Loading...
15. Knopp Dev. 21925 Lindy LaneCUPERTtNO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA DATE August 19, 2008 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Report on modified street improvements for the Kropp development at 21925 Lindy Lane and recommendation to retain the street improvement conditions required by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND On July 26, 2005, the Cupertino Planning Commission approved application TM-2005-03, granting the applicant John Kropp a permit to subdivide the property at 21925 Lindy Lane into two residential lots. As part of the approval; the Planning Commission required that established existing trees along the street frontage of the properly be preserved. In order to preserve the trees, the standard roadside improvements would have to be modified to allow the roadway to be built at less than the standard width and to delete the requirement for a concrete sidewalk. The procedure laid out in Section 14.04.040 B of the Cupertino Municipal Code for modifying roadside improvement standards for streets in areas of the City not covered under the hillside development provisions of the Code requires that asemi-rural designation for such streets be approved by Council. A prerequisite for Council consideration of asemi-rural designation is that at least two-thirds of the property owners along the affected street shall have signed a petition to the City requesting asemi-rural designation for their street. A Kropp subdivision representative attempted to circulate such a petition to the residents of the azea shown on the attached map, but indicated to City staff that many of the residents who were approached remained sufficiently unclear about the implications of the petition that they were unwilling to sign it. Recognizing that the trees could not be preserved without modifying the street improvement standards, as well as the existence of significant sentiment in the neighborhood to preserve the trees and the natural quality of the neighborhood, staff held a neighborhood meeting at the site to clarify the options presented by the petition. With plans produced by the applicant's engineer, staff used the site meeting to demonstrate graphically the~options for modifying the improvement requirements to preserve the trees and minimize grading of the hillside. The attending residents were polled for a general sense of the modified improvements that would be acceptable on a revised petition, and the following was the result: 15-1 The subject section of Lindy Lane would have 1. Less than standard road width: typical curb-to-curb width will be 32 feet (reduced from standard 40 feet); 2. Altered curb type: Roll curb, rather than standard high curb; 3. No concrete sidewalk. A decomposed granite or aggregate base rock pathway may be substituted in a manner that will not compromise the existing trees. A petition with the above parameters, together with a map of the affected area and a drawing of the proposed modified road section was sent to each properly owner in the affected area. It was explained at the meeting and in the body of the petition that the narrower road width would eliminate parking on one side of Lindy Lane along the Knopp frontage. The recipients of the petition were asked to submit a signed petition by Monday, August 11, 2008, so that the item could be presented at the August 19, 2008, meeting. As of this writing, the petition has not achieved the required two-thirds signup. Outions for Proceeding The semi-rural ordinance, adopted October 20, 2003, and codified as Section 14.04.040 B in the Cupertino Municipal Code, was approved by Council at the behest of a number of residential property owners who desired not to install curb, gutter and sidewalk, or streetlights as building permit conditions in order to preserve the semi-rural character of their neighborhoods. The ordinance had been envisioned and employed primarily as a means whereby Council, in receipt of a valid neighborhood petition could make the findings necessary to waive the requirements for sidewalk or streetlights. The Code section, however, does deal with "modified street improvement standards." The purpose of bringing this matter to the Council is to recall a similar situation in 2005 when the Council, in response to neighborhood concerns, felt it necessary to realign the curb at City expense along the Poppy Way frontage of the Murano development after the developer in accordance with the project conditions naxrowed the street to preserve trees. In both the Poppy Way and the present cases, the Planning Commission required tree preservation that calls for narrowing of the street. Application of the procedure outlined in the semirural ordinance where modified street improvement standards are called for as permit conditions should be required in order to avoid a repeat of the Poppy Way misreading of neighborhood sentiment. Norxnally, failure to acquire the signatures of the required two-thirds of property owners on a semi-rural designation petition would preclude the issue from coming before Council, and the standard improvements would be required. However, because of the tree preservation requirement and what has appeared to be significant sentiment in the neighborhood to preserve the trees and the existing character of the neighborhood, staff felt it prudent to advise the Council of the status of this situation. The approval of the applicant's final map has been held off pending the resolution of this issue. There are at least the following options that could be pursued to allow the applicant to proceed: 1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditions requiring the modified street improvements for the Knopp development be retained, since this is a condition required by the Planning Commission and concurrence was sought to provide for modification of the standard roadside improvements by at least two-thirds of the property owners along 15-2 the area of the street affected. The fact that such concurrence was not received would not normally impede the application of these conditions. 2. The applicant could submit construction securities for the most extensive improvements that could be required to allow the applicant to submit the final map for Council approval, while the time for the petition signatures to be submitted in support of the semi-rural designation is extended; or 3. Since the petition has not achieved the required two-thirds signup, the Council may overrule the Planning Commission's condition, as was done on Poppy Way, albeit after the fact and at considerable expense to the City. In that case, the standard improvements will be required, and the applicant can proceed with the final map approval. FLSCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. STAFF .RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditions requiring modified street improvements for the Kropp development at 21925 Lindy Lane be retained. Submitted by: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission to the City Council: David W. Knapp City Manager 15-3 EXHIBIT S BEGIN HERE CUPERTINO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary ~~ ~ ^ 9 AGENDA ITEM ~ ~ V`-i'' `~~h~ AGENDA DATE August 19, 2008 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Report on modified street improvements for the Knopp development at 21925 Lindy Lane and recommendation to retain the street improvement conditions required by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND On July 26, 2005, the Cupertino Planning Commission approved application TM-2005-03, granting the applicant John Knopp a permit to subdivide the property at 21925 Lindy Lane into two residential lots. As part of the approval, the Planning Commission required that established existing trees along the street frontage of the property be preserved. In order to preserve the trees, the standard roadside improvements would have to be modified to allow the roadway to be built at less than the standard width and to delete the requirement for a concrete sidewalk. The procedure laid out in Section 14.04.040 B of the Cupertino Municipal Code for modifying roadside improvement standards for streets in areas of the City not covered under the hillside development provisions of the Code requires that asemi-rural designation for such streets be approved by Council. A prerequisite for Council consideration of a semi-rural designation is that at least two-thirds of the property owners along the affected street shall have signed a petition to the City requesting asemi-rural designation for their street. A Knopp subdivision representative attempted to circulate such a petition to the residents of the area shown on the attached map, but indicated to City staff that many of the residents who were approached remained sufficiently unclear about the implications of the petition that they were unwilling to sign it. Recognizing that the trees could not be preserved without modifying the street improvement standards, as well as the existence of significant sentiment in the neighborhood to preserve the trees and the natural quality of the neighborhood, staff held a neighborhood meeting at the site to clarify the options presented by the petition. With plans produced by the applicant's engineer, staff used the site meeting to demonstrate graphically the options for modifying the improvement requirements to preserve the trees and minimize grading of the hillside. The attending residents were polled for a general sense of the modified improvements that would be acceptable on a revised petition, and the following was the result: The subject section of Lindy Lane would have 1. Less than standard road width: typical curb-to-curb width will be 32 feet (reduced from standard 40 feet); 2. Altered curb type: Roll curb, rather than standard high curb; 3. No concrete sidewalk. A decomposed granite or aggregate base rock pathway may be substituted in a manner that will not compromise the existing trees. A petition with the above parameters, together with a map of the affected area and a drawing of the proposed modified road section was sent to each property owner in the affected area. It was explained at the meeting and in the body of the petition that the narrower road width would eliminate parking on one side of Lindy Lane along the Knopp frontage. The recipients of the petition were asked to submit a signed petition by Monday, August 11, 2008, so that the item could be presented at the August 19, 2008, meeting. As of this writing, the petition has not achieved the required two-thirds signup. Options for Proceeding The semi-rural ordinance, adopted October 20, 2003, and codified as Section 14.04.040 B in the Cupertino Municipal Code, was approved by Council at the behest of a number of residential property owners who desired not to install curb, gutter and sidewalk, or streetlights as building permit conditions in order to preserve the semi-rural character of their neighborhoods. The ordinance had been envisioned and employed primarily as a means whereby Council, in receipt of a valid neighborhood petition could make the findings necessary to waive the requirements .for sidewalk or streetlights. The Code section, however, does deal with "modified street improvement standards." The purpose of bringing this matter to the Council is to recall a similar situation in 2005 when the Council, in response to neighborhood concerns, felt it necessary to realign the curb at City expense along the Poppy Way frontage of the Murano development after the developer in accordance with the project conditions narrowed the street to preserve trees. In both the Poppy Way and the present cases, the Planning Commission required tree preservation that calls for narrowing of the street. Application of the procedure outlined in the semirural ordinance where modified street improvement standards are called for as permit conditions should be required in order to avoid a repeat of the Poppy Way misreading of neighborhood sentiment. Normally, failure to acquire the signatures of the required two-thirds of property owners on a semi-rural designation petition would preclude the issue from coming before Council, and the standard improvements would be required. However, because of the tree preservation requirement and what has appeared to be significant sentiment in the neighborhood to preserve the trees and the existing character of the neighborhood, staff felt it prudent to advise the Council of the status of this situation. The approval of the applicant's final map has been held off pending the resolution of this issue. There are at least the following options that could be pursued to allow the applicant to proceed: 1. Staff recommends that the modified street improvements necessary to fulfill the Planning Commission condition to preserve established existing trees along the street frontage of the property be approved. These modified street improvements, shown on the attached diagram, are those that accompanied the neighborhood petition. The City Attorney has advised staff that inasmuch as the semi-rural ordinance that would allow such modified street improvements lacks a provision for Council approval of a semi-rural designation without a valid petition, Cupertino Municipal Code Section 14.04.040 B must be amended if Council wishes to follow this recommendation. 2. The applicant could submit construction securities for the most extensive improvements that could be required to allow the applicant to submit the final map for Council approval, while the time for the petition signatures to be submitted in support of the semi-rural designation is extended; or 3. Since the petition has not achieved the required two-thirds signup, the Council may overrule the Planning Commission's condition, as was done on Poppy Way, albeit after the fact and at considerable expense to the City. In that case, the standard improvements will be required, and the applicant can proceed with the final map approval. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditions requiring modified street improvements for the Knopp development at 21925 Lindy Lane be retained. Submitted by: ~~ Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission to the City Council: ~~~~ David W. Knapp City Manager 4" DECOMPOSED GRANITE COMPACTED TO 90~ RELATIVE ROLLED CURB PER CITY OF CUPERTINO STANDARD DETAIL SAW CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT 12" FROM NEW LIP OF GUTTER PATCH WITH 12" AC DEEP LIFT CURB TO CURB DISTANCE VARIES FROM 32' TO 34' PRESSURE TREATED 2"x4" ~ HEADER BOARD 18' 12" PRESSURE TREATED STAKE C~? 44~OC 4' ~ 12' EXISTING GRADE NOTE: DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH TO BE DISCONTINUED UNDER THE DRIP LINES OF TREES AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY ENGINEER PROPOSED SECTION FOP CINDY LANE ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF 21925 CINDY ~I'J. EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE ~c ~ l~9 fo p # ~.~ Cupertino City Council c/o City Clerk Office City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Kropp development at 21925 Lindy Lane Dear City Council: August 18, 2008 ~ ~~~Od~ au~ ~ a zoos CUPERTINO CITY CLERK I am writing to you regarding the Kropp development at 21925 Lindy Lane. We feel that the road should have a 40 foot width and there should be a sidewalk or pathway. We are concerned for the safety of pedestrians. Currently, there is no sidewalk and pedestrians are forced to walk on the street. There should be some sort of pathway/sidewalk along the Kropp development, which would provide pedestrians a safe means of walking. Ideally, we should accommodate parking on both sides of the street. With a 32 foot width road, it is too narrow to allow for two-way traffic and parking on both sides of the street. Further, a 32 foot road is too narrow and dangerous for bicyclists. There are a number of children that bicycle in this area and there is concern for their safety. With a 40 foot width road, two way car traffic and bicyclists will be able to properly share the road, while maintaining parking on both sides of the street. Thank you for your consideration, Edward Chan 21943 Lindy Lane J ~ is Linda Lagergren From: Barry Pangrle [bpangrle@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 1:40 AM To: Dolly Sandoval; Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: Public Works Petition for Semirural Designation of 21925 Lindy Lane Attachments: Public_Works_Letter_r.pdf; Public_Works_Letter_Attachments_r.pdf; Envelope.pdf Dear Cupertino City Council Members: Please find attached for your reference three (3) pdf files containing copies of a letter sent to designated residents on Lindy Lane by the Public Works Department. I found it interesting that a petition for a designation change was sent by the Public Works Department and not one of the Lindy Lane Neighbors. Is it common operating procedure for city staff to initiate such a petition and to use city funds for return postage? I would expect that a petition of this type to be the responsibility of the neighbor requesting the change and that the costs would be borne by that neighbor. Lindy Lane Neighbors have received multiple petitions for a variance of the ordinance with regards to 21925 Lindy Lane and a 2/3 majority have not signed this petition because they understand it and do not want it. I encourage the council to follow the neighbors' wishes and abide by the guidelines set forth in Section 14.04.040 B and not change the designation for 21925 Lindy Lane to "semirural". I would appreciate Council Members having printed copies of the attached files available for reference during the August 19, 2008 Council Meeting. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Barry Pangrle 21849 Lindy Lane AUG 19 2008 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Ralph A. Qualls, Jr., Director CUPERTINO July 29, 2008 CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 950143266 {408) 777-3354 ~ FAX {408) 777-3333 Dear Lindy Lane Neighbor: After a recent neighborhood site meeting concerning roadside improvement requirements for the subdivision development proposed for 21925 Lindy Lane, material has been prepared by Public Works staff to ask for your participation in helping to decide the nature of those roadside improvements. When the Planning Commission approved the Knopp subdivision at 2]925 Lindy Lane, it expressed its desire to save the existing mature oak trees neaz the front of the property. The standard roadside improvements, which include a 40-foot-wide roadway and curb, gutter, and sidewalk, would require removal of at least two of the trees, considerable grading of the hillside, and construction of some retaining wall. In order to preserve the trees and minimize grading, the standard roadside improvements need to be modified to reduce the width of the road and substitute a decomposed granite pathway for the standard concrete sidewalk. To achieve that modification, Section 14.04.040 I3 of the City's Municipal Code requires that a "semirural" designation of this portion of the neighborhood be approved by City Council. The process set forth in Section 14.04.040 13 for applying for a semirural designation calls for a petition signed by at ]east two-thirds of the neighborhood affected asking the City Council to approve the semirural designation. 'The attached materials include a petition, a drawing of the proposed reduced roadway section, a map of the area affected showing the parcels whose owners are being asked to sign the petition, and a postage paid return envelope for return of the petition. Public Works plans to report to the City Council on this matter at its August 19, 2008, meeting. Therefore, we ask that you return the petition signed, if appropriate, or unsigned with any comments you may have, by close of business on Monday, August l 1, 2008. Under typical circumstances, were the petition not to achieve the required hvo-thirds approval, the issue would not go before the Council, and the standazd improvements would be required. However, since the Planning Commission has called for the trees to be preserved, and since there appears to be considerable interest in the neighborhood in accomplishing that and othen~~ise preserving as much as possible the existing character of the neighborhood, Public Works intends to report to Council one way or the other at the Council's August 19 meeting. At that meeting this issue should be satisfactorily resolved, so that the Knopp subdivision can file its final map and proceed with its project. Please contact me at glenng,~cupertino.org or (408) 777-3244 if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Glenn Goepfert Assistant Director of Public Works Attachments To: Director of Public Works City of Cupertino From: Property O~~mers along Lindy Lane Re: Sidewalk Exemption The property owners signing this petition are requesting that the City of Cupertino consider their request that a portion of the street named above within the limits shown on the attached map be designated by the City Council as "rural" or "semi-rural" in character. Such a designation will alter the road improvement standards for the streets within the limits shown. In this case, the property owners signing this petition wish to vary from the standard improvement for the street within the limits sho~~m in the following manner: 1. Less than standard road width: typical curb-to-curb width will be 32 feet (reduced from standard 40 feet) 2. Altered curb type: Roll curb, rather than standard high curb 3. No concrete sidewalk. A decomposed granite or aggregate base rock path~~a}' may be substituted in a manner that will not compromise the existing trees. The property owners signing ibis petition, who live within this area, believe that sidewalks are not needed, since, in their view, safety ~RII not be compromised for those who walk along the streets named above and as shov~m on the attached map. Further, the property owners signing this petition believe that there are no significant accessibility issues that will arise from lack of side~~~alk. In addition, the property o~~mers signing this petition acknowledge that in the locations where the road is less than 40 feet in width on street parking may be eliminated. Each of the undersigned attests: I understand the concerns involved and I am in support of altering the standard roadside improvement requirements along Lindy Lane, as enumerated above, within the limits shown on the attached map. Address Name Signature 2l 802 L indy Lane 21822 L indy Lane 21832 L indy Lane 21839 L indy Lane 21842 L indy Lane 2l 849 L indy Lane 2 i 852 L indy Lane 21862 L indy Lane 21882 L indy Lane 21989 L indy Lane 21902 L indy Lane 21912 L indy Lane 21925 L indy Lane 21932 L indy Lane 21943 L indy Lane 21945 L indy Lane 21947 L indy Lane 21949 L indy Lane 21950 L indy Lane 21951 Lindy Lane 21952 L indv Lane 21962 L indy Lane 21992 L indy Lane 22101 L indy Lane 1 ] 387 L indy Place PRESSURE TREATED 2"x?" _ iiEADER G'JAP,D 12" PRESSURE TREATED STAKE C ~~' OC ~ _~ ;~ !~ EXISTING GRADE -'~ 4° DECO~nPOSED GRANITE COMPt.%TED TO 90~ RELATIVE ~ RCLLLD CURB PER CITY OE CUPERTINO STANDARD DET.41L i !' SAW C'JT EXISTING P.4VE~4EFJT ~ ;- t?" ERC'v1 'vE;'J LIP OE GUTTER ~ i'A ICH 1N11y 12" A: DEEP LIET f CURE TO CUR© D15~'ANCE ~,~I ~--- VAR!ES EROM 32' TO 34' - ili j i,. ~ ,~- 1 ~~ - -~----=r~~ ' --_-- - - ~ -- NOTE : DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATt-+ TO 9E DISCONTINUED UNDER THE DRIP LINES OF TREES A T Tf IE DISCaE !ION OF THE CITY ENGINEER ?~ '~ i~l iJ ~t t,i h ~ l~ «: M !v l /V ~ S:If?17 rn c~ ~~ - ~n ~n n O L'.Yl{. I ~ j N N _ [V iv P' N rv .- ~ i L4:Oli: g p3 f)pp~~ 1 2 n m O~ ~p _ N i:~ /t.. ( V ~ 925 i~ r~ 2, ~4 s Q ~ ~z _ .Q .C <r ;° x ~; ~J e`e~ W ~ '- z ~SE~z ~_ ni N cn cV O N - •- • ~ rn v N G~~> n a ~1f~ OJ6~` << !~ 2~ ,<, r ~ ' 1 {~ ~ I ` ;n c u~ ~r ? ni N N I N iV ~_ ,,-1', ^^y' rt1 ~L :1192 ~ nU ;,~ r •} ~ ~ n~ , ~~ !. :~ ~ ^, Z~L'~Z N f J ~- rl ~L v n :L~p2L ~ n f I l~l I f~ I `932 I 2 ,S 21fla2 .G~ ? 2852 ~~ ~' • 1 1Q3 214162 ti Ult:~ { l 21 Ofi2 ~~~, ~ 11477 ., 21902 X1912 .9r 21932 `'~. .~ O 9~9 ~1 21952 21962 ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~„'{ Q f\ ~ / 992 I w 2 99t' i Q 2~ I I ~ - ~ - --. - --c ~., ry00'.'- CUPERTINO CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 ..'j .. .. s ~a ~.~ - r ~ ~i- __ , S -- ~ ~~ ~~~~" CIS Linda Lagergren _ From: xihua sun [xihuasun@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:40 PM To: Kris Wang Subject: Building Restrictions on Lindy Lane Attachments: Letter to City Council.doc Hey Kris, The residents of our neighborhood on Lindy Lane want to modify the current ordinance by changing the 4500 square feet triggering point to 6500 square feet for the lots one acre or greater in size. Residents on both the North and South side of Lindy Lane support this. They feel this is a greener solution for our neighborhood and minimizes the possibility of further subdivisions. Several buyers were interested in buying John Knopp's property as a single lot, hoping to build one bigger house rather than dividing into two lots. We've attached the petition letter signed by most of the residents in the Lindy Lane neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, Frank Sun ~ ~ ~ AUG 1 9 2008 ~,,.~ CUPERTIraO C6TY CLERK Linda Lagergren From: xihua sun [xihuasun@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:42 PM To: Dolly Sandoval Subject: Building size restriction Attachments: Letter to City Council.doc Hey Dolly, The residents of our neighborhood on Lindy Lane want to modify the current ordinance by changing the 4500 square feet triggering point to 6500 square feet for the lots one acre or greater in size. Residents on both the North and South side. of Lindy Lane support this. They feel this is a greener solution for our neighborhood and minimizes the possibility of further subdivisions. Several buyers were interested in buying John Knopp's property as a single lot, hoping to build one bigger house rather than dividing into two lots. We've attached the petition letter signed by most of the residents in the Lindy Lane neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, Frank Sun Linda Lagergren From: xihua sun [xihuasun@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:45 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Building Size Restriction (The previous one didn't attach correctly) Attachments: Letter to City Council.doc Hey Orrin, The residents of our neighborhood on Lindy Lane want to modify the current ordinance by changing the 4500 square feet triggering point to 6500 square feet for the lots one acre or greater in size. Residents on both the North and South side of Lindy Lane support this. They feel this is a greener solution for our neighborhood and minimizes the possibility of further subdivisions. Several buyers were interested in buying John Knopp's property as a single lot, hoping to build one bigger house rather than dividing into two lots. We've attached the petition letter signed by most of the residents in the Lindy Lane neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, Frank Sun June 6, 2008 Dear City Council Members: On 10/10/07 the Cupertino City Council conducted the second reading of a modification to section 19.28.050 R1 zoning ordinance. This modification affected fifteen properties on the North side of Lindy Lane. The new rule requires approval by the Planning Commission for a building size greater than 4500 square feet. We would like to repectively request that the 4500sf Planning Commission trigger be increased to 6500sf for lot sizes greater than one acre, while keeping all other clauses intact. We have two ~ reasons for this request. First, for lots over one acre, the 4500sf trigger is overly restrictie and is actually smaller than the allowable FAR under the RHS rules. Second, we feel that the 6500sf limit would tend to reduce the likelihood of further subdivisions for the remaining four lots that exceed one acre. Thank you for you consideration, The affected Lindy Lane Residents Signature Address Email ~/S Linda Lagergren From: Simon Ko [simon_ko@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 7:09 PM To: City Clerk; Dolly Sandoval; Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: RE: Cupertino City Council Meeting on Aug 19th, 2008 -Knopp development petition Dear Cupertino City Council, We live at 21862 Lindy Lane, directly across from the said Knopp development. We object to the petition in the strongest possible term. Please do not reduce any of the needed roadside improvement that is required on the property. In particular, losing 8 feet of Lindy Lane to this properly development will negatively affect the neighborhood significantly. Too many children and other folks walking up and down this street. We already have no speed bumps to slow down the fast drivers. We are afraid someone will get killed with the narrowing street. Then City of Cupertino will be liable! Please follow the required Rl roadside improvement as planned. Kind regards, Simon Ko Chung Lee Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be-learn how to burn a DVD with Windows. Make your smash hit ~~~Od~ D AUG 19 2008 CUPERTIf~O CITY CLERK X15 Linda Lagergren From: Simon Ko [simon_ko@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 7:14 PM To: City Clerk; Dolly Sandoval; Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: Knopp development petition - we strongly oppose to it Dear Cupertino City Council, We live on 21862 Lindy Land: directly across from the said Knopp development. We would like to make a simple response to this petition: we strongly oppose to the petition to reduce the roadside improvement in the name of rural look. Please make sure the roadside improvement complies with R1 ordinance as required. Thank you. Kind regards, Simon Ko Chung Lee AUG i g 2008 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Get thousands of games on your PC, your mobile phone, and the web with Windows. Game with Windows ~ ~~~ Linda Lagergren From: Simon Ko [simon_ko@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 7:14 PM To: City Clerk; Dolly Sandoval; Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: Knopp development petition - we strongly oppose to it Dear Cupertino City Council, We live on 21862 Lindy Land: directly across from the said Knopp development. We would like to make a simple response to this petition: we strongly oppose to the petition to reduce the roadside improvement in the name of rural look. Please make sure the roadside improvement complies with Rl ordinance as required. Thank you. Kind regards, Simon Ko Chung Lee AUG 1 g 2008 CU!'ERTINO CITY CLERK Get thousands of games on your PC, your mobile phone, and the web with Windows. Game with Windows _ .~..~~P Dear City Council Members: -~~ ~~'~ June 6, 2008 On 10/10/07 the Cupertino City Council conducted the second reading of a modification to section 19.28.050 Rl zoning ordinance. This modification affected fifteen properties on the North side of Lindy Lane. The new rule requires approval by the Planning Conunission for a building size greater than 4500 square feet. We would like to respectively request that the 4500sf Planning Commission trigger be increased to 6500sf for lot sizes greater than one acre, while keeping all other clauses intact. We have two reasons for this request. First, for lots over one acre, the 4500sf trigger is overly restrictive and is actually smaller than the allowable FAR under the RHS rules. Second, we feel that the 6500sf limit would tend to reduce the likelihood of further subdivisions for the remaining four lots that exceed one acre. Thank you for your consideration, The affected Lindy Lane Residents Signature e Address Email ,~ s ~ Yte ti c~,lti~.- ~1~ ~~ ~~ Cif E G~1~ ~o ~~.{ =~~ 3 ~--I ~ ~ cdnti r June 6, 2008 Dear City Council Members: On 10/10/07 the Cupertino City Council conducted the second reading of a modification to section 19.28.050 Rl zoning ordinance. This modification affected fifteen properties on the North side of Lindy Lane. The new rule requires approval by the Planning Cornlnission for a building size greater than 4500 square feet. ~e would like to respectively request that the 4500sf Planning Commission trigger be increased to 6500sf for lot sizes greater than one acre, while keeping all other clauses intact. We have two reasons for this request. First, for lots over one acre, the 4500sf trigger is overly restrictive and is actually smaller than the allowable FAR under the RHS rules. Second, we feel that the 6500sf limit would tend to reduce the likelihood of further subdivisions for the remaining four lots that exceed one acre. Thank you for your consideration, The affected Liddy Lane Residents Signature flddress ~S ~ Z ~ lil['~ ?~ G ~~5`~~ ~ ~` ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~- i ~«~ c ~ ~~ ~ .L %d~Y ~, ~~ (D! Lr~~~j y~ z~1 Entail f~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ r e ~~~~ '~`L-`~~J ~ C o e4c ~i~ ~ :~~ '~~,, i r--1~ 7/~r y ~:~ i~A/ ~ ._ /S 4, ° ~Y,s~~co~, ~~~~ .~,~ ~~~-,~~- ~q~.~~ • Ca!7 June 6, 2008 Dear City Council Members: On 10/10/07 the Cupertino City Council conducted the second reading of a modification to section 19.28.050 R1 zoning ordinance. This modification affected fifteen properties on the North side of Lindy Lane. The new rule requires approval by the Planning Commission for a building size greater than 4500 square feet. We would like to repectively request that the 4500sf Planning Commission trigger be increased to 6500sf for lot sizes greater than one acre, while keeping all other clauses intact. We have two reasons for this request. First, for lots over one acre, the 4500sf trigger is overly restrictie and is actually smaller than the allowable FAR under the RHS rules. Second, we feel that the 6500sf limit would tend to reduce the likelihood of further subdivisions for the remaining four lots that exceed one acre. Thank you for you consideration, The affected Lindy Lane Residents Signature ,4 Address ~;,~ ~.~- -~~ ~-~ ~ ~ F t Email { ` ~ 1 • ,1 ~ Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of 1 ;~~` Windows LiveT~ Knopp development petition - we strongly oppose to it From: Simon Ko (simon_ko@hotmail.com) Sent: Sun 8/17/08 7:14 PM To: cityclerk@cupertino.org; dsandoval@cupertino.org; omahoney@cupertino.org; kwang@cupertino.org; ___ -g~wong{aeupertintr-ofg;-r-risant-or-a@c-uperti~o-flrg --- - -- -- --- --- -----._.-... -......_ _. .-. ---- -_ _ .._ Dear Cupertino City Council, We live on 21862 Lindy Land: directly across from the said Knopp development. We would like to make a situp-e response to this petition: we strongly oppose to the petition to reduce the roadside improvement in the name of rural look. Please make sure the roadside improvement complies with R1 ordinance as required. Thank you. Kind regards, Simon Ko ~~~w~~ Chung Lee E yr^; ~o ~~~~ _ ~ ~- Get thousands of games on your PC, your mobile phone, and the web with Windows®. Game with Windows http://by 122w.bay 122.mail.live.com/maiUPrintShell.aspx?type~.nessa~e&cpids=f~678ce5... 8/17/2008 ,/ c~~8- I ~- 08 ~ I S ova (~crn~ Dear City council member, The residents of Lindy Lane would like you to consider three things when looking at the Knopp/Moxley subdivision: 1.Problems with the subdivision: a. There was 2741sf (for driveway easement) waved that should have been subtracted from the total. This means that there was NOT enough land for the subdivision. The Planning Commission and Public were NOT aware of this. It was in the language, but no body saw it. b. No Geological study was done -Frank Sun's and one from Moxley's old property were used. NO geological study was done on the Knopp property. c. Moxley also has NOT provided storm drain hookups and did NOT fix his road damage on his last subdivision. Make sure we do the right thing before final map approved. 2. Follow the rules. Moxley should be required to do the standard R1 improvements. After three attempts at a petition (even two by the city) the neighbors won't sign because we want the standard R1 improvements. Neighbors want the R1 standards AND save the oak trees. It is possible to do both, and that's what should be done. 3. Help us AND be green. Please Add the 6500sf Planning Commission trigger for lots over 1 acre to Council Agenda tonight. This might prevent another subdivision. A house built on the 2°d lot likely will kill several trees. If you allow a single bigger house this disaster might be prevented. It's good for the owner, the neighbors, the city, and its GREEN. June 6, 2008 Dear City Council Members: Email On 10/10/07 the Cupertino City~Council conducted the second reading of a modification to section 19.28.050 Rl zoning ordinance. This modification affected fifteen properties on the North side of Lindy Lane. The new rule requires approval by the Planning Commission for a building size greater than 4500 square feet. We would like to respectively request that the 4500sf Planning Commission trigger be increased to 6500sf for lot sizes greater than one acre, while keeping all other clauses intact. We have two reasons for this request. First, ally lots over one acre, the 4500sf trigger is overly restrictive and is actu smaller than the allowable FAR under the RHS rules. Second, we feel that the 6500sf limit would tend to reduce the likelihood of further subdivisions for the remaining four lots that exceed one acre. Thank. you for your consideration, The affected Lindy Lane Reside~ifs Signatzrre ~ Address ,.--~ J S~ ~ ~/ - a ~/ ~~~`< - .~ - ~ o~3G(, l t• tug U L~ti'~Y ,; ~ , v .- t:~ t- ~= ~L-<<1~.-;ti~._-~- ~1 ll ' cG~B-la-a~ -~ - S ~ra,wti.-Son // r ( , /. ~~•fL' /T~ Ci / ~ ,~1_` _ .1 ~'~( T/s~ y. ~-~ . . June 6, 2008 Dear City Council Members: On 1(}/1(}/07 the Cupertino City Council conducted the second reading cif a modification to section 19.28.050 R1 zoning ordinance. This ~~~odification affected fifteen properties on the North side of Lindy Lane. "I'he new rule requires approval by the Planning Commission for a huilding size greater than 4500 square feet. We would like to ~-epectively request that the 4500sf Planning Commission trigger be i~~creased to 6500sf for lot sizes greater than one acre, while keeping all other clauses intact. We have two reasons for this request. First, for lots over one acre, the 4500sf trigger is overly restrictie and is actuall}~ smaller than the allowable FAR under the RHS rules. Second, we feel that the 6~OOs1' limit would tend to reduce the likelihood of further s~ibdivisions for the remaining four lots that exceed one acre. Thank you for you consideration, I'he al'fecied L.indv Lane Residents .S'r~nur'airc~ Address Email r .. , ~~ ~ ; ..I June 6, 2008 Dear City Council Members: On 10/10/07 the Cupertino City Council conducted the second reading of a modification to section 19.28.050 R1 zoning ordinance. This modification affected fifteen properties on the North side of Lindy Lane. The new rule requires approval by the Planning Commission for a building size greater than 4500 square feet. We would like to respectively request that the 4500sf Planning Commission trigger be increased to 6500sf for lot sizes greater than one acre, while keeping all other clauses intact. We have two reasons for this request. First, for lots over one acre, the 4500sf trigger is overly restrictive and is actually smaller than the allowable FAR under the RHS rules. Second, we feel that the 6500sf limit would tend to reduce the likelihood of further subdivisions for the remaining four lots that exceed one acre. Thank you for your consideration, The affected Lindy Lane Residents ~.~~ Come~c~t ~e' N -i ;.' - ~ il yt~ I~w,,~,,,1- ;t Y c{,~.~.- . ~,v .v L; ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ..~ .r:~,-.-~ 2 i ~ f 1 Ltd ~! y L-~ ...~ rh ,~.-i~-l~ f~~ t;, ~,L, ~ 7 -= .; ., n . z ~, J Signature Address Email