The URL can be used to link to this page

25. Tentative MapOFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I Eli I CITY HALL I ] 0300 TORRE AVENUE • CL PERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT I N O (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 • planning?; � U oer ino-org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. a5'� APPLICATION SUMMARY Agenda Date: April 6, 2010 Consider a Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 41,800 square foot parcel into five parcels ranging from 6,461 to 8,890 square feet, Application No. TM- 2010 -01, Donna Vingo (Russell Marshall Trustee), 790 South Blaney Avenue APN 369 -11 -048. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the project per the model resolution with the following additional condition: • The Public Works Department shall work with the applicant to preserve trees in the right -of —way dedication area to the maximum extent possible. BACKGROUND Site Description The subject property is located at the northeast Clifford Drive surrounded by single - family homes. Currently the site .. consists of a single- family home, a detached garage and a shed located at the eastern corner of the property. The home is currently accessed by a circular driveway along South Blaney Avenue that leads to the residence and to the detached garage. The existing home that is currently on the site was reviewed by the Historic Research Committee in 1997, and the report concluded that due to the amount of modifications and .4 corner of South Blaney Avenue and TM- 2010 -01 Donna Vingo (Russell Marshall Trustee) April 6, 2010 Page 2 additions to the original structure, and the limited historical impact by the various families who have lived on the site, the home was not historically significant. The house is also not included on the City's General Plan Historic Resources List. All of the existing structures are proposed to be demolished prior to the recordation of the final map. Zoning and General Plan Conformance The subject site is located in a R1 -6 zoning district with minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 41,800 square foot parcel into five single- family residential lots, ranging from 6,461 to 8,890 in size. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the R1 Ordinance. Please refer to the March 9, 2010 Planning Commission staff report for additional project details. DISCUSSION Planning Commission On March 9, 2010, the P1anriing Commission recommended with a 4 -0 -1 vote (Coirunissioner Miller abstained) to approve the project. The Commissioner's continents are summarized as follows: • The Commissioners requested that the applicant work with the Public Works Department on the frontage improvement design to preserve as many existing mature trees as possible. Consider meandering sidewalks as an alternative design to minimize the removal of mature trees along the property boundary. A condition has been added requiring further efforts to be made to minimize tree removal resulting from the public improvements of the pro, ect. The Commissioners requested that the applicant recycle and/or donate materials from the existing residence. Condition 4 encourages recycling of the existing building materials. The Commissioners discussed the Design Review Process, and that the future residences should complement the neighborhood, include individual architecture and design elements, and that the materials are of high quality. Condition 3 requires the residences closely resemble the conceptual rendering in architectural design and quality of material. Future design revie�T x also ensure that all of the new home are designed to complement the surrounding residential neighborhood. e The Conunissioners discussed the i:.nportance of including green features throughout the project. Currently, single - family residential projects are not required to include green features. The applicant l said that they have reviewed the Build It Green checklist, and are prepared to discuss at Council vThere they intend to meet the green building objectives of the Guid 25 -2 TM- 2010 -01 Donna Virago (Russell Marshall Trustee) April 6, 2010 Page 3 Public Comments Several neighboring property owners and residents were in attendance of the Commission hearing and expressed the following comments (staff responses are provided in italics): • Concern that the proposed lot sizes were smaller than adjacent parcels - According to the R1 -6 zoning district, minimum lot size for the project is 6,000 square feet. The project proposes five lots ranging from 6,461 square feet to 8,890 square feet in size. Tile average lot size of the neighborhood is between 5,227 to 12,197 square feet. The project is consistent with the R1 Ordinance and compatible with the general lot size /pattern of the neighborhood. • Concerns about privacy from future two -story residences - The project is subject to the R1 Ordinance privacy landscaping regulations. All two -story (side and rear facing) windows With sill heights below five feet will be required to provide privacy plantings consistent with the R1 Ordinance. In addition, per thy? City's current policy, the preservation and maintenance of the required privacy plantings shall be recorded on the property as a covenant. • Concerns that grading of the site will cause run -off onto adjacent parcels - Prior to issuance of building permits, final grading and drainage design will be required and approved by the Public Works Department. The property is required to drain away from neighboring properties. In addition, staff is not anticipating any special drainage concerns or requirements given that the property site ,�s relatively flat in topography. • Concerns that the existing house on the project site is historic and that any significant historic elements and/or building materials should be salvaged and donated - The existing home on the site was reviewed by the Historic Research Committee in 1997, and the report concluded that due to the amount of modifications and additions to the original structure, and the limited histgrical impact by the various families who have lived on the site, the home was"not historically significant. The house has been remodeled and added on over the years and is currentli,' not on may historic inventory. The applicant is encouraged as a condition to recycle or reuse appropriate existing building materials if feasible. • Concerns that the future home designs will not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood - The applicant has agreed to a condition that requires design revie7o approval for all five homes prior to recordat;'on of the final ivap, The applicant has provided architectural concepts for Lot 1 in order represent the level of design quality anticipated for the future residences (see Color Rendering ill attached plan set), Future design review i(411 ensure that all of the new homes are Toell- designed with quality materials and architectural style /details that will complement the surrounding residential neighbor -hood. Environmental Review The project is Categorically Exempt: CEQ A Section 15332, in-Fill Development Projects 25 -3 TM- 2010 -01 Donna Vingo (Russell Marshall Trustee) April 6, 2010 Page 4 Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Attaclunent A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attaclunent E Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager Cupertino Sanitary District corrunents Planning Commission Resolution No. 6585 Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 9, 2010 Draft Planning Commission March 9, 2010 meeting minutes Plan Set G \ Planriiiig\ PDREPORT� CC\ 2010\ TA 2010 -01_CC 04- 06- 10.doc 25 -4 Attachment A DISTRICT MANAGER - ENGINEER MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. RICHARD K. TANAKA DISTRICT COUNSEL ATKINSON • FARASYN, LLP. HAROLD S. TOPPEL A SANllr%, Fs/419 I S H ED 'S° BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILLIAM A. BOSWORTH JOHN M. GATTO CURTIS S. HARRISON WENDELL H. KERR, JR. CHRISTOPHER C. LEE February 11, 2010 20833 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, SUITE 104 CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014.2154 (408) 253 -7071 PHONE: • (408) 253 -5173 FAX www. cupertinos� com File: CSD — MOPO Planning Department- Cupertino Leslie Gross Community Development Department - Planning City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 -3255 Subject: Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 41,800 square feet lot into five parcels ranging fi 6,400 to 8,800 square feet. Name: Russell Marshall Trustee (Donna Vingo) Address: 790 S. Blaney Avenue APN: 369 -11 -048 Planning Application No: TM- 2010 -01 Dear Ms. Gross: The Cupertino Sanitary District has reviewed th tentative map and has the following comments: • Sanitary sewer service can be provided to the proposed parcels via S. Blaney Avenue and Clifford Drive. There is one existing lateral connection for the entire parcel on Clifford Drive. ® It is anticipated additional Cupertino Sanitary District Fees and Permits shall be required for the proposed development. e Improvement plans for the subject project shall be reviewed by the District. SUPPLYING SA NITARY SEVNERAGE SERVICES FOR: CITY OF CUPERTINO, PORTIONS OF THE CITIES OF SARATOGA, SUNNYVkL E, Los ALTOS AND 25 -5 Page 2 Subject: Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 41,800 square feet lot into five parcels ranging from 6,400 to 8,800 square feet. Name: Russell Marshall Trustee (Donna Vingo) Address: 790 S. Blaney Avenue APN: 369 -11 -048 Planning Application No: TM- 2010 -01 Please feel free to contact Nichol Bowersox at (408) 253 -7071 if you have any questions or concerns. Yours very truly, MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. District Manager - Engineer for Richard K. Tanaka SUPPLYING SANITARY SEWERAGE SERVICES FOP.: CITY OF CUPERTINO, PORTIONS OF THE CITIES OF SARATOCA, SUNNYVALE, LOS ALTOS AIJD SURROUNDING UNINCORPOP.ATEDAREAS 25 -6 Attachment B TM- 2010 -01 CITY OF C'UPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6585 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE AN APPROXIMATELY 47,025 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO FIVE PARCELS RANGING FROM 6,461 to 8,890 SQUARE, FEET AT 790 SOUTH BLANEY AVENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Parcel Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the ty.,)e of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Parcel Map, file no. TM- 2010 -01, is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the sub conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM- 2010 -01 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 9, 2010, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 25 -7 Resolution No. 6585 TM- 2010 -01 March 9, 2010 Page 2 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TM- 2010 -01 Applicant: Donna Vingo (Russell Marshall Trustee) Location: 790 South Blaney Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on plan sets titled "Tentative Map, 790 S. Blaney Avenue, Cupertino, California ", dated January 2010, consisting of four sheets labeled 1 through 3, a Proximity Map, a Right -of -Way Dedication exhibit, and a color rendering showing potential new home design, except as amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. 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 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. r 3. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW The applicant and /or owner shall obtain design review approvals from the City for all of the proposed residential homes prior to recordation of the final map. Any proposed two - story residence shall require site and architectural approval of a tWo -story residential permit per Section 19.28 of the Single- Family Residential (RI) Zoning Ordinance. The home on Lot 1 shall closely resemble the conceptual rendering u1 architectural design and quality provided in the approved exhibits. In addition, the rest of the homes (Lots 2 - 5) shall be consistent and compatible with the Lot 1. 4. DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES Prior to recordation of the fugal map, the applicant shall demolish and remove all structures on the property. All demolished buildings and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of demolition permit. 5. TREE PROTECTION This approval does not constitute any removal/ preservation plan shall be submitted approval of the home design. Further, Public with the applicant to preserve as many of th e improvement area. tree removals. A detailed tree for review and approval prior to the Works Department is requested to work trees as possible located in the public 6. HOUSING MITIGATION FEES The project is subjected to the requirements of the City's Housing 1\/litigation Procedural Manual. The final amount of in -lieu housing mitigation fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The in -lieu fees shall be assessed by the City on a per square foot basis (ilnclusive of garages) and be adjusted arulually using the Consumer Price Index. 25 -8 Resolution No. 6585 TM- 2010 -01 March 9, 2010 Page 3 7. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLA Final map improvement plans shall include a construction management plan detailing how construction activities will be conducted. The plan shall address, but not be limited to the following activities: a. Construction staging area b. Construction schedule and hours c. Construction phasing plan, if any d. Contractor parking area e. Tree preservation/ protection plan f. Site dust, noise and storm run -off management plan g. Emergency and construction site manager contacts SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERE BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 8. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 9. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 10. 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. 11. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 12. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer un 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. Pre - and post - development calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be installed. 14. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 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 u H providers =or installation: of underground utilit<' devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans :3howing utility underground provisions. Said 25 -9 Resolution No. 6585 TM- 2010 -01 March 9, 2010 Page 4 plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 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 fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Trees $ 5% of Off -Site Improvement Cost or $2,468.00 minimum 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,217.00 minimum $ 2,000.00 Per Acreage $7,817.00 Per ordinance By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG &E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off -site and On -site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off -site and On -site Improvement c. On -site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 17. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 18. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 19. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality-, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 25 -10 Resolution No. 6585 TM- 2010 -01 March 9, 2010 Page 5 20. C.3 REQUIREMENTS The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4-.% of developable surface area for the placement of storm water treatment facilities on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan to satisfy c.3 requirements is approved by the City Engineer. The developer must include the use and :maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment Best Management :Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A S Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm 'hater Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are required. The Storm Water Management Plan will be required to obtain approval from an approved third party reviewer, at the expense of the developer. 21. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The applicant shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 22. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 23. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to coirunencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 24. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 25. PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS The developer shall provide pedestrian crosswalk improvements at Clifford Drive and Blaney Avenue. Final crosswalk improvement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 26. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. 27. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 28. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Publ -c Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125 25 -11 Resolution No. 6585 TM- 2010 -01 March 9, 2010 Page 6 29. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permits. 30. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. 31. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG &E, PacBell, and California Water Company, and /or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. 32. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off site improvements. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/ SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices / s /Ralph Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of March 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Plaruzing Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Kaneda, Giefer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Miller ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: /s /Gary Chao Gary Chao City Plaruler APPROVED: /s/ Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission 25 -12 Attachment C OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENU]- - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 - FAX (�0) 777 -3333 - planrdn acupertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. —I— Agenda Date: March 9, 2010 Application: TM- 2010 -01 Applicant: Donna Vingo (Applicant), Russell Marshall Trustee (Owner Ap Summary: Tentative Ma to subdivide an a p p roximatel y �6fl re s ua 5 Pp �Y� p pP Y � q foot parcel into five parcels ranging from 6,400 square feet to 8,890 square feet: located at 790 South Blaney Avenue, RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Tentative Parcel Map in accordance with the model resolution. PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Total Gross Lot Area: Total Net Lot Area: Proposed Lot Areas: Low Density (1 -5 Dwelling Units /Gross Acre) R1 -6 (Single Family Residential - 6,000 square feet minhnuir_) 47,025 square feet (1.08 acre) 35,588 square feet (0.82 acre) Lot 1: 6,722 square feet (0.15 gross acres) Lot 2: 6,525 square feet (0.15 gross acres) Lot 3: 6,461 square feet (0.15 gross acres) Lot 4: 8,890 square feet (0.20 gross acres) Lot 5: 6,990 square feet (0.16 gross acres) Existing Land Use: Single- faraily residential Proposed Land Use: Single- faraily residential Existing Density: 0.93 du/ gross acre Proposed Density: 4.63 du/ gross acre Project Consistency with General Plaj:l: Yes Zoning: Yes Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt per Section 15333, Class 33 (In- Fi11 Deg %elopment Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 25 -13 TM- 2010 -01 Donna YigaQ (Russell Marshall Trustee) February 23, 2010 yl n �o Page 2 BACKGROUND Site Description The subject property is located at the northeast corner of South Blaney Avenue and Clifford Drive surrounded by single- family homes. Currently the site consists of a single- family home, a detached garage and a shed located at the eastern corner of the property. The home is currently accessed by a circular driveway along South Blaney Avenue that leads to the residence and to the detached garage. The existing home that is currently on the site was reviewed by the Historic Research Con in 1997, and the report concluded that due to the amount of modifications and additions to the original structure, and the limited historical impact by the various families who have lived on the site, the home was not historically significant. The house is also not included on the City's General Plan Historic Resources List. All of the existing structures are proposed to be demolished prior to the recordation of the final map. Zoning and General Plan Conformance The subject site is located in a R1 -6 zoning district with minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 41,800 square foot parcel into five single- family residential lots, ranging from 6,461 to 8,890 in size. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the R1 Ordinance. DISCUSSION Subdivision Design The proposed five parcels are configured in a manner to allow 0 o of the lots (Lots 1 and 2) to face and access South Blaney Avenue, and Lots 3, 4 and 5 to be accessed from Clifford Drive (see Tentative Parcel Map, Attaclunent 1). 25 -14 TM- 2010 -01 Donna uig+to (Russell Marshall Trustee) February 23, 2010 Vinuo Page 3 Conceptual House Plan (Lott) Typically, for a subdivision of this size, especially when the property is irregular in shape and located in a dense residential neighborhood, the City prefers to review and approve the design of the homes in conjunction with the subdivision map request. The concept is that when a subdivision is approved, the future property owners assume the right to build in accordance with R1 Ordinance. Therefore, potential building design and interface should be considered at the subdivision review phase to ensure that proper and reasonable house designs may be approved without compromising the integrity of the neighborhood. Due to financial considerations, the applicant is not able to subinit full architectural and site plans for all five lots. Instead, a conceptual plan of Lot 1 has been provided to demonstrate that it can facilitate a reasonable and compatible house design. The applicant has also agreed to a condition tha: requires full design revieTv approval for all five homes prior to recordation of the final map. The architectural details illustrated in "Play. 1(Lot 1) Front Elevation - Spanish Style" are intended to represent the level of design duality anticipated for the future residences (see Color Rendering in Attaclunent 1). The details are attractive and will enhance the neighborhood. 25 -15 TM- 2010 -01 Donna Vigno (Russell Marshall Trustee) February 23, 2010 Page 4 Staff supports the proposed project provided that final house design on lot 5 shall be consistent with the conceptual plan included with this review. Site Improvements Frontage improvements will involve the construction of street frontage along South Blaney Avenue and Clifford Drive consisting of a 10' street dedication for curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscape strip. The applicant will work with staff on the number, location, and species of the neiv street trees within the landscape strip. TrPPc The project is anticipated to remove approximately 26 trees. The trees are being proposed for removal because they are either located in the public improvement area, located within the buildable area of the future residences, or are insignificant i11 size and species. None of the trees are protected per the Zoning Ordinance (14.18.035). Staff recommends that the formal tree removal request and any mitigation /replacement plan be reviewed and approved In conjtulctlon with the full submittal of the design review for the five homes. Cupertino Sanitary District The Cupertino Sanitary District has reviewed the project and states that sanitary sewer service can be provided to the proposed parcels via South Blaney Avenue (see Attachment 2). 25 -16 TM- 2010 -01 Donna Vigno (Russell Marshall Trustee) February 23, 2010 Page 5 Categorical Exemption The proposed project is deemed categorically exempt per Section 15333, Class 33 (In -Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since the project is characterized as follows: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Zao City Planner Approved by: / aA W_�:Z Aard Shrivastava Conunurdty Development Director ATTACHMENTS Model Resolution(s) Attachment 1 Plan Set Attachment 2 Cupertino Sanitary District comments G: i� ;arnr;giPD,°L;PUP,T;pc : � ^• repo;•ul� l; 0;;,,,•�NCrts',T.ti, ?.0: ;' -0Ldoc 25 -17 Attachment D Cupertino Planning Commission 2 March 9, 2010 Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Miller, and carried 4 -0 -0, Com. Kaneda absent; to postpone Application to the March 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARING Com. Miller recused hims 1. TM- 2010 -01 Donna Vingo (Russell Marshall Trustee) 790 So. Blaney Ave. elf from discussion of the application. Tentative Map o subdivide an approx. 41,800 square foot parcel into five parcels, ranging from 6,400 sq. ft. to 8,800 sq. ft. Tentative 00 Council date: April 6, 2010 Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the Tentative Map request to subdivide the existing single family residential parcel into five parcels, ranging from 6,500 to 8,890 square foot lots, as outlined in the staff report. • Reviewed the site description, zoning designation, site improvement, and trees. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and all the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Conceptual house plan for Lot 1 is provided by the applicant, as Lot 1 is the most difficult to design and the applicant will demonstrate that they are able to provide a good design in terms of both look and functionality, at the same time going up to the potential maximum in terms of square footage, so there is no anticipated variances or exceptions. • To address staff s concern relating to future basically requires them to come in and go through the R1 residential design review process and approval prior to the recordation of the final map for assurance that the same developer will be in play to design and carry out similar details and quality to the remainder of the homes. • Staff recominends that the Plannine Commission recomiriend approval per the model resolution with the following added condition: A condition be added requiring the applicant to go through housing mitigation procedural manual, paying the in -lieu fees, and that the final in- lieu fees be assessed at the time when submitted for building permits. Com. Kaneda arrived at the meeting. Gary Chao answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application. Mike McClellan, McClellan Development, Applicant: • Thanked staff for their efforts. • Said that they accept the staff reconunendations, and understand the concern about future building and the need to understand what the city's fixture housing is going to be, As staff mentioned, they volunteered to go through a frill design review prior to any lot being recorded, which will set the criteria for each lot before the recordation, and it stays with the lot until any action may be taken to change it. They fully intend to provide a project that has variation and meets the local nei Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. 25 -18 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 March 9, 2010 Dr. Ram Swaminathan, Pacifica Drive, Cupertino: • Expressed concern about the five dense houses in front of his 3,500 square feet, with large lot, and said he felt the large number of houses in front of his property would devalue his property. He said that his neighbor across the street also had the same concern. Loghashankar Srinivasan, nearby resident, Cupertino: • Concerns related to if there would be a fence; its height and which side it would face; and if there would be any privacy trees planted. • Asked if there was a possibility that the building setback could be increased; the number of floors for three lots, and windows; they do not want them facing directly into their house. Is the grading of the slope towards Blaney or Clifford or towards the houses; what is the duration of the construction; and make sure the grading is not facing towards the houses internally in case of flooding. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Discussed the possibility that the existing home on the property was of historical value; although it was determined in 1997 by the Historical Society that it wasn't of historical value. She said that if it was going to be demolished, there is a need for materials for Victorian homes being remodeled and rather than bulldozing the home, there may be use for the salvage materials. There are also some large redwood trees on the property. Keith Murphy, East Estates Drive: • Questioned whether the house was going to be saved, and referred to what occurred to the Anderson property behind Fairgrove which was an old farmouse which sat there for a long time; that property got divided and now it is high density in that area. There were many issues with the Fairgrove neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhood. He suggested people go over there and look at that preserved house and new development and see how that works out before the topic property is consigned to the same fate. Could the house be donated to the city, put on a park for some other use so the house doesn't have to be lost; perhaps the comrrnrnity could get some use out of it, perhaps the property owner could sell or donate it to get a write off. There are also issues if it will match with the sun neighborhood. The Anderson property sticks out like a sore thumb. He ;recalled that the Fairgrove people said to put up windows that didn't look into the properties because they are all one story properties and there were different architectural design; and he questioned whether those concerns would be debated before any approval. Sonal Abhyanker, Betty Drive: • Asked if the applicant had a website that illustrated samples of their homes developed in the past. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Gary Chao responded to speakers' questions: Regarding privacy, the homes are located in R 1 -6 zoning districts; in the R1 zoning districts, there are provisions for privacy considerations and protections; namely it depends on what sort of homes are going to be proposed. For example, Lot 1, the applicant is showing conceptually a single story house; with a single story house the R1 ordinance doesn't provide any privacy protection for obvious reasons; there shouldn't be any concerns with regards to that. For a two -story which the applicant will likely be entertaining on some of the lots, there are privacy protection measures such as for windows with sill heights under 5 feet on second floor; new second floor that there ought to be considerations for privacy screening, either 25 -19 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 March 9, 2010 through the city's preapproved list of shrubberies or trees within the cone of vision dictated by the ordinance that the applicant would have to plant new vegetation along the property lines; and as part of the approval process; not only do they have to plant the trees and shrubberies, that the trees and shrubs will be recorded on the property as a covenant that they are required to be maintained and preserved running with the land so that the next owners don't cut them down. There is that protection locked in place. The applicant has the ability to work things out with the neighbors, whether it is higher fence or additional measures; that could be agreed upon and the two property owners or neighbors could come together and sign a waiver to dictate your own mitigation mechanism and the city would be happy to accept those things in lieu of their requirements. • In terms of fencing, the ordinance does allow fencing up to 8 feet. Anything over 6 feet requires consent from both properties. The applicant could propose a 6 -foot fence without going through any special measures. • Public works will evaluate grading and storm runoff and the site peripheral improvements; gutter, curb; by law any residential houses are not permitted to be graded so that the runoff would go into a neighbor's yard. All the runoff would have to go to the storm drain system that eventually would lead into the street. In answer to the question relating to the direction of grading, it is going to be graded toward the street, away from the property lines. • Relative to the duration of the construction, the applicant will respond. Staff requires the applicant to control any construction activities from occurring outside of the allowable hours of construction, usually 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays, and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends. • In terns of the historic consideration for the site, Mrs. Griffm is correct in that the site has been evaluated in the 90s and based on that report, this project had been ranked very low on that report. The home was built around 1890; even though there is some history to it, it has been changed so many times, and the home has undergone upgrades and revisions to the windows and roof. Consequently the Board at the time said that while possibly in its original state it probably had some value, but given the changes occurring over time, it is not of any significance. • There is a policy that will be corning forward directed by the City Council that the Conunission is going to be reviewing soon; however, the Council is clear that they don't want to evaluate any residential homes and put them on the list. They want to look at historic sites, commercial, quasi- public properties. This is not going to be on the radar for that review; nor should we think that it should be part of a consideration for preservation. The applicant does have the ability to voluntarily look at ways to recycle and keep parts; but that is their decision. Corn. Giefer: Referring to the subdivision, she said she understood they could not prohibit them from selling off the lots individually, although it is being conditioned not to record the final map until the design review. Could they sell the rights to that subdivision and allow someone to come in and create their own architectural assessment, bundle it up or have those reviewed individually and can they record portions of the map act; or does it have to be recorded at one time? Can they record a partial map? City Attorney: • The map has to be recorded as a whole. The understanding of the condition is they have to come forward with what they propose to develop before the map gets finalized. The intent is to have design review for all the lots for the final map recordation to be released. Com. Giefer: • The work plan also includes green building and it is hoped to have a residential green building policy before the end of the year. She asked what the applicant's timeline is to break ground 25-20 Cupertino Planning Commission March 9, 2010 and begin the project. Even though it is not conditioned at this point; would they be required to meet any green building plans that are finally approved over the next 12 months? City Attorney: • Typically the law in effect at the time if somebody comes in to pull a building permit is what they have to comply with; if the city concludes its green building adoption of its policy or its provisions, particularly if it does anything by ordinance and that ordinance is in effect at that time they come in for their building pennit, they will have to abide by that. Com. Giefer: • Said she was making the differentiation if they don't have the policy by the time they come in for design approval, and then by the time they finally break ground or pull permits, if they do have a policy in place, that is when they would have to meet those requirements. Gary Chao: • Said they could also specify provisions to address that in the Green Building Ordinance. City Attorney: • Normally there is some indication to try to deal with things that are in the pipeline, depends upon what point they are in the pipeline at the time the provisions are adopted. Not knowing how specific the design review would be vs. the component parts of the Green Building Ordinance, it is difficult to give a definitive answer; but to the extent that the design review is a broader brush sort of depiction of what is going to go there, w hen you get to the details, that is when usually those green building things are triggered. Applicant: • Said relative to timeline, they anticipated to start construction by the fourth quarter. With regards to green sensitivity, they will make efforts to follow the Build -A -Green reconunendations. We have done what they could and it continues to be defined. Com. Giefer: • Said she was concerned with the established mature trees on the lot and would like the city to take it seriously and see if they could work the sidewalk around the existing trees. She said she understood they would not save all the trees, but if possible, it makes more sense than mowing them down and planting them with 20 gallon trees. • She said that if the Conunission agrees to that, she would like the staff to add it. She also struggled with the green building because she felt it was going to be an advance of green building policy and she wasn't comfortable with the answer and did not know what to do about that because they don't currently have in ordinance that requires that. Gary Chao: • Relative to the green building ordinance timetable they are gearing toward the public outreach phase, and are starting to solicit contracts foi consultants and once that is in place they will be notifying for focus group meetings. It will be in May/June where it is going to be at the public hearing stage for adoption. Cam. Giefer: • Said it is difficult for the conununity whenever a stricture has been there forever, and there is history with previous families, previous owners and who we think help drive development of our community; and whenever there is a green field as this may be considered, where there is a home with some history behind it, it is difficult to say we are going to move forward bulldoze 25 -21 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 March 9, 2010 that home and subdivide and increase density in the neighborhood. There is always that emotional side of any redevelopment proposal that comes in. This is consistent; it meets the General Plan, and meets our zoning. If we have agreement from the Planning Commission with regards to trying to salvage as many of the existing trees through the public right of way sidewalk, I would move forward on that. Gary Chao: • Said a condition could be added to state that to the maximurn extent possible the staff shall work with the applicant and Public Works staff to preserve as many trees as feasible. Chair Brophy: • Said he was not looking to add a condition to this but if the applicant could look at the house and to the extent that Mrs. Griffin's point and Mr. Murphy's point that there may be redwood or other useful materials that could be recycled, the Commission would appreciate that. Gary Chao: • Said there is a condition that addresses that in terms of recycling, which is a standard condition. Com. Kaneda: • Explained the process of deconstruction where a deconstruction company comes in and takes down a home and salvages the materials; it costs about the same amount as demolition but the materials are salvaged and there is a write off, which covers the cost of the deconstruction. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4 -0 -1, Com. Miller abstained, to approve Application TM- 2010 -01 with the additional language added specifically to request Public Works to try to preserve as many trees as possible in the public right -of -way Brophy declared a recess. 3. GPA -20 -01 (EA- 2009 -05) (a) General Plan Amendmen or 2007 -2014 Housing Z- 2010 -02, i!' A- 2010 -02 Element update. City of Cupertino Citywide Location Paul Peryninger, Bay Area Economy Con taut, presented the staff report: The Housing Element is one of sev required elements of the General Plan and is updated tinder State law every 7 to 10 ' ars. h� process began over a year ago with cormnunity meetings, collecting backgroa id information�r aching out to stakeholders and developing new policies, guidelines and ocedures to address som ew changes in State law which required us to have a more e nsive inventory of residential site s part of the housing element. Said the City ouncil approved staff forwarding a Dra � Housing Element to the State Departrnen f Housing and Conununity Development (HCD) i Tune 2009. Under State law, HCD 1i'"60 days to review the housing element and provide the = with comments which w - e 'received at the end of August 2009. Since then staff, along with - nsultants, have been articipating in an ongoing discussion with HCD and have submitted additio I information as requested by the HCD to address some of the issues they brought up in their le der to the city about bringing the housing element into compliance with State procedures, reguNions and 25-22 Attachment E PROJECT INFORMATION TENTATIVE MAP .PPm Blaney Venture, LLC Mks Nd2elan 1448 Entrada Verde Pico* APN: 369 -11 -048 � Q McCLELLAN RD. P4 DRCIFICA w ® o 0! N a Q CuFFORD � o Bp J m DR. 3 H� R VICINITY MAP EEIEE 1 +20 1+40 i+e0 1+00 2+00 2+20 2+40 SECTION A -A S HOFOWAL• V -110' YQtTiAA J r -r 100 65 5+20 5+40 5+60 5+&J d +w C-20 0+40 SECTION B —B W &E HOWKIiTAU I'-iU MERTICAU 1'-r my O u IU Ai Qi n � I n < L O J Lli Qf L Q L U < Li d Z Q�/�C 'o n i ,ioi_ 5-0 TYPICAL BUILDING SECTION NOT TD sruF Alamo CA 94507 925 7854646 FAX 925 944 9108 mmodelanO01)4obal.net 0WAVZ) The Salley Trust t s tlAts VM � q The Sucesesor Trustee is Russell Marshall PO BOX 1942 CAST RAN GRATE CAMPBELL CA 95009 RNCZIvrsx MARIUS E. NEI SEN. R.C.E 20597, EXP. 9/11 NORDIC ENGINEERING 3/4' DRAIN RACK 21801 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD. STE. 8 CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA. 95014 TEL (408) 257 -6452 j2r p FAX (408) 257 -6821 RETE PROPlRTY AAAUSS AND IPA: W SO4MUZ 40 we�� WE 790 S BLANEY 790 CALIFORNIA APN: 369 -11 -048 PROPOSED AUJUM OF LOTS: 5 PROJ'ELT AARA: 47,025 S0. FT. (1.08 AC), GROSS 35,589 S0. FT. (0.82 AC), NET PERCOLATION PIT DETAIL U�ms. NOT TO SCAU ELECTRIC AND GAS, P.G. & E WATER: SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY TELEPHONE: ATT SEWER: CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT LAM USE: RESIDENTIAL s oURCE OF CONTOUR: `( I TOPOGRAPHIC FIELD SURVEY BY NORDIC ENGINEERING f I s ea 211SW ice`, A tf,1i� 100 65 5+20 5+40 5+60 5+&J d +w C-20 0+40 SECTION B —B W &E HOWKIiTAU I'-iU MERTICAU 1'-r my O u IU Ai Qi n � I n < L O J Lli Qf L Q L U < Li d Z Q�/�C 'o n i ,ioi_ 5-0 TYPICAL BUILDING SECTION NOT TD sruF APPROMMIE FEW PON ONER POLE \\r new nwxJ E)Wr. ANF FOOTPPoNT LOT 1 Umury Pt 1021' TO NET AREA: 4 T \ 6,722 SO. FT. \ 1 0 4ip. RMlpM! K B __ � N An ,01.!!4'/ JOKTT I - -- UTWY d �- ! x r — — — i�� DIM 1 FJ _,02 I I (\ NE LOT NET REA: I I LOT 5 1 8,890 SQ. FT. I I NET. AREA: I I 1e'.,e' w I I 6, 990 SQ. FT. I l I I SDO' sE7 Aa ass- 11 —o48 1 " GROSS AREA: 1 47,025 SQ. FT. 1 \ 1.08 AC. 1 XL m"�' � NET AREA: �° 4 CCN �` 35,509 SO. FT. � A P READ LM \ 0.82 AC. 1 \ LOT 2 1 d �\ NET AREA: 6,526 SQ. FT. SETBNX kp TEMPORARY BEWCHM" NML AM SOfER EL -100.0' (ASSLUM) 9j AM %JTTER SCA L - 1- 1' Q 10' LEGEND: ODDER LW - - RMT-CF -WAY L!E O(TOLSR LtiE EI - - OF A` P'L-' T 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' 1 1 LEMON 1 / Lir 11 LEMON Of x \ 1 1 x 4 °TREE / LOT .3 1 $ 1 / NET AREA: 1 1 6,461 SO. FT. 24 'PEPPER X \\ / / i /9� f NEW AO.A COMPJW. ACCESS Low I SETaAac i IO fR 11 EAtm MAX NOW r I �I SESAAX i I I a+ I I II I I i I I I i OETAL SiEEF 3 LL PER EA. LOT) i 241m , � ' -3' CvFqE99 OF TREES TYP. IN NEW CONC. S a RS + GUM ID NEW DRIWWAY TYPCAL F.T. HM T=r . AT �..r^ i MAP, NOT A EIOIMOA, SUR i PROPERTY LEES SNOfW ARE DOMED FROM RI=R1 DATA. AND MAY VARY SOMEN UT FROM ABSO M BOUNDARY LOCATIONS a� E 0 E 0 CL O L a- < o w _ a - < t w zoCL w m _.... C :^ cT APPRO)WATE LOCARON OF NEW POBEE, POLE TRANSTTM a our�iER . \ ro ABPN. ONCE \ \ \ UT \TO BE RflLCATFD\ \ EDGE OF \� \ � *SPHAL \ \FOLIO J� \ BOX c \ TEMPORARY BENCHMARK MAIL AND SIO,ER \ EL.- 100.0' (ASSUMED) \ CURB \ \ AND GUTTER SCALE. 1' - 10' \ LEGEND: \ - - PROPERTY US-' CENTER LMW- i - - R lW-(F -WAY LIME '^-4W WMIR LFE I EDP OF om_ + •M RAUP \ \ s!�) SANIIFKY 2 UNWOOO E YAx wow t OVERHEAD POWER LINES ,r \ \ \ r WOOD FENCE �C1f'RE99 TREES ORUY DRrVEmY ii. \ sxnD9LL \ CONQES„k � /5 TY \ \ � �(.YMMCft1iE ` 02v',"' �, r wood al, Ali,. � �• ,p'FiMT ��4 —B�AUT 00 + s g s rn i /�� REDWOOD � y \\ \ \�� f YAP. NOT A BOIADARY SURVEY. pR�'eR iY -%. C A �p.1.� .. ;..LL P° DATA, AND MAY VARY SOIEWAT FROM ABSOLUTE BOADARY LOCAT"MS "►�\ " " ,a 2*3) APN: 369 -11 -048 — `I GROSS AREA: 47.025 SQ. FT. �' 1 \`\ s• 1.08 AC. NET AREA: 35.589 SO. FT. 0.82 AC 2 CAR TO BE REldO\ED Ill \ � r Lam CYPRESS • BTBIX B T ` T BP.TIX PLANTER OEW" !�. 4 LEIM 24"FIO Man _ NIOH IX P..AtdTEk STORY RESDENCE v I _ CONCRETE _ OLLY BORDER �bb 7-3" CYPRESS _ foo- i TREES TVP. EDGE BRKK STEPS T. TO OW- \ 4 ` � ASiUIT, TO COW- �� at��✓� /�'sF� � Id ausst CI4O r VIEVISM BY G7 E V L E ry LL G i Q IW�W� s— o n CAD 1-C a si—t. q '0 0 Yj .L' /,. ee > IN � A v \ `�` ��'1�l ! 1. � /`,� �� ,�"� \�% J I V i j it iV nnr �� ,; '� �� :.T -T f rq �r�.ot I ZO �, 13 Z E ri Nordic Engineering Inc. Civil Engineering - Land Surveying Serving Santa Clara, San Mateo & Santa Cruz Counties Aft� nik? (408) 257 6.152 • F (408) 257 -6821 nordicenginearsOyalvo com Nord Av 1. CENTERLINE SOUTH BLANEY e)n' nFnirATinN_ APN: 369 -11 -048 790 SOUTH BLANEY AVE., CUPERTINO, CA PLAN 1 - LOT 1 4 BED 13 BATH N.T.S. r Vw� fY ".. ZI �i F- W, a, I '�- Deb 4AM r M -�- EATIQ -� ---, u \ rl ° �1 \1 4ARA5C HALL 1 1 1 \ y` BEDROOM 1e !' , 1 AMU _J PLAN 1 - LOT 1 4 BED 13 BATH N.T.S. V Z J H W (L PLAN 1 (LOT 1) FRONT ELEVATION - SPANISH REVIVAL N.T.S. VTBS 29065 JANUARY 27, 2010 BLANEY HOMES CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA i n VAN T"UB_ G, BANVARD & 90DEEBERGK AU A RfH1'fF C TL hl -•PI A\�1 \G 1RR.AX DF.51 G1 ma < .cllrs.COm WKnVunucv rniiv WINOOW5 OETAILS ENTRY WITH oNJC GARAGE DOOR5 GARAGE DECMTTVE TILLS r Vw� fY ".. ZI �i F- W, a, V Z J H W (L PLAN 1 (LOT 1) FRONT ELEVATION - SPANISH REVIVAL N.T.S. VTBS 29065 JANUARY 27, 2010 BLANEY HOMES CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA i n VAN T"UB_ G, BANVARD & 90DEEBERGK AU A RfH1'fF C TL hl -•PI A\�1 \G 1RR.AX DF.51 G1 ma < .cllrs.COm WKnVunucv rniiv WINOOW5 OETAILS ENTRY WITH oNJC GARAGE DOOR5 GARAGE DECMTTVE TILLS EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE L -1/( / k i t- 2- TM-2010-01 CUPERTINO Application Summary: Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 41,800 square foot parcel into five (5) parcels ranging from 6,461 to 8,890 square feet Applicant: Donna Vingo (Russell Marshall Trustee) 411 Location: 790 South Blaney Avenue - APN 369-11-048 Site Description CUPERTINO Single Family Neighborhood si Vacant, single-family IN .1 lei 4 residence with detached garage and shed on-site r • '?" :Unimproved frontage " • Access off S. Blaney Ave. ,„ ,4‘ - \/p. rir /1P". Back round CUPERT1NO General Plan Designation: Low Density (1 -5 Dwelling Units /Gross Acre) Zoning Designation: R1 -6 (SFR— 6,000 square feet minimum) Total Gross Lot Area: 47,025 square feet (1.08 acre) Total Net Lot Area: 35,588 square feet (0.82 acre, after dedication) Proposed Lot Areas: 6,461 square feet to 8,890 square feet Existing Land Use: Single - family residential Proposed Land Use: Single- family residential Existing Density: 0.93 du /gross acre Proposed Density: 4.63 du /gross acre ❖ Project consistent with the General Plan and Zoning r9 Proposed Subdivision Map 4 , y t, rr CUPERTINO Bill X Lot 1 \ car 1 --- y-X ir b Sq FL Lot 4 Lot 5 1 Ma } '� 8,890 Sq Ft. ii I ' 6,990 Sq Ft. `,:i �� _nC :�w ∎� ' }\ ix it • l i '', 4 4 1/0\ 'C: 7..•...-.: ., ---0. , \ Lot j/ , II 6a16 S Ft . % A JO 1 11 1 e _ -7! A l it i - x v. r "' Lot 3 ,1 iV 6,461 Sq Ft. `' -"�� -- , .' f l ,...:. .....,_ _ At v wi k nti .10 . - - -- , :. 2 Site Improvements 4 ,1.la r CUPERTINO Frontage Improvements along South Blaney Avenue and Clifford Drive include: 10' street dedication for curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscape strip. r The applicant will work with staff on the number, location, and species of the new street trees within the landscape strip. Public Comments CUPERTINO Lot Size Compatibility: r Proposed lot sizes consistent with the neighborhood. Neighborhood Compatibility : i- Condition #3 requires the residences resemble the conceptual rendering in architectural design /quality of material, and design review will be required. Privacy Impact Considerations: Future residences will be subject to the R1 Privacy protection landscape requirements. Site Drainage Design: i Storm water run -off is required to drawl away from neighboring properties Salvaging Historical Element : Condition #4 encourages recycling of the existing building materials Planning Commission Comments CUPERTINO Tree Preservation: Work with Public Works Department to preserve existing mature trees in the public improvement area Condition #5 has been added to minimize tree removal. Recycling of Materials: Recycle /donate materials from residence Y Condition #4 encourages recycling of the existing building materials. Design Review Process: Ensure residences complement the neighborhood, include individual design elements, and high quality materials Condition #3 requires the residences resemble the conceptual rendering in architectural design /quality of material, and design review will be required. Green Features: Discussed the importance of green features in the project Single- family residential projects are not currently required to include green features. The applicant is available to discuss where they intend to meet requirements in the Build It Green checklist. / Air Recommendation eSt.f Jf CUPERTINO The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the project per the model resolution with the following additional condition: ➢ The Public Works Department shall work with the applicant to preserve trees in the right -of —way dedication area to the maximum extent possible. 4 C 4/ TM- 2010 -01 CUPERTINO Application Summary: Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 41,800 square foot parcel into five (5) parcels ranging from 6,461 to 8,890 square feet Applicant: Donna Virago (Russell Marshall Trustee) Location: 790 South Blaney Avenue - APN 369 -11 -048 rl Site Description p yT. CUPERTINO Single Family Neighborhood ; Vacant, single - family `! '' "` residence with detached garage and shed on -site '"+~ " Unimproved frontage �+ r Access off S. Blaney Ave. • j �. c,_ 1 � // ri-v- -k _ Background CUPERTINO General Plan Designation: Low Density (1 -5 Dwelling Units /Gross Acre) Zoning Designation: R1 -6 (SFR— 6,000 square feet minimum) Total Gross Lot Area: 47,025 square feet (1.08 acre) Total Net Lot Area: 35,588 square feet (0.82 acre, after dedication) Proposed Lot Areas: 6,461 square feet to 8,890 square feet Existing Land Use: Single - family residential Proposed Land Use: Single- family residential Existing Density: 0.93 du /gross acre Proposed Density: 4.63 du /gross acre ❖ Project consistent with the General Plan and Zoning \ Proposed Subdivision Map CUPERTINO LW.. • , 27-r- 6. -� s Ft" � Lot 4 �X � ' , 8,890 Sq Ft. �i! 6,990 Sq Ft. i. � �\t. , 0 0 �! R. , , II, 1\111%L.,- I 1, 1 1 �., Lot 2 u 1 1�, ! 6,526 Sq Ft. <2 A 1i{ 9 - \ •� iii 1 ' - \ Lot 3 i � ` 1 \ \ `i AI \ —.. . 6,461 Sq FL ",� ` j � ;‘,. -1 1 1 ‘ - ' ' ta i LEGEND: At 6 - - - Li ■_,,- VE i ' " ' " - ' . ..,' li 1 2 p S ite Improvements z,os CUPERTINO Frontage Improvements along South Blaney Avenue and Clifford Drive include: ■ 10' street dedication for curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscape strip. The applicant will work with staff on the number, location, and species of the new street trees within the landscape strip. ,..\\ t.> Public Comments ts t.,, r CUPERTINO Lot Size Compatibility: • Proposed lot sizes consistent with the neighborhood. Neighborhood Compatibility : o Condition #3 requires the residences resemble the conceptual rendering in architectural design /quality of material, and design review will be required. Privacy Impact Considerations: • Future residences will be subject to the R1 Privacy protection landscape requirements. Site Drainage Design: "■- Storm water run -off is required to drain away from neighboring properties Salvaging Historical Elements : • Condition #4 encourages recycling of the existing building materials 3 Planning Commission 4y s,9 r Comments CUPERTINO Tree Preservation: Work with Public Works Department to preserve existing mature trees in the public improvement area ) Condition #5 has been added to minimize tree removal. Recycling of Materials: Recycle /donate materials from residence ➢ Condition #4 encourages recycling of the existing building materials. Design Review Process: Ensure residences complement the neighborhood, include individual design elements, and high quality materials Condition #3 requires the residences resemble the conceptual rendering in architectural design /quality of material, and design review will be required. Green Features: Discussed the importance of green features in the project r Single- family residential projects are not currently required to include green features. The applicant is available to discuss where they intend to meet requirements in the Build It Green checklist. r —V i Recommendation 4." 1 CUPERTINO The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the project per the model resolution with the following additional condition: ➢ The Public Works Department shall work with the applicant to preserve trees in the right -of —way dedication area to the maximum extent possible.