Loading...
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