U-1987-13bAPPLICATION 13-U-87
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10430 S. DE ANZA BOULEVARD
CULERITNO, CALIFORNIA 95014
RESOLLTTION 140. 3066 (Minute Order)
OF THE PLANNING CCHMISSION REPORTING THAT THE SITE PLAN
PRFSENIED IS STILL INADEQUATE AS DESCRIBED BELOW:
SECTION I• FINDINGS
1. Six units are within the existing zoning district applicable to the
property.
2. The plan, as presented, is inadequate with respect to setbacks,
available on street parking, and safe access due to the 90 degree turn
adjacent to an existing fence line thereby inhibiting visibility.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 1987 at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
C30USSIONERS:
Adams, Claudy, Sorensen, Szabo and
Chairman Mackenzie
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSTAIN:
COPMIISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
4W Robert Cowan
Director of Planning
Donatdtackenzie,
Cupertino Planning 6&mtission
resol3(Lr7)
L
Cft,4 of Cuperti>ho
10300 Torre Avenue P.O. Box 580
Cupertino, California 95014 Cupertino, California 95015
Telephone: (408) 252-4505
DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY CLERK
INTERIM1I C17Y HALL
IWW S. DeAnn 81vd,
C.. :i;r,0. CA M14
June 9, 1987
Edwin and Carol Federspiel
10330 Scenic Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY COUNCIL ACTION - APPLICATIONS 13-U-87 AND S-IIH-87
This will confirm the action by the City Council at their meeting of JUm
1, 1987 at which Council referred the subject applications to the Planning
Ccmnnission with the following direction: Density should be reduced to a
maxim= of five units, the design of the road to be melded into the
development. Commission look at the building envelcpe/massing to be
sensitively handled in regard to the perspective of the neighbors.
Council also accepted applicant's waiver of need for tentative map
approval at this time.
sincerely,
�f
DOFDniY OC>RNELIUS, CW
CITY CLERK
encl.
cc: Department of Planning and Development
Bill McBee
Cupertino Sanitary District
20065 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Rodger Griffin
Paragon Design Group
405 B Alberto Way
Los Gatos, CA 95030
APPLICATION 13-U-87
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION No. 3035
OF THE PLANNING W01ISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
REO0HMENDMG DENTAL OF
A USE PERMIT TO CONS UCr SIX SINGLE FAMILY HCHES
MMMAS, the Planning Cmmissicn of the City of Cupertino has received an
application for a Use Permit, as described on Page 2 of this Resolution;
and
• WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning C=ission
has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has failed to meet the burden of proof required to
support this application, and has not satisfied the following
requirements:
1) That the use or uses are in conformance with the General Plan and
are not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the
zone in which the proposed use is to be located.
2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed uses.
3) That the proposed uses will not generate levels of traffic over and
beyond that of the capacity of the existing street system.
• 4) That the proposed uses are not otherwise detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing in the
neighborhood of such proposed uses, nor injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood of the site affected by the
application.
5) The proposed plan conflicts with zoning ordinance requirements that
the units be constructed on the flatter westerly portions of the
site.
WHEREAS, the plan as presented is not in sufficient accord with the zoning
that governs the property because it does not do the maximum to protect
the watershed to Blackberry Farm and the density is too great given the
limited developable area of the site.
NOW, THMUTURE, BE IT RESOLVED
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, wdlibits, testimony and
other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is
hereby recawanded for denial by the City Council of the City of
Cupertino; and
Resolution No. 3035 May 26, 1987
Edwin and Carol Federspiel (13-U-87)
Page -2-
HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
That the subcanclusions upon which the findings specified in this
Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application 13-U-87 as set forth in the Mimrtes of the Planning Ccmmission
meeting of May 11, 1987 and are incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein.
Application No(s) 13-U-87
Applicant: Edwin and Carol Federspiel
Property Owner: Same
Location: East side of Scenic Houlevani ffimmaimataly
450 ft. north of Palm Avernre
Parcel Area
(Acres) : �_ 1
USE PEST (13-U-87)
To construct a 6 unit single family planned development.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of May, 1987 at a regular meeting of the
Planning Ccumission of the City of Oipertino, State of California, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: O30=ICNERS: Adams, claudy, and Vice chairperson Sorensen
NAYS: CCHM SSICNERR: Szabo
ABSTAIN: CCMMZSSICNERS: Norte
ASSENT: COMMISSICNERS: Mackenzie
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ Robert Cowan
Robert Cowan
Planning Director
R13-U-87(Steve)
/s/ Lauralee Sorensen Vice -Chairperson
Lauralee Sorersen, Vice-chairpersa:
Cgeitino Planning Ca®ission
RESOLUTION NO. 7359
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT SIX SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES; 2.5 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SCENIC BOULEVARD
APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET NORTH OF PALM AVENUE
(APPLICATION NO. 13-U-87, FEDERSPIEL)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received and
considered Application 13-U-87 of Edwin and Carol Federspiel to construct
six single-family homes on 2.5 acres located on the east side of Scenic
Boulevard approximately 450 feet north of Palm Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the plan as presented is
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the persons
residing in the area and the property involved is not adequate in shape
and size to accommodate the proposed uses because of lack of access
as shown in Exhibit A, 3rd revision; and
WHEREAS, based upon Exhibit A, 3rd revision the proposed plan does
not meet R-1 standards; and
WHEREAS, lot 19 is of specific concern because of public safety,
specifically in regard to the ability of fire vehicles to manuever;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Cupertino hereby denies Application 13-U-87 based on findings set
forth in this resolution and in the minutes of the City Council meeting
of October 12, 1987.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino, this 2nd day of November , 19 87, by the
following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Catto, Johnson, Plungy
NOES: Rogers, Sparks
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
/s/ Dorothy Cornelius
City Clerk
APPROVED:
/a/ W_ RP,d Cnnrko
Mayor, City of Cupertino. •
i
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone: (408) 252-4505
i
0
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 17, 3.987
Edwin and Carol Federspiel
10330 Scenic Boulevard
Cupertino, CA 95014
C" of Cupertino
C rN COUNCIL ACTZON - APPLICAMC IR 13-U-87
P.O. Box Sao
Cupertino, California 95015
This will confirm the actions by the City Council concernirg the subject
application. At the meeting of October 12, 1987 the application was
denied. At a special meeting held on October 19, Council voted to
reconsider the application.
At the regular meeting of November 2, 1987, Council upheld thair previous
action er>caq)assing all previous findings and adopted Resolution No. 7359
denying the use permit. A copy of the resolution, which contains all
findings, is enclosed.
ROBERTA WOLFE
DEPUTY CITY CLERIC
cc: Dgarhwnt of Planning and Development
Bill McBee
04* tino Sanitary District
20065 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, CA 95014
James H. Sisk Devel. _`t?
10047 Scenic Boulevard
Chper'tino, CA 95014
Terry Brown Const.
21721 Granda Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
cc:
Rodger Griffin
Paragon Design Group
405 B Alberto Way
Los GatoB, CA 95030
Dianne Crosby
10335 Scenic Blvd.
Ctipertino, CA 95014
Jackson, Donovan, RuM, Maford &'Svalya
Attn: James Jackson
'Inert m..,-.,s a..a. -
LWJ7 Scenic bLva.
aTertino, CA 95014
Tom Crosby
1329 C1a St
y
Cupertino, CA 95014
Richard Xhight
10222 Carmen Road
pertino Ca 95014,1
�,
. .
Rod Castor
10440 Scenic Blvd.
_
Qjpertino, CA 95014
1�
Richard Shoenhaur
, t .. ... ..:..... . .. .
10285 Scenic Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Jahn Bjeletech
10184 Carmen load
Cupertino, CA 95014
RESOLUTICN NO. 7359
A RESOLITPLCK OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPtR=0
DENYING A USE PERMIT TO C0 OTRUCT SIX SINGLE-FAKrU H2W;
2.5 ACRES MCATED CN THE EAST SIDE OF SCENIC BOULEVARD
APPMXng 4Y 450 FT. NORZH OF PALM AVENUE
(APPLSCATICN NO. 13-U-87, FEDERSPIEL)
WHEFFA.S, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received and
considered Application 13-U-87 of Edwin and Carol Federspiel to construct
• six single-family homes on 2.5 acres located on the east side of Scenic
Boulevard approximately 450 feet north of Palm Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the plan as presented is
detrimesital to the health, safety and general welfare of the perms
residing in the area and the property involved is not adequate in shape
and size to acommodate the proposed uses because of lack of access as
shown in Exhibit A, 3rd revision, and
WHEREAS, based upon Exhibit A, 3rd revision the proposed plan does not
meet R-1 standards; and
WHEREAS, Iot 19 is of specific concern because of public safety,
specifically in regard to the ability of fire vehicles to maneuver;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Cupertino hereby denies Application 13-U-87 based on findings set forth in
this resolution and in the minutes of the City Council meeting of October
12, 1987.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this end day of November , 1987 by the following
vote:
RESOUMCK M. 23.0
vote Mmters of the City QgWr 7
AYES: Gatto, Johnson, Plungy
NOES: Rogers, Sparks
ABSEM None
ABSUMIN: None
/s/ Dorothy Cornelius
City Clerk
A
•
SUMMARY
AGENDA =M: 3 AGENDA DATE: April 6, 1987
SUBJECT AND ISSUE•
it is requested that the city Council adopt a street width policy for
cul-de-sac developments and minor residential streets.
BAC�'2i JA7D
Presently the normal requirement for street widths is 60 ft. right-of-way
• with 40 ft. curb to curb width, and a 56 ft. right -of -day with a 36 ft.
curb to curb width for cul-de-sacs. Staff is rw=m ending that the
following standards be adopted:
1. Cul-de-sac - 60 ft. right-of-way, 30 ft. curb to curie width.
2. Incal neighborhood street - 60 ft. right-of-way, 36 ft. curb to
curb width.
3. Neighborhood collector - 60 ft. right-of-way, 40 ft. curb to curb
width.
The purpose for the request is that the developing community, largely due
to infilling projects, is requesting narrower roadways. These requests are
in most part due to narrow rights -of -way yield more lots.
The staff has taken a different approach in requesting that the
. right -of -Dray stay fixed so as to yield the same number of lots and to
retain consistent setbacks, but to only vary curb to curb width for
different street patterns for aesthetics and reduction in long term
maintenance cost.
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS
The reason for retaining the same right-of-way of 60 ft. for all three
alternates is to assure that the setback requirement of 20 ft. from
property line to building is maintained so that the total separation width
of 100 ft. building to building is retained. (See attached Exhibit A)
Another reason to retain the right-of-way width is to assure sufficient
width for utilities behind the curb as more requirements are imposed for
utility undergrounding behind the curb; such as cable T.V. etc.
STREET WII7Zii POLICl City Council
Page 2 April 6, 1987
I:•a. J/6
The reason for reducing the road widths in cul-de-sacs is that a comparison
of local streets within the camR =ty indicates that the Cul-de-sac of 60
ft. right-of-way and 40 ft. curb to curb width is more than is norm311y
needed for parked vehicles and traveled ways. It would seem highly
desirable to replace asphalt with landscaping wherever appropriate, and in
doing so reduce the long-term maintenance responsibility to the City by
reducing the surface area necessary for the maintenance of pavement.
Field measurements have been taken that indicate that on a 30 ft. curb to
curb, two parked cars, if positioned properly can accommodate two passing
vehicles with some reduction in speed. BAS Homes development off of
Iazaneo Avenue is so constructed without any complaints from the
neighborhood. this reduction in speed in most cases will be welcomed by
the residents complaining of high speeds in neighborhood streets. Only on
• rare occasions if conditions are not right will a vehicle have to wait for
another vehicle to pass between two parked vehicles. Since this standard
will only be allowed in cul-de-sacs, staff does not find this to be an
inconvenience or detriment to the neighborhood.
It is felt that a 56 ft. curb to curb for non -cul-de-sac streets is ample
since all of the San Jose transfer area is of this width. It is difficult
to perceive the difference between a 36 ft. and a 40 ft. curb to curb
width.
Slides of the alternatives can be presented at the Council meeting is so
desired.
That the City Council adopt the following street width policy:
i1. Cul-de-sac - 30 ft. curb to Curb
2. Residential street other than cul-de-sac - 36 ft. curb to curb.
3. Neighborhood collector street - 40 ft. curb to curb.
4. Retention of 60 ft. right-of-way for all the above street widths.
BJV:sm
attach.
Approved for Submission
to the City Council:
Robert W. Quinlan
City Manager
100'
35* 30* 35'
6'
32' 36' 32'
1 30' i 40* 30'
EXHIBIT A
0
(f)
PL
CITY OF
APPLICATICN NO.
EMICIT
PIC REsoLupou 140.-
DATE: 118-7
tot
vriuyxm
—%AN
0
. ...........
A-0
m
s
/3-Cl-
S/c-, t 7
A.
I. I Y I -Ili
+
LOT fr"l +
A 41, fAIKA 10.300 SOL R. A
e LOT AMA•21 too m R.
AP
c
4
+
to.
-4
L 0r (02 1
k GO
(L-.T SICTIM F r
ACMM NO"
LL:
U
A
I-
L
C
L
E
L
ir. . . .... .
_j LOT 1 (20)
LOT
10,300 SO. FT. LOT, 2 (19)
AREA . 21,900 SO- FT-
... . .. . ...
- — , j VICINITY MAP
0
�rA • I
".:so
C
4
. . ..... iRFA
FT.
ll.g
REA 60 so F
AREA 17.DaD SO T.
1- SECTION F F
ACCESS ROAD IL
LOT S LOTS
PftLm 'a
if)
T- ----I
LOT
'LOT
CP
PLM'A'
LOT
87
----------
Zi
UMAN
CESIGN &
PC P.50WTIOX 100� 11
sit
r7 DMI:
PXHUT
Pit R:SO4UTIONT h:0.
DATE: -_
• - --
�� -;t,;
1%!f
t
i+ail
•
I
•
d5� '1wr�u
i vw�r
IeLi' !!81
' w��w w ':tNd1YAl1t1 ' f t
N M 013 l 11 j
•
MM ELEVA M
CITY OF CuriEkTINO
APPLICATION NO. 13 _ u
E
EXHIGIT "3
PIC RESO! tUTI7N NO.
DATE,
��
PLANNIIIIG
Cl ;-y
1-3-u-97
Pic
Lf
(j�
11
-M—
EEI
F r IE7
_17
FRONT ELEVATIOk ft- 'A.
W-.T
n-
—.T PLA. ol
I
mob —
WAIN
T I T L E
10 W N E R
ELEVATMNS
111111110 1
�vmmmmllmq
11
0