The URL can be used to link to this page

11. Appeal 11535 Murano Ct. Luo residence~~ :_.:~:. CITY OF CUPEI~TINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~1 Agenda Date: August 19, 2008 Application: DIR-2008-13 Applicant: jay Swartz Owner: Perry Luo Location: 11535 Murano Court APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider an appeal of the Design Review Committee denial of a Director's Minor Modification to add a 200 square foot to the south side of an existing single-family residence in a Planned Development. RECOMMENDATION The Council has the options to either: a) Uphold the Design Review Committee's decision; or b) Uphold the appeal; or c) Uphold the appeal with modifications. BACKGROUND On July 7, 2003, the City Council approved Use Permit (U-2003-02) to construct 55 single-family residences on a 4.03-acre parcel. Comments received during neighborhood outreach meetilgs prompted site development changes by the developer. One of those changes included increasing the setbacks to 20'-0"and providing privacy protection landscaping for three of the homes abutting the existing residential properties along the southern border. The intent was focused on minimizing visual and privacy impacts from the proposed second floor. Consequently, these three homes have larger useable rear yard area compared to the rest of the homes in the development. The owner of 11535 Murano Ct. (one of the three homes with 20'-0" rear yard) is proposing the construction of a 200 square foot single story attached sunroom ~aTithin their useable rear yard area. The suilroom will match the existilg residence i1 material and color and the existing privacy protection landscaping and 8'-0" privacy fence 11-1 File INTO: DIR-2008-13 August 19, 2008 Page 2 ~~=ould remain. T11e A~urano Homeowners Association has reviewed and approved the project. Typically the Director has the discretion to approval such request, ho`vever it `vas forwarded to the Desib 1 Review Committee due to expressed concerns recei~=ed from the adjacent neighbor. On July 17, 2008, the Desib Review Committee denied the proposed project ~~%ith a 2-0 vote. The Desib Reviet~= Coirunittee's decision is being challenged by ot%-ner (Perry Luo). Although the Committee could not identify any prit=acy impacts created by the sunroom, the Committee felt that the project `vas not consistent ~ti=ith the original intent of the Use Permit (U-2003-02). PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located on-the west side of Murano Court along the southern boundary of the development. A ttvo-story residence currently exists on the parcel. Single-family residential parcels surround the subject site. 11 -2 File No: DIR-2008-13 August 19, ?008 Page 3 DISCUSSION: A~pellrzzzt The applicant is appealuZg the Desib z Re~~ie~v Committee's decision Lased on the following reason: The original setbacks were established by the developer to milinize visual and privacy impacts from the proposed second floor. Because the proposed sunroom is single-story and does not create ne~v visual or privacy impacts, the previous agreement should be reevaluated based on the type, location, and size of the addition. Conzzzzuzzity Cozzzznezzts The neighbor immediately abutting the subject property to the south contacted staff with concerns that the sunroom would create privacy, noise and odor inpacts. 111 addition, the neighbor requested that the existing 20'-0" setback be retained, due to the original agreement by the developer to setback the residence 20'-0" to minimize privacy concerns at that time. 11 -3 File No: DIR-2008-13 Page 4 August 19, 2008 Staff Staff previously supported the proposed sunroom at the Design Revie~v Committee for the following reasons: 1. Significant privacy impacts are not evident because the proposed sunroom is single story, starting at 8'-4" high slop roof, not exceeding 11'-0" at the point of attachment to the residence, privacy landscaping would be preserved, and the adjoining privacy fence is 8'-0" high. The height of the sunroom windows do not offer views into the adjoining property, and the sunroom would be used as gathering space for the homeowners, which would not create any additional noise or odors other then those typical of residential activities. 2. The original use permit for the development did not have any provisions that prohibit the addition of a sunroom. In addition, the applicant has obtained approval from the Home Owners Association. 3. The design of the sunroom will be consistent with the main residence in material(s) and color. Enclosures Exhibit A: Appeal Form Exhibit B: DIR-2008-13 Design Review Committee Staff Report, July 17, 2008 Exhibit C: Design Review Committee Minutes, July 17, 2008 Exhibit D: Arborist Report, June 11, 2008 Exhibit E: Letter from Murano Homeowners Association, November 6, 2007 Exhibit F: City Council Minutes, July 7, 2003 Exhibit G: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6188 Exhibit H: Planning Commission Minutes, May 27, 2003 Exhibit I: Plan Set Prepare by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner ~~ Steve Piasecl~i Director, Community Development Approved by: ~~ David W. Knapp City Manager 11 -4 Exhibit A CUPERTINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 APPEAL 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address z~~-~3 ~~~ ~ ~~~-~d~ JUL ~ 4 2~Q8 CUPERTlN~ CITY CLERK Phone Number ~d ~ ( l G 7g~ Email ,I oG~ D _~iio~/r-uF/ _ (Ova.. 4. PT'ease the one: vAppeal a decision of Director of Community Development Appeal a decision of Director of Public Works Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: 6. Basis of appeal: 9~{^oj.~c~ CMGs ~rt'~ ~OGs2Q~ p,~ -~ ~(~~ `f~i~ ~~~ s'~U~l~' s~c~ {~ ~-~5 4'/? o r~ C G~/~ ~'P~l ~,,c.f ;~ ,'s ~vq,?~ ~c~y~-~t+~ ~ ~er~o~(~'~~11 fev~"eW QIY~ A jn,Pi-~ 5G ~ G /Q.e~ LLS- ~~ SJ2 ~ ~ r ~Ll~ ~ '~ w~ c~s~55P~ G ~ ~ ~ ~, Signature(s) ~?ii~~~. G~5 G'l reQ~ .' ~ f - /~E~ G~ Please complete form, inc ude appeal fee of $156.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 07-056 ~ S~Sv~C- ($150.00 for massage application appeals), and return to the attention of the City Clerk, ~,/~ ~/ „ ~. 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. ''~f~~- v?~, _~~~~ .5J ys/ z3 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CUPERTINO July 30, 2008 CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 Re: Consider an appeal of a Design Review Committee denial of a Director's Minor Modification to add a 200-square foot sunroom to the south side of an existing single-family residence in a Planned Development area, Application No. DIR-2008-13, Jay Swartz (Luo residence), 11535 Murano Ct. APN 366-58-015. The above stated item is scheduled for the August 19 City Council meeting. Council meets at 6:45 p.m., Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Enclosed is a copy of the appeal. If you have any questions regarding the process, please feel free to call our office at 777-3223. If you wish to challenge the City Council's action in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino City Hall at, or prior to, the public hearing. Sincerely, C~ ~ ~~ Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Community Development Perry Luo 11535 Murano Cir. Cupertino, CA 95014 American Brands Construction 1029 Blossom Hill Rd. San Jose, CA 95123 11-6 EXHIBIT B To: Design Review Committee Date: July 17, 2008 From: Leslie Gross, Assistant Plaruler SuUject: Application: DIR-2008-Z3 . LOCat1012: 11535 Murano Court PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ' Director's Mu1or Modification to a Use Permit (U-2003-02) to construct a sunroom 10'- 0" from the rear property lute. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Design Reviejv Committee: 1. Approve the Director's Minor Modification to allow the construction of a sunroom 10'-0" from the rear property lure. BACKGROUND: On July 7, 2003, the City Council approved a use permit {U-2003-OZ) to construct 55 single-family residences on a 4.03-acre parcel. Comments received during neighborhood outreach meetings prompted site development changes by the developer. One of those changes included increasing the setbacks to 20'-0"and providing privacy protection landscaping for three of the homes abutting the existing residential properties along the southern border. The intent was focused on minim;~ing visual and privacy impacts from the proposed second floor. Consequently, these three homes have larger useable rear yard area compared to the rest of the homes u1 the development. ran o~~ ~~~ Sonfhern bonndars of development 11-7 DIR-2008-13 ~ July 17, 2008 Pave 2 The o«Tner of 11535 Murano Ct. (one of the three homes KTith 20'-0" rear yard) is proposing the construction of a 200 square foot single story attached sunroom within their useable rear yard. The sunroom will match the existing residence it material and color and the existing privacy protection landscapilg and 8'-0" privacy fence ~~Tould remail. The Murano Homeowners Association has reviezaTed and approved the project. Typically the Director has the discretion to approval such request, ho~a~ever it is being forja~arded to the Design Review Committee due to expressed concerns received from the adjacent neighbor. DISCUSSION: An existing Oak tree, located in the rear yard area along the southern boundary, vas preserved as part of the original development because of the species type, and to preserve the existing screening. An arborist report vas prepared by the City Arborist, stating that the preferred minimum setback be 6'-5" from the trunk to achieve a reasonable assurance of the tree's survival. The specific mitigation measures prescribed by the City Arborist have been incorporated as conditions of the project. Com~~zunity Comnzerits The neighbor immediately abutting the subject property to the south contacted staff ttiTith concerns that the sunroom would create privacy, noise and odor impacts. In addition, the neighbor requested that the exi-sting 20'-0" setback be retained, due to the original agreement by the developer to setback the residence 20'-0" to m;n;m;~e privacy concerns at that time. 11-8 DIIZ-2008-13 July 17, 2008 page 3 Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee allow the construction of the proposed sunroom 10'-0" from the rear property line for the following reasons: 1. Significant privacy inpacts are not evident because the proposed sunroom is single story, starting at 8'-~" high slop roof, not exceeding 11'-0" at the point of attachment to the residence, privacy landscaping ~~Tould be preserved, and the adjoining privacy fence is 8'-0" high. The height of the sunroom windows do not offer views alto the adjoining property, and the sunroom ~~Tould be used as gathering space for the homeowners, ~wlnich would not create any additional noise or odors other then those typical of residential activities. 2. The original use permit for the development did not have any provisions that prohibit the addition of a sunroom. In addition, the applicant has obtained approval from the Home Owners Association. 3. Tlne design of the sunroom will be consistent with the maul residence in material(s) and color. Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director, Community Developme Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner Enclosures: Model Resolution Arborist Report, June 11, 2008 Letter fiom Murano Homeo~a~ners Association, November 6, 2007 City Council Minutes, July 7, 2003 Plannung Commission Resolution No. 6188 Plaruning Commission Minutes, May 27, 2003 Plan Set 11 -9 DIR-2008-13 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SUNROOM TEN FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DIR-2008-13 Applicant: Jay StnTartz Location: 11535 Murano Court SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Director's Minor Modification, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Design Review Committee 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. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements ii the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience: 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan and zoning ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts; exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application no. DIR-2008-13, is hereby approved; and That the subconclusions upon ~~hich the tuldings and conditions specified ii this Resolution are based and contained ii the public hearing record concerning Application DIR-2008-13 as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting.of July 17, 2008 are ilcorporated by reference herein. 11 - 10 Resolution No. Page 2 DIIZ-2008-13 July 17, ?008 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set submitted by American Brands Construction consisting of 4 pages attached to the staff report, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. EXTERIOR MATERIALS The exterior siding material, and roofing of the sunroom shall match the existing residence in color, material, texture, dimensions and style. Final exterior materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 3. PRIVACY PROTECTION LANDSCAPING The existing privacy protection landscaping shall be preserved.. In the event that these plantings die, the owner shall replace each planting with similar species sized to match the replaced planting at the time of death, subject to approval of the City of Cupertino. 4. OAK TREE PRESERVATION The Oak tree located along the southeast corner of the property shall be preserved, and the following conditions shall be applied during construction, and a) The downspout for the sunroom should be placed on the opposite side of its proposed location (i.e. moved from the southeast corner to the southwest corner). Another option is to ensure tiTater from the downspout is discharged beyond the tree's canopy. b) Any existing, unused lines within 15 feet from the tree's trunk shall be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root damage). c) Any trenching, compaction, soil cuts or fill shall not extend beyond 12 inches from the proposed foundation. Vertical excavation for the footing should not exceed 12 inches below grade. d) Small tractors or heavy equipment shall not operate beneath the tree's canopy. As such, all work shall be manually performed (foot-traffic only). e) Beginning now, and continuing every two weeks thru October of this year (assuming construction begins in the next month or two), water should be supplied to the unpaved areas of the tree's root zone within 15 feet from the trunk (north side of the property fence). In doing so, I recommend applying approximately 100 gallons of water via adeep-root feeder that is corulected to a hose and probed 1.5 to 2 feet below the soil surface. The valve to the probe should be opened to allow water to flow until it begins to pour out of the top of the hole, then a ne~v hole probed three feet away and the process repeated. There is no need to supply water to the section of root zone ~n~lnere the foundation is proposed, or v~Titlnin one-foot of the trunk. ~~ _ ~~ Resolution INTO. DIlZ-2008-13 July 17, 2008 Page 3 All excavation or the entire oundation shal e manu y ug using s Zovels. Roots encountered during the process with diameters one-inch and greater shall be cleanly severed (such as by Toppers or a handsaw) against the soil cut, which shall not exceed beyond the proposed foundation by more than 12 inches. For roots with diameters two uzches and greater, I recommend a clear plastic sandwich bag is sealed around the cut end and tightly secured with a rubber band immediately after being cut. g) Spoils created during excavation shall not be spread within 15 feet of the trunk. Spoils can be temporarily placed ~vitlun this distance, but should be moved prior to project completion. h) Materials should not be piled within 5 to 10 feet of the tree's trunk. i) The existing irrigation system should be assessed to ensure that water is not being applied within 10 feet of the tree's trunk. Also, any plant material within this distance and requires regular watering should be substituted with drought-tolerant plant material. A source for identifying suitable drought- tolerant plant material is w~vw.californiaoaks.org/ ExtAssets / CompatiUlePlantsUnder&AroundOaks.~ j) The removal of existing vegetation shall be carefully performed, by hand, u1 a manner does not excavate soil or roots during the process. k) The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drauZage beneath canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the tree's canopy; where used on site, it should be labeled for safe use near trees. 5. 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 ~vithul this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. . 11 - 12 Resolution No. DIR-2008-13 July 17, ?008 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17~ day of July ?008, at a Regular Meeting of the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ /s/ Steve Piasecki, Director Lisa Giefer, Chair Community Development Department Design Review Committee 11-13 Design Review Committee July 17, 2008 Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Exhibit C APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF~THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON July 17, 2008 ROLL CALL Committee Members present: Lisa Giefer, Chairperson Jessica Rose, Commissioner Committee Members absent: Staff present: Staff absent: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: none Elizabeth Pettis Leslie Gross Gary Chao None July 3, 2008 Minutes of the July 3, 2008 Design Review Committee meeting were approved WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 2. ASA-2008-04, Brian Replinger, Homestead ~ Wolfe Rd (Villa Serra Apts) Request postponement to the August 7, 2008 meeting was approved ORAL COMMUNICATION: A resident, Jennifer Griffin, stated her concern regarding the upcoming proposed changes to the Rl Ordinance. She and her neighbors feel that the look of their neighborhood is in danger if changes are made to this Ordinance. CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application No~ ASA-2008-03 Applicant: e Ducote Location: 20 Homestead Rd (Villa Serra Apts) Architectural and Site approval o landscape tree improvement plans and final details of the Green Building measures actor g to the conditions of approval as directed by the City Council at their meeting of July 3, 7 Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. ~ ~ _ ~a 2 Design Review Committee -r July 17, 2008 This application is being heard by the Committee to finalize the landscaping and Green Buil aspects of their approved development project as conditioned by the City Council. Staff me ber Pettis went over the applicants proposed tree plantings, streetscape plan and "green b g" solutions. Staff supports the application and approves of the tree options and the "green 'ding' measures the applicant has suggested. Commissioner Rose asked for clarification on e solar requirement. It was explained that the Planning Commission added the condition to the evelopment approval to install a system that had a 10-year cost payback. Chairperson Giefe asked about planting native specie trees. The applicant stated that he is willing to plant wha ver plant type will work best for the Planning, Public Works and their site. Commissioner Ros asked about the alternatives to a solar system. The applicant explained that their consultant had ne a study and determined that a photovoltaic system would not be fiscally reasonable (with a co buy back of 18 years), so they are proposing to install a recycled metal roof, will be using rec led and low emission paints, high efficiency water heaters, Energy Star appliances and low ow plumbing fixtures. Chairperson Giefer asked about the study methodology. The applicant id he was not familiar with all the other system options and the particulars of the study. He wo d be willing to get more information, but hat the study showed the company would not qu or the Federal tax credits nor would leasing their meters and having the leasing company pa the cost savings back due to the specific meter types they were required to have by PG & E. company is in favor of solar systems and has installed them at some of their other properties. would like to be able to install a system at Villa Serra if feasible. Chairperson Giefer offered su estions for tree planting. Since they are being asked to plant native trees in the park area, she w d like to see more native specie trees planted around the perimeter to provide continuity. Co 'ssioner Rose was disappointed by the lack of a solar system. She would like the applicant to btain additional information in order to find a way that will make the installation of such a s tem work for the project. She motioned to approve the project with Staff's recommendations an e additional conditions to plant a Madrone tree instead of a Magnolia, a California Buckeye inste d of a London Plane and to have a review of the solar options back to the Committee at the first eeting of October for final approval on that aspect of the project (in time to incorporate a new otovoltaic system into the building plans if deemed feasible). MOTION: Ce~nmissioner Rose moved to approve ASA-2008-03 with the above mentioned SECOND: Chairpe on Giefer ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none VOTE: 2-0 3. Application No.(s): EXC-200613 Applicant: Breanna ~ Location: 21124 Green] Residential Design Exception for a portion o 910 square foot single story addition to encroach into the required front yard setback Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. 11-15 3 Design Review Committee July 17, 2008 Staff membe Pettis explained that the applicant is requesting the exception due to the triangular sha of the lot. A portion of the proposed addition would encroach into the front yard setback. Th setback is currently 13 feet. The addition would reduce a portion of the setback to 11 feet. e overall FAR of the site would be 36%, which is well under the allowed 45% FAR. Staff suppo the application. Commissioner Rose asked for clarification on what the proposed setbacks woul be for the addition. Staff member Pettis stated that is would be 11-12 feet from the property line. The applicant clarified that the property line is setback from the curb already by 13 feet. He ther added that all of the neighboring homes are much larger than what he is proposing. He ought several pictures to demonstrate this visually for the Committee members. He also ha tatements from four of his neighbors in support of the project. Chairperson Giefer asked if sidewalk dedication would be required with this new construction. Staff member Pettis sai she hadn't checked with Public Works on that requirement. Staff member Chao said that Public Works department will require a sidewalk and a new driveway entrance. It does not nee to be added to the Design Review Committee resolution, as this is a public works requirement, ey will ensure that this condition is met or mitigated. Commissioner Rose agreed that the lot w a challenging one and could understand why that applicant needed more floor space. MOTION: Commissioner Rose moved to approve SECOND: Chairperson Giefer ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none VOTE: 2-0 4. Application No.(s): DIR-2008-13 Applicant: Jay Swartz (Luo residence) Location: 11535 Murano Court Director's referral to the Design Review Committee for approval of a 200 square foot sunroom addition to the south side of an existing single family residence Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. Staff member Gross explained that the applicant is proposing to enclose a 200' sunroom. The sunroom will be 10' from the rear property line. In 2003, the City Council approved a development application for 55 homes to be built. During the development application process, the developer modified three lots' setbacks (increased) to 20' feet to accommodate privacy concerns from the existing surrounding neighbors. The enclosure will be constructed to be of the same building materials as the house. The homeowners association has reviewed the application. The Director has referred the application to the Committee due to the volume of concerns expressed about the project by the neighbors. There is a large Oak tree on the site, which will be preserved. Neighbors are concerned about the 10' setback exception. Staff supports the application since there is sufficient privacy screening in place as well as tall fencing. Commissioner Rose asked for clarification about how sunrooms are classified and confirmed that the three lots had 20' setbacks as part of the original development approval. Chairperson Giefer wanted to know if there had been any other Director approvals in Planned Development areas. Staff member Gross stated that sunroom addition were classified just like any other addition and that the original approval called for these three lots to have 20' setbacks to mitigate privacy concerns for the existing neighbors. Other sunrooms have been approved ~ Planned Developments, however, the difference is that in the other areas additions can be done 4 Design Review Committee July 17, 2008 at any of the lots. They do not have the 20' setback constraint. The sunroom installation company, Four Seasons Sunrooms, explained that the sunroom addition will have a solid roof, tinted windows and offer soundproofing. The highest wall height is 8'4", so neighbors will not be able to see into the sunroom since the property line fence is 8' high. Three neighbors spoke against the addition cla;,»;ng negative privacy impacts, the houses are akeady too close together and that if the development was approved with 20' setbacks, then the City has an obligation to uphold the 20' requirement. Another resident shared this sentiment. The property owner, Mr. Luo, addressed the comments made by his neighbors. He felt that privacy was not an issue with the addition. He has a tall fence and his living area is already smaller than other homes on Murano Court. Chairperson Giefer said she would not support approval of the application. The intent of the 20' setback should be honored to protect the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. The development agreement called for 20' setbacks and the City should uphold that requirement. Commissioner Rose agreed with Chairperson Giefer. She felt that this addition would not have an impact on neighboring privacy, but that the original development was approved with 20' setbacks on these lots. For this reason, she also did not support approval of the application. MOTION: Commissioner Rose moved to deny DIR-2008-13 SECOND: Chairperson Giefer ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none VOTE: 2-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Respectfully submitted: /s/Beth Ebben Beth Ebben Administrative Clerk g.planning/DRC Committee/Minutes071308 11 - 17 ARBOR RESOURCES _ _ _. professional consulting arborists and tree care Exhibit D A REVIE~'V OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION NEAR ONE COAST LIVE OAK AT 11535 l~7LTRANO CIRCLE CUPERTII~TO, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Prepared by: David L. Babby ASCA Registered Co~zsultingArborist 1399 Board-Certified Master Arborist ~T~E-4001B June 11, 2008 p. o. box 25295, san mateo, California 94402 ~ email: arborresources@comcast.net phone: 650.654.335 I ~ fax: 650.240.0777 licensed contractor 736763 11 -18 Dm~idL. Babbp, Registered ConsultingArborist June 11, ?008 1.0 INTRODUCTION I have been retained by the City of Cupertino Community Development Department to revie~~T the tree-related impacts associated with a proposal to construct a sunroom addition to the rear of the existing home at 11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino. I visited the site on June 10, 2008, and this report presents my observations and recommendations. 2.0 OBSERVATIONS The tree in question is situated in the backyard along the southern property boundary, and is beneath high-voltage electrical wires. It is approximately 25 feet all, and has trunk has a diameter of 25.5 inches. Below shows a map (from the Site Platz by American Brands Construction] of the tree's location, as well as a photograph. Canopy dimension c "° Z „~ .. r..n. an.,.,~~~ ( ' w . :I ~ kr D.1 / :~ ~~Y/~///fff/// I Nm , ` ~ I \`. ,.r l~ ._ ~r.~- lu: a,w t.a. i -~ ¢c acw~ «~ I IW ~~.+• ~.r _~ ,L, ~_ 11535 Afurano Circle, Cupertino Page 1 of 4 Ci>)~ of Cupertino Comnzuni.tj~ Derelopnaerrt DeparSnent ~ ~ _ ~ 9 Dm~id L. Babbv, Registered Consulting.4rborist Juaze I1, ?008 The canopy is extremely asymmetrical and misshapen due having been severely pruned at its top and sides; I measured the canopy to extend 15 feet towards the north (towards the existing home), 8 feet south, 20 feet east, and 7 feet south (see map on the previous page for a delineation of the canopy spread). A tree of this size would typically have a canopy spread of 4~ plus feet across. The severity of the pruning is partly due to overhead clearance from high-voltage wires, and partly due to a substantial loss of canopy predominantly from its north, south and west sides. Due to the extent of pruning, the ~~~ork does not conform to Cupertino's A2unicipal Code or professional industry standards set forth by ANSI A300-2001 (Pruning). The tree's foliage appears viable, although t~That the majority of what has grown seems to be sprouts that are weakly attached and prone to breaking if they become too large. 3.0 REVIE~'V OF POTENTIAL Ih~ACTS The addition is proposed 6.5 feet from the tree's trunk within a substantial portion of its north~~Test root zone. At this distance, large roots would be encountered during excavation for the foundation. Preferably, the minimum setback should be 10.5 plus feet from the trunk. In my opinion the 6.5-foot distance for this particular situation «~ould not seem to impose significant impacts when considering the tree's extremely poor structural form, as well as only one quadrant of the root area will be impacted. However, it is essential that the mitigation measures presented in the next section are carefully follo~s~ed to achieve a reasonable assurance of the tree's survival. 1153 A~furarao Circle, Cupertino Page 2 of 4 Ci.t~~ of Cupertino Community Derelopment Department 11 - 20 Dm~id L. Babb~~, Registered Coruultnrg,trborist June ll, ?008 4.0 RECOMI~~NDATIONS Recommendations presented within this section are based on the plans reviewed, and serve as guidelines for mitigating impacts to the oak. They should be carefully followed and incorporated into the project plans. Please note that they are subject to revision upon reviewing any additional or revised plans. 1. The downspout for the sunroom should be placed on the opposite side of its proposed location {i.e. moved from the southeast corner to the southwest corner). Another option is to ensure water from the downspout is discharged beyond the tree's canopy. 2. Any existing, unused lines within 15 feet from the tree's trunk shall be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root damage). 3.. Any trenching, compaction, soil cuts or fill shall not extend beyond 12 inches from the proposed foundation. Vertical excavation for the footing should not exceed 12 inches below grade. 4. Small tractors or hea~ry equipment shall not operate beneath the tree's canopy. As such, all work shall be manually performed (foot-traffic only). 5. Beginning now, and continuing every t<vo weeks thru October of this year (assunung construction begins in the next mouth or t<vo), v~Tater should be supplied to the unpaved areas of the tree's root zone within 15 feet from the trunk (north side of the property fence). In doing so, I recommend applying approximately 100 gallons of water via a deep-root feeder that is connected to a hose and probed 1.5 to 2 feet below the soil surface. The valve to the probe should be opened to allow «~ater to flow until it begins to pour out of the top of the hole, then a new hole probed three feet away and the process repeated. There is no need to supply water to the section of root zone where the foundation is proposed, or within one-foot of the trunk. 11535 Alurarso Circle, Cupertino Page 3 of 9 Ci~~ of Cupertino Communifj~ Development Deparhnent ~ ~ - 21 Da~~idL. Babby, Registered CoruultiragArborist June 11, 2008 6. All excavation for the entire foundation shall be manually dug using shovels. Roots encountered during the process with diameters one-inch and greater shall be cleanly severed (such as by loppers or a handsaw) against the soil cut, which shall not exceed beyond the proposed foundation by more than 12 inches. For roots with diameters t<vo inches and greater, I recommend a clear plastic sandwich bag is sealed around the cut end and tightly secured with a rubber band immediately after being cut. 7. Spoils created during excavation shall not be spread within 1 ~ feet of the trunk. Spoils can be temporarily placed within this distance, but should be moved prior to project completion. 8. Materials should not be piled within S to 10 feet of the tree's trunk. 9. The existing imgation system should be assessed to ensure that water is not being applied «~ithin 10 feet of the tree's trunk. Also; any plant material within this distance and requires regular «~atering should be substituted with drought-tolerant plant material. A source for identifying suitable drought-tolerant plant material is w«zu. californiaoaks. org/ExtAssets/CompatiblePlantsUnder&AroundOaks.pdf. 10. The removal of existing vegetation shall be carefully performed, by hand, in a manner does not excavate soil or roots during the process. 11. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the tree's canopy; where used on site, it should be labeled for safe use near fees. Prepared By: ~~~~"'` Date: June 11.2008 David L. Babby Registered Cotuultitag Arborist X399 Bow•d-Certified Alaster~rborist rrTf~i'-4001B 11 X35 Alur•ano Circle, Cupertino Page ~ of 4 Cit}~ of Cupertino Conzrnuni.~~ Del~elopm.erzt Depar~rrzerzt 11 - 22 M IJ R A N O ExHiB~T E HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 190, Pleasanton, CA 94566 925-426-1508; fax 925-426-1494 November 6, 2007 Mr. Perry Luo 11535 Murano Circle Cupertino, California 95104 Dear Mr. Luo, Your recent request for architectural approval to install a sun room has been granted by the Board of Directors, subject to the following conditions: 1. All necessary permits from public agencies must be applied far and granted. All City setback requirements must be met. 2. Drainage as originally installed by the developer is not to be changed or altered, and must drain to the street as originally designed. 3. Construction is in accordance with the plans submitted for rear yard improvements. 4. Improvements are maintained so as not to be unsightly or invasive to your neighbors. 5. Structure must be in compliance with the requirements of the CC&R's and the City of Cupertino. 6. Structure must be painted to match home. Thank you for submitting your request for architectural approval. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, 1 ~~-\~=~ ;- j Jay ~e W Its Assoc) n Manager cc: Board of Directors LF 11 - 23 Z:1MS OfficelMS WordlMuranolArchitecturallPA 11535 Murano rear yard improvements rev2.doc Exhibit F July 7, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 3 13. Adopt a resolution authorizing execution of an improvement agreement for Chiping Yang and Bee Choo Yang, 10660 Santa Lucia Raad, APN 342-I6-034, Resolution No. 03-13ja:' 14. Ac pt city projects performed under cotFtract. (No documentation in packet): a} Tomas Aquino-Saratoga Creek Trail-Reach ~ Improvement P jest, Project No. 002-9116 {GradeTech, Ina) b) Wolfe aad/I-2S0 Interchange Improvements, Project o. 9525 (Republic Electric) c) Civic Center d Library Project, Phase I, demolitio ,salvage, recycling and site preparation, Proj t 2002-9222 (Fenno Corporatio 15. Accept municipal improve nts (grading, curb and fitter) for YR Development, 10675 Santa Lucia Road, APN 347-1 -05~. (No docume lion in packet). 16. Adopt a resolution declaring the tention to der the vacation of a 10 ft. public service easement, 11477 Lindy Place, APN 56-24- 4, Resolution No. 03-137. 17. Adept a resolution approving a grant f easement (10 ft. public service easement) for 11477 Lindy Place, APN 356-24-00 , Re lotion No. 03-135. ITEMS REMOVED FROM TI.1rE C SENT C ENDAR (above) 3. Approve the minutes from e June 16 City Counc'1 meeting. The City Clerk noted t Richard Lowenthal had bee absent at the June 16 meeting, and she would correct o pages that showed him as pres~t. City Manager David Knapp suggested altern 've wording for page 8, second to last p agraph, last sentence, to read "The City m alter said that staff will work vvith the R~tary Club and the library fundraising ganization to find a solution as to how the fun s will be recorded that is satisfacto to the Cupertino Library Committee and to the Rotary Flub." Love= thaUJames moved and seconded to approve the minutes as amended. Vote: Ayes: C ang, James, Kwak, Lowenthal, Sandoval: Noes: None. Absent: None. PUBLIC I~EAFtING5 18. Consider application(s): Z-2003-01; TM-2003-01; U-2003-02; and EA-2003-03 for Saron Gazdens, LLC located at 7310 Rainbow Drive, A-E, APN(s): 366-19-075; 366-19-07b; and 366-19-045. (This item was continued from 6/16/03): a) Grant a negative declaration b) Approve a tentative map to subdivide a 4.03-acre parcel into 55 residential parcels and one common parcel 11 - 24 July 7, 2003 Cupertino Ciry Council Page 4 c} Approve the rezoning of a 4.03-acre parcel from P (R.3) to P (Res) d) Approve a use permit to construct 55 single-family residences and site improvements an a 4.03-acre parcel e) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1920: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino rezoning three parcels totaling 3.92 gross acres parcel from P tR3) or Planned Development with multi-family residential uses and Rl ar Single Family Residential to R (Res) ar Pla-uied Development with residential uses Assistant Planner Gary Chou made the presentation, and said this application was a use permit to demolish 39 existing apartment units in 9 buildings and l single-family residence, and to canstnact a residential development consisting of SS single-family homes. He said that the key issues discussed at Planning Commission meetings included belo~~v-market-rate (B11~IR) units, relocation assistance, and impacts on students. Chou reviewed these issues in greater detail, and said that 3 of the 1 S net additional units must be BMR units, ~vhieh is a 54% increase in the number of BMR units required. Chou said that the Relocation Assistance Program that was recommended by the Housing Commission was approved by the Saron Gardens Residents Association and would be for a lump sum payment in the amount of three times the monthly rent. He explained that students attending ltegnart Elementary and Monta Vista High School seniors would be allowed to finish out the academic year if they reside at Saran Gardens after December 2003. Jon Moss, representing Prometheus, said that they are not currently the property owners but are under contract to purchase the property. He explained the series of meetings that were held with the neighborhood, the renters, and city staff, and discussed the changes that were made to the project as a result of this input, which included reducing same building heights, controlling noise and dust, implementing mitigation measures to protect privacy, and increasing some setbacks. He said that the surrounding neighborhood residents preferred. to have for-sale housing in this area, and were in favor of the architectural design and quality as well as the site layout plan. He said that, although the residents will be given 60-day written notice, they do not anticipate starting construction for at least 6 months. Architect David Johnson showed slides and discussed the architectural style and amenities of the project. Tom Dragosavac, 7308H Rainbow Drive, said it has been a good experience to live at Saron Gardens. He said the Saron Garden residents appreciate the consideration given by Prometheus in the relocation plan, but the still wish they did not have to move. He expressed concern about how the BMR units are handled by the Planning Commission - and that the city's policies give credit for loss of rental units instead of encouraging more. 11 - 25 July 7, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page ~ Council member K~~rok read an excerpt of the General Flan, Section 2?, regarding a rental housing retention policy, and noted that this project meets only one of the three guidelines. Council member Sandoval asked if the B1viR units could be the first apes to be built, and Jon Moss said he believed Prometheus could do that. She also asked that bicycle racks be placed in the central common area. Discussion followed regarding the rental housing preservation policy. Kwok suggested that the applicant provide one additional BMR unit since their project does not meet the General Plan guidelines for rental retention. Mass noted that the General Plan refers to a rental housing retention plan that is to be created, and said that Prometheus was already providing one more Bll~ unit than is required at a cost of $00,000 each. Kwok withdrew his suggestion. Kv~JoklSandoval moved and seconded to grant the Negative Declaration, approve the tentative map, approve the rezoning, and approve the use permit. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. LowenthaUJames moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Vote: Ayes: Chang James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. The Council members concurred that staff should begin preparation of the rental housing retention policy, and any other applicants that may be considering the removal of rental housing should be notified that the requirements would be changing. Mayor Chang reordered the agenda to consider Item No. 21 next. BUSINESS 21. Adopt 'cy and procedures regarding the naming of City ilities and recognition of financial don s. Mayor Chang liste the committee memo who worked on the policy under consideration, gave a 'ef background, d reiterated that the policy would give recognition to community embers o donated money, but facilities would not be named after donors. City Attorney Charles Kili rected uncil's attention to editing changes suggested by Council member Sandoy He summon d the main features of the policy, which included the follov~~inp.~' l . Beforee~faciliry is named for any reason there ~~ould be a noticed public hearing; policy applies to any portion of a facility 11 - 26 pry i R C1Tt'O~`F ~~~E ~~ 'Fa: Kiersa from: Grace Johnson Subject: Z-2003-O1, TM-2003-O1, U-2003-02 (Baron Gardens) Exhibit G Crty H211 10 300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Date: September 16, 2003 No action letter was wz-itten to the applicant:-The Council action is-as follows: Council Granted the Negative Declaration; approved the tentative map, the rezolung, and the use permit; conducted the first reading of the ordinance; concul-red that staff should begin prepal-ation of the rental housing retention policy, and any applicants that may be considering removal of rental housing should be notified that the requirements «Tould be changing ~~w ~~- Grace Jolulson 11 - 27 D.in~n.J nn D~.......1...+ D~... ~. U-2003-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6188 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOI~MNDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 55 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON A 4.03-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 7310 RAINBOW DRIVE A-E AND 7308 RAINBOW DRIVE 9-14 anal A . SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: U-2003-02 (EA-2003-03) Applicant: Prometheus Location: - --7310. Rainbow Drive A-E and 7308 Rainbow Drive 9-14 and A ._ __ SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, 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) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the viciiity, and will not be detrimental to •the public health, safety, general v~Telfare, or. convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord ~vith the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, tlne application for Use Permit and Exception are hereby reconunended far approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon Tvhich the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s}. hIi-X03-02 Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02 May 27, 2003 Page 2 (EA-2003-03), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 27, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled Saron Garden dated June 6, 2003 including sheets A0, L0.0, CI-C8, T1, L1.1-L4.1, Al, A.A1-A.A3, A.B1-A.B2, A.CI-A.C2, A.D1-A.D3, A.N1-A.N2, A.P1-A.P3, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIOI~TS 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 challei Laing such exactions. 3. FENCING 8~ LIGHTING PLAN: The applicant shall submit a fence and lighting plan (including fencing details of the transformer along Rainbow Drive) to the Design Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. In order to replace the perimeter fences, proof of consent or authorization from the adjoining neighbors must be submitted to the City prior to approval. 4. DECORATIVE PAVERS: The style and type of the decorative pavers are not approved as part of this project. A revised site plan indicating the specific type and style of pavers must be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval prior to fi1a1 approval of the project. Pavers shall be specified as interlocking pavers or other pavement materials that looks like interlocking pavers with some jvater permeability. 5. CURB & PARKWAY ALIGNMENT ON POPPY WAY: A supplemental arborist report with specific tree preservation recommendations must be submitted to the City for review and approval in order to finalize the sidewalk/curb desib 1 along Poppy Way prior to the approval of the final map. The arborist report shall consider the existing tree canopy size, grade levels and sufficient setback from the proposed sidewalk iz order to ensure complete preservations of these trees. The sidewalk/parkjvay jv-ill be required to meander or bulb around .trees X60-62 along Poppy VVay and then come back u1 to match the existing side~a=alk/parkway patterns. In the event that the t<^=o R-1 lot sizes are affected by the approved curb/~par~way Resolution 1~TO. 6188 U-2003-02 May 27, 2003 Page 3 alignment, the proposed homes must be reduced in size according to the R-1 development standards. Revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 6. LANDSCAPING PLAN: A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval indicating the preservation of tree X58 on the site plan. 7. COQ-ENANTS, CONDITIOhTS AND RESTRICTIOI~TS (CC&R's): A copy of the CC& R's for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to approval of the final map. A legal description of the side/rear yard easements proposed between homes must also be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for review aid approval prior to the final rnap approval. 8. PARIQNG RATIO: Parking ratio for the property shall be 2.83 spaces per unit (156 stalls). Two spaces per unit-shall be covered. In addition, the parking ratio for the tcnTo R-1 single=fairuly homes shall be 4 spaces per u.n.it (8 stalls). Two spaces per -tutu shall be covered. 9. SITE PLAN: A revised site plan reflecting the proposed fence recess bet<~Teen each homes as shown on the landscaping plan sheet L2.1 shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 10. INTERIOR GARAGE DIMENSION: The interior garage clearance shall be 20 feet by 20 feet (measured from inside walls). 11. STOOP HEIGHTS OF UNIT TYPED (D1 & D2): As proposed, the entry landing leading to the front door of D units (Dl & D2) is approximately elevated 6 feet above grade that does not present a very desirable pedestrian experience. The applicant shall explore options to reduce the height of the entry stoops by breaking up the main entry stairs by adding a couple of steps at the entrance of the front yard or re-evaluate the grading plan for the project so that the ground floor/garage could be set lojver in elevation in order to reduce the scale of the front stoops. Revised plans for all of the D units shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of the Final Map. 12. TRANSFORMER: The transformer proposed along Rainbow Drive shall be screened completely out of the public view by a combination of fencuzg and landscaping. The fence desiglt shall be reviet^Ted and approved by the Design Review Committee. Alternatively, the transformer may be underground if screening from fencing and landscaping are determined inadequate. 11 - 30 Resolution~No. 6188 U-2003-02 May 2'7, 2003 Page 4 13. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS: The project will be increasing the total number of housing units by 15 units on the project site. However, 39 apartment units will be demolished. As a mitigation measure, 20% (3 units) of the 15 additional ants must be below market rate units consistent with the City's Housing Mitigation Policy. 14. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: The project will be subjected to the approved relocation assistance program dated May 22, 2003 except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution. Prometheus shaIl do everything ~~vithin reason to accomrrtodate residents with children attending schools so that they can continue to live in the same school district. 15. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a construction management_plan to the Planning Department for revie_w_ and approva_ I. The plan shall __ _._ . _ provide provisions for the following: - - a. Construction Vehicle Routing Plan: All construction vehicles shall enter the project site fiom Rainbow Drive off of De Anna Blvd. and exit onto Rainbow Drive to De Anna Blvd. b. Construction Equipment Staging Plan: The construction equipment-staging plan shall clearly indicate ~~here the equipments will be staged during construction to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. c. Dust Control: The project shall utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in the grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. Identify all Pre-and Post development BMPs that will be installed on-site. SECTION N: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. STREET WIDENING Street vaidening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. The Public Works Department must approve all on and off-site improvements prior to gaining approval, wluch includes storm drain improvements, sidewakc design, curb and gutter design and dedications along Poppy Way. 2. 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. The Public Works Department must approve all on and off-site improvements prior to gaining approval, which includes storm drail improvements, sidev,Talk design, curb and gutter design and dedications along Poppy Way. ~ ~ - 31 Resolution 1lTO. 61 °S U-2003-02 l~iay 27, 2003 Page 5 3. 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 thari the maximum height permitted by the zone u1 ~nThich the site is located. 4. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 5. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the Ciry. 6. STREET TREES _ Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance ~vith Ordinance No. 125. ~. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in 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. 8. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post- development calculations must be provided to identify whether new storm drain facilities will be required, existing systems may need to be upgraded, or storm drainage can be maintained the same. 4. FIRE PROTECTION Fire spruzklers shall be installed iri any nejv construction to the approval of the City. 10. UNDERGROUND UTILTFIES The developer shall comply ~~vith the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance INTO. 331 and other related Ordinances and rem ations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate iwith affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans sho~vutg utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 11. IIYIPROVEIyIENT AGREE144ENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to check~~2and Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02 ~ May 27, 2003 Page 6 inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding 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. Pow>er Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: $ 6% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,268.00 minimum $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost $ 3,000.00 $ 5,198.70 $1,097.75 $ 97,200.00 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 u1 the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. ** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights 12. 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. 13. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer 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. 14. WORK SCHEDULE A vaork schedule shall be provided to the City to shotaT the timetable necessary for completion of on and off site unproveinents. 15. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included u1 your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. 11 - 33 Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02 IViay 27, 2003 Page 7 16. NOI/NPDES PERMIT The developer shall determine if a NOI/ NPDES permit will be required for their site. Please see attached. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTAI~TCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYIl~TG CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 California Goveriunent Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section 1V of this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices. / s / Ralph C~ualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works _ _ City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning CoiYUnission of the City of Cupertino, State of Californa, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Corr, Miller, Wong and Chairperson Chen Saadati / s / Steve Piasecki . Steve Piasecki Director of Conununity Development G: \ Plannulg\ PDREPORT \ RFS \ U-2003-02res. doc APPROVED: / s / Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 11 - 34 Planning Commission Minutes and completing the modifications of the spo Stevens Creek Boulevards. He reported that $1.2 million is general fund money, the re -- mil-lion,-approximately- $1-million is payme streets which is the annual overlays and slu PIIBLFe 13E+ ARING Chair en moved the agenda to Item 5. 5. App ' ation Nos.: CP-2003-O1, EA-2003-02 Applic City of Cupertino (Capital Improvement Plan) Location: Citywide Capital Improvement Plai Planning Commission dec Continued fi•orzz Planning cy with the General Plan unless appealed ~n meeting ofhfay 12, 2003 Staff presentation: Mr. Ralph Qualls, ubl: plan for 2003-04 consists mostly of prof t Exhibit H May 27, 2003 Works Director said that the capital improvement under constru on, such as the library, civic center center a civic park at the comer of DeAnza and he api improvement is about $3 million of which lain being grants or special funds. Of the $1.2 t anag ent program which is~isted-under-9400--- -- -- seals don on city streets each year. It has been mamtamed because rt covers what is eded during the ear, and more importantly it is a maintenance of effort that qualifies th city to apply for T21 ds and other types of pa}7nent management funds that would give t city essentially 1.5 times the' ability to do that work. Chair Chen opened the meeting or public input. There was no one preset who ~~ished to speak. MOTION: Com. C moved that Applications CP-2003-O1 and EA 003-02 were in confo 't}= with the General Plan for five year Capital Improveme Program FY 003-04 to 2007-08 SECOND: om. Wong ABSENT: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed Chair Chen moved the agenda 4. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 4-0-0 hack to Item 4. TM-2003-01, U-2003-02, Z-2003-O1, EA-2003-03 Saron Gardens; LLC 7310 Rainbow Drive, A-E Tentative Map to subdivide a 4.03 acre parcel into 55 residential parcels and one common parcel. Use Permit to construct 55 single family residences and site improvements on a 4.03 acre parcel Zoning to rezone a 4.03 parcel from (P.R3) to P(Res} Continued fi•orn Planning Cornnzissiorz rneetirzg of May 12, 2003 Tentative City Council date: June 16, 2003 Staff presentation: Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, rev=iewed the background of the application and said that relative to the relocation program, staff received a letter and a ret=ised relocation plan from the Saron Gardens resident association, stating that the residents did not support the relocation program presented to them at the residents' meeting on May 22"d. Mr. Chao reviewed the major changes in the re«sed relocation plan which was distributed. He reported that 11 - 35 Planning Commission Minutes a May 27, 2003 Prometheus will now provide a garbage dumpster to facilitate the disposal of residents' debris from their property; and the relocation allowance has been increased to a lump sum for each resident equal to three times the monthly rent being paid at the time of relocation. Staff has reviewed the rev=ised relocation plan and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the revised relocation plan dated May 22nd as part of the project. Relative to the concerns about the setbacks, the applicant has rev=ised the site plan to allow two of the end outs to have 20 feet side yard setbacks instead of 10 feet originally proposed. A~Ir. Chao reviewed the revised site plan; school impacts and meetings with the school districts; and pedestrian path as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Chao clarified that the school districts could only accommodate students that live in Saxon Gardens past December 2003, and only applies to elementary students and high school seniors; not Kennedy Jr. High students because it is over capacity at present. He said that the tenants v=ill receive a refund of their .deposit and the three months rent at the time they check their ke}=s out. Com. Corr suggested that the residents be given the names of contact persons in both school districts to contact relative to the school attendance issues. Nfr. John Moss, Prometheus, said that they re~zsed the relocation plan in response to the residents' --input-He-reviewed--the changes--in-the-relocation~lan-One-change-was the-.removal-of-the--- - - ------ condition that the tenant would have to relocate within the County of Santa Clara; now the tenant can move any~t=here and still have the;beneft. Prometheus also removed the condition that the tenant could only receive the assistance if they moved to another rental property vrhere the rent R=as greater than the present rent; the tenant can now move to a lower rent and still get relocation assistance. The monetary assistance was originally going to be' spread over several months; that has been changed to one lump sum at the time the tenant moves out of the apartment. The 60 day notice pro~zsion has also been eliminated; as soon as Prometheus becomes the owner of the property, the residents would be entitled to the benefits at any time they would move out. Relative to the school issue, Mr. Moss said that the applicants had been proactive to set up a meeting v,=ith both school districts, their preference was to be able to grandfather in the schools that the residents' children are attending no~v throughout their tenure; however, the school districts clearl}= communicated their position on the subject. 1\~Ir. Moss said that was understandable from his ~~iewpoint, given the fact that the}= have people coming to them on a daily basis with the same type of request. He said they pro~~ded a list of available apartments with a list of schools associated v~rith each rental property. He reiterated that all the schools in Cupertino were excellent schools. He said relative to the parking issue, they looked at trying to create as much parking as possible, resulting in a net increase of 2 parking stalls by eliminating the road shov~=n before; noting that the only reason the road vas there before «=as the assumption it was needed for fire access; and after meeting with the fire department, it is not an absolute requirement of the fire department. Relative to the setback issue, Mr. Moss said they inet with the neighbor most impacted, and the change was favorably received by the neighbor. The pedestrian path was discussed before, and given the concerns stated in the staff report, the pedestrian path is an acceptable part of the application. Mr. Moss said he felt they had reasonably addressed all of the issues. The neighbors they met R=ith over the last 8 months have created a number of changes shared prec=iously, and he said he still felt the majority of the neighbors were either neutral regarding the project or ~~=ere in favor of the project. Mr. Moss said that the new tenants v,=ould be informed what the plans for the redevelopment are, and would not be eligible for the relocation program. The prospective tenant would make the decision as to whether they would want to move in under those circumstances. 11 - 36 Planning Commission Minutes ~ May 27, 2003 Coin. Wong referred to Page 4-7, stoop height of unit type D, and asked for feedback on the concern of the design issue. A~fi. Chao said that Unit Type D, as it appears, is higher than other unit types, and if one is standing at grade level, it is at head level; therefore staff is suggesting a condition that the applicant re~~isit the design of those units and in particular all the Unit Type Ds to see if they can lower it to a more pedestrian friendly height, so that the first thing seen is not like the top of the landing on the entry landing. Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant believes they can accommodate that. Mr. David Johnson, Christiani Johnson Architects, said that the height was set at 6 feet for some internal planning reasons, but there is no practical obstruction to lov,~ering the height to be more in keeping v~ith the other units and they would work with staff to find a height they are comfortable with. Chair Chen opened the meeting far public input. Mr. Dennis ~TJhitaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive, asked if the heights were still 36 feet from the base, and what the per-acre density was. Mr. Piasecki said the density was 13.6. Mr. Whitaker said the biggest concern he had was not with the developers and the plans, but with the Planning - - -Commission-and-Gity-Council-and-themquest to~etaan-as~uch-BMR-as-possible.-I~e-said he-felt that the primary reason for the families with children living in that area is to stay within the specific school system they selected. He said he hoped that the city government would show the concerns and consistencies with all the developments and the BMRs by giving decent considerations prior to displacing the families and make certain that those families desiring to stay in the specific elementary middle school and high schools would be able to. He said those not concerning themselves with staying in the specific areas should not face financial burdens noR~ or in the future for being forced to relocate. He said he felt the developers had done a good job in offering the financial assistance. Relative to the BMR program, he questioned if people in the future are forced to relocate from a development, v,~ould they be able to become a top priority on the waiting list for BI\~ housing, to specifically stay in the school districts where they are at. He reiterated that all five schools in the high school district were top schools, but noted that some had a higher ratio of students going on to college. He urged the efforts to continue to«~ard allowing the students to stay in the school they are attending. Ms. Trudy Wallick, 7390 Rainbow Dr., #1, reiterated Mr. Whitaker's remarks. She questioned the grading as she resided behind the apartments, so that the people behind j~~on't get swamped with more water. She encouraged more dialogue with the school districts about displacing the children since the residents vTere being forced to move out of their apartments. Mr. Piasecki said that the speaker could talk with the applicant's architect regarding the grading. He said they would have to meet all the normal standards, and would not be able to drain across the.neighbor's property. Mr. Tom Dragosavac, 7308 Rainbow Drive, TA, said he was speaking on behalf of the resident association, and thanked Prometheus for responding to the residents' revised relocation plan they subnutted for consideration. He commented that since there was no letterhead or signature on the printout from Prometheus, the residents questioned what guarantee they had. He said he has assured those concerned that he would make certain that the version of the plan included as a condition of the permits is identical to the version the residents had in their possession. Mr. Dragosavac said there was also concern about the date that the property would change hands; Mr. Moss indicated that the property would change hands 30 days after City Council appro~Tal. 11 - 37 Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 27, 2003 Regarding the schools, he said he tvas hopeful that the Planning Commission and City Council level of concern would be strong on the residents' behalf with the school districts, since the school districts would respond to high levels of concern expressed by their fellow institutions. He said on his owe behalf he was expressing concern about a comment made weeks earlier about the Planning Commission's remarks that fliey were grateful to Prometheus for providing ov~~ner occupied housing in order to displace rental housing. He said all the people living in rental housing in Cupertino should be informed if it is a policy to eliminate their residences in the long term and invite developers to eliminate rental housing in favor of ov~ner occupied. He said it becomes a political question, and vs=hen the demolition of owner occupied housing is used as an excuse to no longer build the BNIlts that someone said should be built, it compounds the problem of affordable housing. He said it did not make sense that affordable housing is being eliminated and less affordable housing is being provided, because the affordable housing is being eliminated. Ms. Rae Stevenson I~TOrris, 7314 Rainbow Dr., TC, requested assurance as a condition of issuing building permits to Prometheus that the City Council certify that Prometheus has fulfilled all of the conditions listed in their relocation plan. She said that relative to the district agreements for Regnant and Kennedy students, during the next school year the Saron Gardens complex in Cupertino- in the Regnart and Kennedy school area is being torn down to make way for ---construetion~f houseson-the-property-T-he-r-esidents-o#~Saron-Gardens-are-being forced to mos=e--- out. She said it is very difficult to find a new apartment in the RegnartJKennedy area; not many complexes exist and these have very low vacancy rates. There are 13 children in this apartment complex attending Regnart Elementary School, ranging from the first to the fifth grade, and three children that attend Kennedy middle school and plan to attend Monta Vista in the next year. She said they are asking that their families be given passes and continue to attend those schools; as v,=ell as the four children in the complex who attend Monta Vista and three children who attend currently Kennedy Middle School and plan to attend Monta Vista in the next }=ear if they rent an apartment an}where in the tv.=o districts. She asked for the support of the city officials for this request and said she hoped to meet on this matter with the city and the district officials in the very near future. Ms. Tatiana Azarenok, 7310 Rainbow Dr., ~D, said that many concerns had been discussed at the city hall meeting two weeks ago about new relocation plans, school problems, etc. She said she had planned to stay in the complex because of the excellent schools. She said the complex v,~as ~~=ell maintained and well managed, and 16 units have garages «=hick are hard_to find. She said she felt the property was not a good location for 55 new homes because of the high density, and she felt that destroying the buildings and forcing 40 families to move out was not a well thought out plan. She said Cupertino had a lot of empty spaces that remain undeveloped for many years. She invited those present to find time to visit Saron Gardens and then consider if it is a good idea, and is it really necessary for the city or for adjacent neighborhoods. Ms. Khushroo Shaikh, 11640 ~Jildflov,=er Ct., said she lived next to the development and said she was most impacted by the development. She said she discussed her privacy concerns with Prometheus and she was pleased with their approach and that they were willing to work v,=ith her on the problems. They have revised the plans to allow privacy in her bedroom and not have the house so close to hers. She said the plan was a good plan and would be an asset to the neighborhood and to Cupertino. She said she had a concern about allowing a pathway through the property and said if it was necessary to have a gate at the pathway so that people are not lingering in the area. 11 - 38 Planning Commission Minutes ~ May 27, ?003 Chair Chen asked staff for clarification on the request for the relocation plan being part of the permit. Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant has to demonstrate that they met the conditions of approval that must be met prior to the issuance of building permits, and the relocation plan would be one of those conditions staff vrould evaluate. He said it is passible that they may be in a situation where they are requesting permits and they have one or two remaining tenants who have set dates when they will be relocating, and staff would hold those permits until they have successfully relocated those tenants or paid the three times rent that has been discussed. The city will follow through on the conditions of approval. He said the building permit process is a public process and the public can review the records. In response to Com. Con's and Com. gong's questions, Mr. Piasecki noted that the date referred to in Condition 14 should be changed to May Z2 and would be reflected in the model resolution. He said that the names of the contact persons at the school districts would be made available to the residents. Mr. Piasecki said that the pathway would be lighted. Mr. Chao noted that the lighting of the pathway issue is part of the condition of approval. Mr-Moss-clarified-that the-contract «dth~he-owner~f-the proper-l3~-al-lows the-applicant to~lose-30 - days after the approval should there be approval by the City Council. Mr. Piasecki clarified that there was a rezoning action taking place which calls for a second reading by the City Council and then the rezoning doesn't become effective for 30 days after that. Depending on how their contract is worded or what level of assurance they have from the first reading, second reading .and the 30 days, they want to start that clock at a different time period. Mr. Moss said that the relocation plan would become effective ~rhen Prometheus takes possession and oRnership of the property, potentially 30 days and 2 weeks (for second reading) after the City Council meeting of June 16~. In response to Com. Miller's request for clarification on the BMR program, Mr. Piasecki said there was no prozrision currently in the BAS program manual that would make an exception for the case. He said they could pass the comment to the Housing Commission the next time they address the BMR program and can relay it to the City Council when this item comes up to them. Should the Council v~ish to consider such a change, there is a waiting list for the BMR housing and that would have to be considered. Relative to the school district issue, Com. Miller said that there would be a time lag bet«~een when the residents move out and when units are available for new residents and new children to move in and replace them in the school district, and it would be up to a year or 18 months. Perhaps the school district might have some flexibility given the fact that they are not going to be overburdened by additional children by allowing the present children to continue to stay for soiree period of time, until the new units at a minimum are filled. Com. Miller referred to the earlier comment from a speaker that the Planning Commission had stated a preference for units for sale vs. rental units. He said that he did not make such a comment, and felt that the city needs a good combination of rental units and for sale units and he said he felt there was not an intent to get rid of rental units and add for sale units. He said it was important that the city has an appropriate mix of both rental and for sale units. Com. Miller said he was pleased and impressed with the level of community outreach that the applicant has accomplished. The community and the stakeholders have participated at a professional level and come to a reasonable solution given circumstances and everyone's position. 11 - 39 Planning Commission 1\~Iinutes s May 27, 2003 He said he felt the project vas a good project and would be an asset to the city; and said the loss of some rental units was unfortunate, but those issues happen as a function of the marketplace more than a function of direction by the Cit}= Council, Planning Commission or staff. 1\~Ir. Chao referred to Condition 4, relative to decorative pavers. He said that the applicant u=as concerned with the interlocking paver requirement for econonuc impact reasons. The interlocking pavers are more environmentally friendl}=, and it is the city's objective to maxunize onsite storm drainage retention. If appropriate and approved by the Planning Commission, the condition could be revised to state that either interlocking pavers or other special pavement materials that looks like or feels like pavers with water permeability shall be used and to be approved by the Design Re~~ie«~ Committee. Mr. Piasecki said that the issues were the aesthetic issue, wherein the interlocking pavers have te~;ture not available with stamped concrete; «=hat the staff is interested in is the aesthetic issue and the permeability issue. It is problematic to put pavers on sand on driven,=ays because the first heavy truck that goes over it impacts it and it cannot be compacted enough. Staff feels that stamped concrete could be utilized, but some level of «rater permeability is needed, such as drains or holes drilled into the structure. Staff suggests the R=ording in the last line "...interlocking pavers, or other material that looks Like interlocking pavers, with water permeability.'' Com. ~TiTOng said that he supported the project. Relative to the comment about rental t=s. for sale units, he said in his nearly one year on the Planning Commission the project has been one of the hardest decisions he has made, since it grill displace 39 residents. Regarding rental units, being a property manager, he said it was private property and they own the piece of property which the residents are renting. He said he has been to Saron Gardens many times and feels that it is a rough jewel in Cupertino that needs a lot of work; and said for the age of the building the tenants are paying market rate rent for that type of building; and it is located 'in a nice neighborhood. Com. ~fJong said he felt that the applicant v,=orked hard with the residents to pro«de a good relocation package; and did a fine j ob in removing many of the clauses and also working with the letter given two weeks ago. He said Prometheus gave a lot and satisfied many of his concerns. Relative to the school issue, he said he requested the grandfathering of the children and the applicant made a good effort with staff to talk with both CUSD and FUHSD. He reiterated that all of the city's schools were excellent and it is the parent's choice that they want a particular school; if the tenants are relocated the applicant ~~ith do their best to see if the children can be relocated in the schools as well. Regarding the parking issue, he said he appreciated staff and the applicant trying to get tw=o more spaces. He said his previous comments regarding the pathv,=ay remained the same; he said he was in favor of lighting on the pathvc=ay to address the safety and security issues. Relative to design, he said for a tight space they had a lower density compared to what they could have pr-oposed. They could have also put in for rent and for sale apartments and increased the density. He said he v,~ould like to see the letter as a condition of approval to guarantee it. Com. Miller said he supported the project as his previous comments indicated. Com. Corr said that there v,~ere four issues remaining from pre~~ious meetings: the relocation plan, the setbacks, the school impacts and the pedestrian path. He said he was pleased that the issues «=ere resoh=ed and the application was presented back to the Commission R~ithin the t<vo «=eek time period. He said he wished there v=as a better resolution to the school issue; everybody really gets invokred in the schools their children attend, and they want to stay there which is understandable; ho«=ever, it is not in the purview of the city to make that decision. By working with Prometheus and getting the names of the people in the districts to talk to, hopefully it may help v=ith the issue. Relative to the issue of the for sale and rental units, he said a number of rental 11 - 40 Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 27, 2003 properties have come through lately, and the Planning Commission is then questioned about approving all the rental units, and asked why not have more for sale units. From that standpoint, the Planning Commission is pleased to see one come through, but it was not from the standpoint of saying they do not want to have rental housing in Cupertino, as it is crucial to Cupertino. Chair Chen said she concurred v+~th the other commissioners that the project was a very ~vell planned project; and was pleased that all the issues were resolved in such a short period. She said she concurred vlth the change staff proposed to give flexibility to the applicants R~hen it is time to build the project. Chair Chen said she strongly supported Com. Con's suggestion to provide the school contact persons to the tenants; and also to change the date to May 22nd on Condition 14 for the tenant relocztion program. MOTION: Com. Miller moved approval of Application U-2003-02, Z-2003-O1, EA-2003-03 and TM-2003-01 in accordance with the model resolution and the suggested changes. SECOND: Com. Corr ABSENT: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 4.0_p 6. Application Nos.: EXC-2003-01, EA-2003-04 plicant: Li-Sheng Fu Lo lion: APN 342-22-045 Mercedes Road Hillside exceptio to construct a 4;245 square foot residence on slopes ~er than 30% and a parking exception fo tandem parking Pla~aning Commission cision final u~Zless appealed Postponed fr•otn Planning ommissiott meeting ofllfay 12, 2003 Staff presentation: NIr. Colin g, Senior Planner, revi ed the background of the application for the hillside exception to allo construction of a 10 square foot residence on an existing vacant lot, as outlined in the sta report. He eviewed the following project issues: (1) Preservation of the rural character of th area; (2 esign of the project, including setbacks, simple building and roof forms, colors; reta' g wall heights; (3) Privacy landscaping needs; (4) Geologic conditions; (5) Parking; (~ Tre otection; (7) Storm drainage; and (8) Construction activities on a narrow road. He review the si plan, second floor~plan, elevations and landscape plan. Staff recommends approval of e mitigate egative declaration and the hillside exception. Com. Corr noted that the cond' on relative to no bloc e of Mercedes Road during construction was not included. He also ted that drainage was not vered. Mr. Jung said that there was a condition about not imp g Mercedes Road. Relative t the drainage issue, he said that a possible solution was install a french drain. at the base o e driveway, which captures the flows and would lea to a drainage inlet that could convey it out the designated drainage s~vale. He noted that Pa e 6-10, Condition 10, contained verbiage stating hat emergency access along Mercedes Roa shall not be impeded. Com. M~ er referred to the drainage, and said it was his understanding that drainage before cons ction was the same as after construction. Ms. Wordell said that it was not yet a legal requirement. 11 -41 `4 50 V1 .~.. tiubn~ittcd b~T: Arn.crica.n 13ra.ruls Construction. 2878 P~1u~e Aire. `A', I~~retn.ont, C11 94539 Phone 5111.440.9850 Fay 510.490.0255 (:5L13# 386207 Luo [t.esiclence "11535 Murano Circle Cupertino, C11 95014 (408) 996-7832 APN: 35-58-01.5 16' Lot = 2426 Cross T-rouse = 1533 Gara~c = 453 (N) Patio lioou~ = 20(1 05/19/2008 Drawn By Page Exhibit 1 r m_ a O 7 T a a m m 0 7 d O Subtnitte~l bv: flmcrican 13r.ui.d_s Co~istcuctioi~. 2878 Prune t1ve. `11', Fremont, Ct1 94539 Phone .510.44(1.9850 ~'as 510.490.0255 CSL13# x8(,207 Luo RcS.icien.ce 1 1535 Miua»~ Circic Cupertino, CA 950] 4 (408) 996-7832 APN: 35-55•-01.5 O O 3 "O o~ OQ 0 0 3 d o ~, 3 .~ ~+- ~. n CII ~-' ~ O ~- -~-'~ ~• ~ ~ ~ .o, V1 ~• .n.. .--i ~ _T 3• I_.ot = 2426 CTross Mouse. _ "1533 Garage = 453 (N) 1?atio Itooin = 2(10 05/19/2008 Drawn By Page Subuutted bv: Ar»ericaia 13raa~cls Con.sl:ructiori 21i7~ Prune ;\~rc. `l1 ', hremont, C~~ 945.39 Phone 5111.410.9851) Fiat 510.490.0'55 C_:SL13# 386207 Luo Resicl.ci~cc 11.535 i\~Iuran.o Circle Cupertino, CA 95(114 (408) 99G-7832 ~1-I'N: 35-58-09.5 [' LJ 1 _. ~` \~ ~\ ~~ Lot = 2420 (.~ross~l-louse = 1533 Garage = 453 (N) Patio Room = 2011 05/19/2008 Drawn By Page Sunroom Height refs Slab 4 dowelling into foundation @24" O.C. I @ 30 degree angle & epoxy for Bamer' 0 N P~ \ q bA O Q Fi -, M ~~ u'; II li ~ ~ M; 0 c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y II u r I v ~ p., c r ~7^ .~ ~ J u C U ~]' J uUc N U ~ T ~~ '~ W ~ J ~ ~ u r ~; .~~ ~~~ :+ p ~ i 6~ f.iG~M ~ u, M, ~ ,. z °~ ~~~^/, n Vj \/'~ v M 12" 4" Monolithic slab typical with optional footing (cutaway view) r ~ s, c~ ~, ~ o ' ' ~' .~ , ~ U C r;, Fit', ~' U r o~.~c .` U L; ~ ~ ~y .x :> .:~ ~'~ ~?~~ J G ~ r ~• r_ - G7 ~~J; EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE e //q /~ ~~f Facts regarding New Addition at 11535 Murano Court (File number DIR-2008-13) By Jiandong Cao and Yalan Mao, the neighbors In 2003, Murano developer bought apartment complex to start the planning for building new homes. City council had hearings from the neighborhood. The Council Kris Wang was also at the meeting that time. Some of other City Council might also be at the meeting that time. At the meeting, the developer, neighborhood and City council have reached agreement that the new buildings will be 20 feet away from the board of neighborhood of Wildflower Court, Flower Court, Poppy Way and Rainbow Drive. This agreement has served as the community rules for the homes in Murano and its neighborhood. 2. 11535 Murano Court (File number DIR-2008-13) currently has living area 1533 square feet with lot size of 2178 square feet. The living area to lot size ratio is 70.38% without new addition. 3. With new addition of 200 square feet more living space, 11535 Murano Court will have 1733 square feet living space. With lot size of 2178 square feet, the living area to lot size ratio will be 79.57%, approximately 80%. a. What is the city rule for living area to lot size ratio in Cupertino? The living area to lot size ratio of 80% sounds too much in Cupertino. 5. Our home's privacy will be violated with the new addition. The privacy includes sight, sound and smell. The more close it gets, the more severe it affects the privacy. The new addition builds closer to our house. It will affect the privacy of my home with no question. Therefore, the new addition will violate our home's privacy. That is why we are strongly against the new addition. / G~~B-t9 -~8 ~/ #" l t -~-~~~viceo~ by `~P~ic~-~-t Application: DIR-2008-13 Location: 11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino. We are in favor of supporting the application DIR-2008-13 (sunroom) with following reasons: 1 2. 3. ~~`~ c,ru~ C ~~>`2t ~ u~ ,C~ ~i5u ~ ~ Privacy impacts are not evident because the proposed sunroom is single story, starting at 8'-4" high slop root, not exceeding 11'-0" at the point of attachment to the residence, privacy landscaping would be preserved, and the adjoining privacy fence is 8'-0" high. The height of the sunroom windows do not offer views into the adjoining property, and the sunroom would be used as gathering space for the homeowners, which would not create any additional noise or odors other than those typical of residential activities. The original use permit for the development did not have any provisions that prohibit the addition of a sunroom. In addition, the applicant has obtained approval from the Home Owners Association. The design of the sunroom will be consistent wit the main residence in ~~ material(s) and color. ,. t ~~ .-.~i,---~- sue., ti,.~ ..-- ~ , /-~ ~~, C_',~'I,~: I' ~--r7 t SG ~ (~ ~~ /~ (~- / j //~ ~ .~ ~- __ ~, ~, /_ __ , ~ --, ~ -' ~ __, J -~ , C C= ~` ~~/ / f /~ a ~~ -! ~ -, ~- ~ ~ J -~, C: