Exhibit CC 01-04-2011 No. 10 Stone Pavers 965-967 Miller Avenue 1 1 ,, C._ I -y-if .i-1U
1,rN,)A.v Ex H 1 B1 .,
, 44, „ I vt
CUPER'TINO
Appeal of DIR- 2010 -30
Appeal of Director's decision to allow:
Replacement of an 11 foot by 17 foot turf area with
pervious stone pavers in the front setback in an
existing duplex at 965 -967 Miller Avenue for:
• Additional parking
• Improving vehicle maneuverability
X157 i a � :
f
949 % - 2 3 • rte1,1- , 'i . 1 'P i 3 I
I WO
c;� tlt � b r f -4 c ' 957 i 4 •
I 1 - �1�
- 1267 . I
I. .
I,
d
( r
97 J ' f y l y A r
ti . 1
O ; , { f i t
1
. . . .
. , . .
- . ... ,,t: a - , k• .. • ...,. -
• .. , .......:-: , '.., i „
n f . .. . i A r!!,-.., .. ....,.. .,
...,...,
..... ,,. ,. ' -0-• ',...
....,. . *. .
'7,,....,;,,,,, 4 % " - - . •••••• il - 4 17- ' 4, ; ° ',„" ' ' . '''f A. ''."., ' t• ' -
0 .1.!::". ■t '
, . • • , ' .
.f.'
,,,,
I „..„....
...._....„....
r ......• •,:.:•;, • 4, , .....
. ,
i ,•
,..._.,-.i_tii:,,., ,.... H •
"
. ...,,.
. _
441 , 1 4...:..,..._ ,,..,...\.:,';- .••'.,....:,
_... ••
.. s ..‘„
,..„..
...... .
• , ......
.... ... .
...•••.
„..
.0.r. ,,....
.,,
......,...,...:. .
•
Imempr :.. ,••• —_4146,..
. :: . - . .-..".•/.°- -.....•,...-.-. ,.. ,'-,,-.:,•-•-n...17*,"1:1-417::744?...-::j%?C.'trEltiz.,,,- . _;...:•;:::,,,. $
. . .. . .. • . ,. , •-,,,,.....:
K:=
., ,...
' • ' ..."' ' •
1 . , , ,......: ,-, , ',': : 7,' f ',-,.. ',' ,'' *.'. ',,.:.".: •'... "i'' -.- '.‘,',;`. ,_:',':•• .: . ... .
7 :, -', :F : , -.;#''''' ','. .-:',4: '',..--': 7 ' '' ;K:-. ' ' ' . t !-; ' ,! ' ' ' - t ,,, " 4 2 - `,..,tl'''''' t
- "- ....., -- :" . ':t..:•:.::- *" ...: - : . ;,t ,.,'.: ''',,,'1, ..••• ' ;.:.. ,t,,44.. '77,tott,''.1•4!,t..","'s'iVt7:
- ' "'"- '''''''..;''''''.."; 4**44;;- 4.1PC1
4 <"'' :-.24j .:•i_.-..-- .:.•'...,..,...„... .
. 1 •
......
•
?( ivrtiter 1 'I
Tree- ; I
• H,,,i , z,..a
,
--, 1 --i
'----- ' '
- - f
. I
to, ::,%,'
':... i.A) : I I
■ .1i
..... ---.— .
I
- I ' I - IC
.
3 1 i !.
..• , =
: ; „?„_„
.1....;',
j V1 ' ''
I 1-'1
,
......_ t, .t.
• .:t.rtul -rar oarr.t
1 \3. 1: ,.. E4 :1 ti;...5t 7A
,,e, j3 ,
1-• '
2 „
- ■ ,
7 „
-r
., f: ' ; .'" • _, , ,,
. .
.,..:_:Z . • -•"'"'"'""---" 1 „
, f ! 0 ' --4.(...— i
04 '/z "--
1 I
Cr. .,1 1 _. .'• .
s k a ,.•::.
4.7 ------ it •....‘'.-
. 7 til ; 1 I el'
j \ JE , , -, -- p-i- (..., e_
. . , . : , :-.., , ••• • -
2
Background
• Project approved on September 23, 2010
• Appealed on October 5, 2010
• Planning Commission (3 -2 Vote)
recommended that City Council uphold
appeal and deny the Director's approval on
December 14, 2010
Planning Commission Discussion Points
• Safety (to pedestrians and bicyclists)
• The size and orientation of the paved area
• Necessity of having a vehicle turnaround or
additional off street parking
• Precedent and desirability of allowing
parking /paving in the landscaped front setback of
this duplex
3
Dissenting Planning Commissioners
Comments
• Numerous other duplexes on Miller with front
setback parking
• Numerous examples of front setback landscaping
that obstructs motorist's views of the sidewalk
• No reported accidents of motorists backing into
pedestrians or bicyclists
• Risk could be avoided by redesigning and
reorienting the paved area
Appellant's Concerns
• Safety:
• Difficult to exit driveway into busy Miller Avenue,
especially for elderly tenants.
• With the proposed change and a car parked in the space,
impossible to see the sidewalk foot and bicycle traffic.
• Accidents will happen
• Response:
• Numerous duplexes on Miller Avenue with parking in the
front setback area
• No reports of vehicular/pedestrian/bicyclist accidents in this
area because of vehicle parking in the front setback
• Car parking in the proposed area is no different from the cars
parked on the numerous driveways in front of other existing
duplexes in the immediate neighborhood
4
Appellant's Concerns
• Proposed parking does not belong in setback area
without direct access and degrades the appearance
of the properties.
• Response:
• Larger than normal landscaped front setback. Parking stall only
22% 22 of the landscaped front and has direct access to the
driveway
• Parking is not prohibited in the front setback area
• Paved area will improve the maneuverability of vehicles on lot
• Pervious pavers will retain or site storm water runoff
Recommendation
Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council uphold the appeal.
If the Council finds merit in the project, staff recommends
the following additional conditions:
• The parking area shall be revised to incorporate the 41" pedestrian
path immediately north, increasing the parking pad depth from 17 feet
to approximately 20 feet
• The corner of the existing planting area immediate north of the
proposed parking pad shall be rounded -off to further enhance the
vehicle movement
• No parked cars shall extend over any portion of the sidewalk, except
as may be necessary to enter or leave the property
5
N..# .,
r ,..... /
may. t
S
CUPERTINO
Appeal of L)IR- 2010 -30
Appeal of Director's decision to allow:
Replacement of an 11 foot by 17 foot turf area with
pervious stone pavers in the front setback in an
existing duplex at 965 -967 Miller Avenue for:
• Additional parking
• Improving vehicle maneuverability
r 1 t ` 1 „ , 3 � '`
r I
t,
x 9 59 i tr< ', ,
t 957 t; ' O rd.
, t % .
- J i �, � S'
,::.?' 1967 1 I t 1
■ 965 ' t
1 t
975 4 !" :
,973 y t! is s
ti
„ :----n ._ ,' i ' :I r
1
. ,
,":, .-. - t■.
• - , - - ',f2t t ' -1 ? 7 . 7.• .. rf),'
r . . 1 . . . . ....
. . ,
.. .. -7 ..,, _if % ' '1 1 .#: . : • :a 1 g igi ' ' ' I
........:,., . . / a ,, -, ..
_, . .
.,. ,
,...„, , ..
. -.1,,,o., ; • oz:, . . 0:
C , , , mg ...--, • . •
I
'.-:. i . •*,?....
'.
'
• J I I . - .1
..._,,.: i . .. ,;,., .........E.,....,,..- . i I i.
!
- 4
! ..,,,,J- -- "'" ''". ' • ...- "4. 4 jrllP. "' . ;'''' -- ' . ''s s -.''''' • , , f 4 '
- .• . .
.,.‘ '..-.= • .. , ..,
''''
- ---..., - ,---- -, -,,, g , ffigiiir,
' •,*•
' • ., , ' - - - ••••,... :' i-,„:44,0•*,‘N!*,..Y11
- ,,,,■ ... ,•....-___......, .._,.... ..., ,....
• ,
0,414 . 1
. _ • . - . ..' ' :. • . ' ..-,.:-..., ,t,`'-'1,-.:$7?,k.10. --..•'-.',..ci,,t
„....„
....,_,-- - ... . .
• - - ' , • . : ' „ . 4 • 1. -4.. *. ,' - 4 -. ''. 1 A. ,„,:- -
.., ,
- .... ,. ! ,
•!- ,4,...' '''' ' ' ' .: ' • ' r .•- ''' 1.5...:.; *•,- ."`a .4. : , t • ': • ' 7 ,1;i0. 4 " • .P .
; 4.•[. 7 ' . ,:. ..:..r. • .. ,":• 1 •,, ,, - .;,,, . ow ..' t.* 1
*,. '- - - , :,..; ‘ ,. ,.. 7 , ..■ . ,''. 7 ,4 ,1,- ! • ;',.;,;.:7„:7.4,„..„. : ,., .;,,,,... .
. -„,....;-,,,, . ;.---.,, : '-!.' .... ',• - ' ./......--••• . . : • -'.• ''',74- "• •:-.„,;..-;'.:' .,.....:;;,
4-.,,,, ., ',.:,;."•• . '...... , ier . ' • .... 4fr, ',..; • ..... -- .7, ', , .-.. ,..,,, 4-'1"......4t4- `---,r.-.'"`-''
, ,,, . , ..t:-...-' ..,...:,.i,,..c4.- 1.zr-, ,' - .46,..,„...._. • ..,.'. ' , --; - ,,* -17. - ';fte.....•- L. . .. "'''''' ' :-.' ' ",',
-,,-- . ' '''%ct 1.‘,,,,-4 , !::: ,'''' ' '''' ).: - , ...ermatii..-- ...,- ..,-.. . ' ..'.' - - '''''' : .. ''.. . .s . - ' 7 ' ' • • •
4 , .P'.....ir,11 ..;.c•r• ••••-• . c''. • '.':',';'-';'. ,;t ...:.-_, .e.AK,,..., -* . .
':..•-'*-! - 1 1 1- '. '.- '. • • :• ' ''' ''''''... —
' I -.470
• , - ,
Tree • i
1...., ,......-•-i
• -77-i
— f. • 1 ,
:.••;:.,),,..r.:, s
J../ -
fi ,
1
• !
(
0.)-1'.!4...i4a.I 2 . .. .
- 1 :
_. „ ..,..
/7 i • i
, !
, •.-- ' .''..7' 1 - 1 • 1 :
, .. — c ...
• . ,. I
-p-, , ; ...
• . - ,, 1
1 r t sf - --
i
. ., ..k
- r- •
•, .... 111 Pr°4(:: 1:;:1:11.
1 ,
` ' (4-, ' D'.•;•11! ow i 1
t '
-r " 1,
• . : ,
.., ,., .
I
0•2 ' ' ' -' , I
<•-., ,..„ ',,,,
qsci
5 tv);: it) — • •
1 , ,,,1 4, . i .,,,,-• /..., /4:4 1,..). e_
2
1
Background
• Project approved on September 23, 2010
• Appealed on October 5, 2010
• Planning Commission (3 -2 Vote)
recommended that City Council uphold
appeal and deny the Director's approval on
December 14, 2010
Planning Commission Discussion Points
• Safety (to pedestrians and bicyclists)
• The size and orientation of the paved area
• Necessity of having a vehicle turnaround or
additional off street parking
• Precedent and desirability of allowing
parking /paving in the landscaped front setback of
this duplex
3
Dissenting Planning Commissioners
Comments
• Numerous other duplexes on Miller with front
setback parking
• Numerous examples of front setback landscaping
that obstructs motorist's views of the sidewalk
• No reported accidents of motorists backing into
pedestrians or bicyclists
• Risk could be avoided by redesigning and
reorienting the paved area
Appellant's Concerns
• Safety:
• Difficult to exit driveway into busy Miller Avenue,
especially for elderly tenants.
• With the proposed change and a car parked in the space,
impossible to see the sidewalk foot and bicycle traffic.
• Accidents will happen
• Response:
• Numerous duplexes on Miller Avenue with parking in the
front setback area
• No reports of vehicular/pedestrian/bicyclist accidents in this
area because of vehicle parking in the front setback
• Car parking in the proposed area is no different from the cars
parked on the numerous driveways in front of other existing
duplexes in the immediate neighborhood
4
Appellant's Concerns
• Proposed parking does not belong in setback area
without direct access and degrades the appearance
of the properties.
• Response:
• Larger than normal landscaped front setback. Parking stall only
22% 22 of the landscaped front and has direct access to the
driveway
• Parking is not prohibited in the front setback area
• Paved area will improve the maneuverability of vehicles on lot
• Pervious pavers will retain onsite storm water runoff
Recommendation
Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council uphold the appeal.
If the Council finds merit in the project, staff recommends
the following additional conditions:
• The parking area shall be revised to incorporate the 41" pedestrian
path immediately north, increasing the parking pad depth from 17 feet
to approximately 20 feet
• The corner of the existing planting area immediate north of the
proposed parking pad shall be rounded -off to further enhance the
vehicle movement
• No parked cars shall extend over any portion of the sidewalk, except
as may be necessary to enter or leave the property
5