to the light shining directly into the homeowner's window, he suggested that a tree be planted in between the driveway and the window to block the direct light into the window. • He suggested that the homeowner and developer work together on a solution. Chair Wong: • Suggested that the driveway start at 20 feet and open up to 29 feet; when they exit from the private driveway they will be exiting between the two properties at the existing driveway but when they go uiside the private driveway they will opening up to the 29 foot driveway area. Mr. Piaseclci: • The 29 feet area accommodates the onstreet parking on the west side of the street; the travel tanes are already limited to about 20 feet, which are after the onstreet parking and before the private curb line in front of the homes. • You already have a constricted driveway. Com. Giefer: • Suggested that even if it was just for parcel cne. If there was no on driveway parking in parcel t~-~~ Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 10, 2006 one and you moved parcel one to the left, you could save one of the English walnut trees and provide more space between the eastern neighbor who is concerned about their privacy, wich the English walnuts would also add to retain some of the neighbor's privacy. • Said she would be supportive of making the first portion of the driveway "no parking" and limit that size to 20 feet, giving them a larger parcel one, put a covenant on one of the English walnut trees to save one of them to allow more privacy for the eastern neighbor, which would be a win-win for all. Mr. Piasecki: • Suggested that they could condition that they look at that and try to find a way; that sounds like a good suggestion; just eliminate one or two parking spaces. Com. Giefer: • Asked if the subdivision locked them into the driveway at this time. Mr. Piasecki: • You would still have ample driveway size because you would be actually widening it to the west. Com. Giefer: • We would be widening it to the west but narrowing it to the east; we would have 20 feet with no parking; but does that do anything technically to the subdivision we are asked to approve. Mr. Piasecki: • I don't think it changes; if you condition it, we will look at it to snake sure if it has to be 21 or 22 at the driveway curb cut, one or two feet will not make a big difference. Your point is let's see if we can get the exiting cars further to the west so that we are not directing lights right into the neighbors' windows. Com. Giefer: • And also save one of the trees. Mr. Piasecki: • You would need to put that tree on the list of trees to be preserved. Mr. Chen: • That is a good idea; we can work with public works and plamiing. Vice Chair Miller: • Said he was satisfied that the drainage issue was being addressed adequately and that the applicant was doing his best to address the drainage issues and working with staff, particularly with offering to do interlocking pavers which does a lot to keep the water on site. • There were some other concerns about density brought up, but this is just basically. a reconfiguration of existing parcels and taking away a flag lot arrangement and putting in a cul de sac, which is an enhancement to the neighborhood. He said he saw it as an attractive solution which will upgrade the neighborhood. • Commented that they had done something similar with another project where the issue arose; where they narrowed the fu•st feet of the driveway so that it resolved the feng shui issue. • Relative to the concerns about feng shui, he said he felt there was a reasonable solution and perhaps the neighbors could work together to make sure that everybody is reasonably satisfied. i~-~e Cupertino Planning Commission '7 January 1 O, 2006 • He said he supported the project. Com. Giefer: • Added an additional condition on tree protection; in addition to the ones already listed, we have also indicated that we do not want to allow storage of materials or dirt underneath protected trees, and would also require the conditions of the protection posted. Barry Coates has provided a posting notice in their packet and said she would like to implement that. In the motion, ii' we are going to narrow the driveway, I would also like to add that at least one of the walfnut trees be protected. Motion: Motion by Com_ Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve Application TM-2005-13 as amended; including reconfiguration of the driveway, saving one of th~z walnut trees, no material storage or dirt underneath trees, drainage ito be self sustaining to the maximum extent possible in the ne~v driveway, and a catch basin within the driveway to help alleviate the drainage problem. (Vote: 4-0-0) 2. TM-2005-14 Tentative Map to subdivide a 21,803 square foot lot into two Jitka Cymbal parcels, 10,418 square feet and 1,385 square feet respectively. (Jinling and Roger Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Low residence) 21988 McClellan Rd. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the stafff report: • Reviewed the application for a tentative m:ip to subdivide a 21,803 square foot lot into two parcels in a R1-7.5 zoning district as outlined in the staff report. • He summarized the recommendations for h~ee retention and removal from Barry Coates, the City's consulting arborist. Mr. Coates' recommendations are outlined in the staff report, Page 2-3. • As a result of the arborist's recommendations, staff has put conditions of approval in the approval of the tentative map, including recording a covenant for the protection of the three trees; obtaining a tree protection bond of $10,000 per tree; hiring a licensed arborist to oversee the tree protection measures during construction. He illustrated the location of the trees proposed for preservation. • Staff recommends approval of the tentative neap. The applicant was not present. Com_ Miller: • Asked staff why a flag lot was being considered as opposed to a straight subdivision down the middle? Mr. Jung: • Responded that the property is conventionally zoned and the minimum lot width required in a Rl zone is 60 feet at the front set back lute; the lot is too narrow to split down the center. Com_ Miller: • Said it was still a workable solution; and an opportunity to not have another flag lot situation. 17 - 19 SCALE 1 RICH=IDFEEi CONTOURINTFRVAI=1 FOOT ~ ~ A•A SSCTIOM 3/A' I PPE __ M1 4 i ~0 j ; 3 D E 2 ZQ I s BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS IS TAKEN FROM TRACT MAP '~ N0. 300 NOONAN SUBDNISION -UNIT N0. 2 RECORDED IN BOOK 10 OF MAPS AT PAGE i6, SANTA CLARA CDUNtt RECORDS. THE BEARING BEING NOTED AS NORTH BETWEEN FOUND STREET MONUMENTS ON THE CENTERLINE OF ORANGE AVENUE CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED; "TRACT N0. 300, MAP OF THE NOONAN SUBDMSION, UNIT N0: 2", RECORDED IN BOOK 10 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 16,.SAMACIARA COUNTY RECORDS AND LUNG EMIREIY WfiHIN iN 20 1D D 2D 60 100 NOVEMBER, 2D05 SCALE 1"=20'-0" APN: 357-19-018, 058, 019 k OBO BENCH MARK: OWNER: KOK Y. HO & YUET M. HO HSING KUNG & MARGARET KUNG BM-26 CONCRETE NAIL IN T.C. ON NORTHWEST CURB ~ ~ CHIAO-FU CHANG & SUE-FAY L CHANG -, RETURN OF STEVENS CREEK BLVD. AT INTERSECTION WITH MANN DRIVE. Cltt OF CUPER11N0 DATUM. ELEVATION = 334.83 FEET. ~ SUBDMDER: KOH Y. HO & YUET M. HO HSING HUNG & MARGARET KUNG CHIAO-FU CHANG & SUE-FAY L CHANG ENGINEER:- JAMES C. CHEN, C.E., S.E. P.O.BOX 20302 _ _ _.... _ _ . _ .. ... _., SAN JOSE, CA 95160 1EGEND (aofi)268-oslz a+srm~c marcavs>RUCrsn ascew/rov EXISTING USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEMIAL ~--- hX PROPOSED USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL mroanuvr ~ __ ___ ~x2~twe SOURCE OF WATER: SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY cnsr. smucnrer metavo~m: ~ SEWAGE DISPOSAL: CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT tauE ~x¢ ro ae atMa~EP ~ ~ -STORM DRAfNlwE: Cftt OF CUPERTINO ~sr. ixFr m er anumm, - _ . _ __ _ _ ... _ . ... _ _._ _. _ NJYP4J7fCiHM'AS hYW4WED /Ut, ~n,~,mv wnnw. „ , ,.~ IkW 1,7Fj PROPOSED ZONING: R-1-7.5 - A~ws~~~uor~ ACREAGE: 41,352 Sp. Fi, D.949'ACRES PARCEL 1: 7501 Sp.FT 0.172 ACRES PARCEL 2: 7531 SO.Fi 0.173 ACRES ~ " ° _. _ . k^ ~ PARCEL 3: 9094 Sp.Fi f 9 0.209 ACRES - ~ - ~ m tl PARCEL 4: 9169 SOFT . $ ~$ ~+ _ i m 0.211 ACRES ~ " w '. COMMON AREA; - 8056 $p.Fi + g 0.185 ACRES 0 VICIMITV BAP _ . [[ 0 "~• .~. i 00 ~~ e.; m'; ose iu [i: Q W F W F Z rOr^ /uJ W ~W~ ~~Q QU U~p ~QW tLQU Uofe 1V1S105 koM MO'-0' ~~ n~ o~ ~a ~< M~ -~ - ._ ,_ - - ,.::-. - - - _.,.. , . r_--_ __. - _~~~ ~- i ii 'Iri~z., ~ ~~, - ,. om ,--- --. ~- ~ --{' -_t__- - ,: ~~- f!'1 C =3 ~ ~ 7 ;x >y _, ~i ~ CJ V I -<"Y+' I -~-I iL ~ ` `'~ I r .. ~ f I ~~~ Ce ,3 ~~~ /off ~_J ~ Status on Berry Court subdivision COPE RTINO ~ For1"1"7erly 21711, "L1.-0Z2 & 21731 Alcazar Avg March 3 2009 O City Council heard from Sheaun Tsai 8~ his wife, owners of 21720 Alcazar Ave., during Oral Communications D The Tsais expressed concerns about the alignment 8c location of the private street, Berry Court, being constructed across the street O City Council requested staff to prepare a status report on the development of the private street for the subdivision 1 aitateve flap Approval a January 10, 2006 -Berry Court subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission o Subdivision reconfigured 3 lots into 4single-family lots w/development of the private street o Planning Commission discussed shifting the private street to the west to reduce headlight impacts into Mr. Tsars home 8c to conform to Feng Shui principles, and added a condition resulting from Mr. Tsars public testimony o During the motion, the Commission did not specifically include shifting the private street to the west; therefore, it was not included in the condition o However, during Final Map approval through the Public Works Department, the Planning Commission intent was incorporated o Public Works shifted the street an additional one-foot to the west o Due to City standards requiring the edge of the driveway to be 4-feet from the property line, the driveway was not moved any further west. 2 ~~trance o Since January of 2009, Public Works has met and has been working with Mr. Tsai and neighbors of Berry Court to review & resolve the alignment of the Berry Court entrance a Public Works reached a compromise with Mr. Tsai and neighbors by moving the Berry Court entrance further west, leaving a 2 ~/z foot setback from the western property line, rather than the previous 4-foot setback o Public Works could not move the driveway flush against the property line due to the transitioning needed for the handicapped accessible sidewalk ramp adjacent to Berry Court S®~e P1~vtos ERTINO o Staff recommends that a slightly raised directional marker could be added as an additional option to minimize vehicle headlights into the Tsai's home o Directional markers could direct outgoing vehicles to angle cars slightly west when exiting a The developer has indicated that he would be willing to install some type of minimal directional markers 4