.02 R-2006-62 Ray Chen
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: R-2006-62
Applicant: Ray Chen
Property Location: 7453 Stanford Place
Agenda Date: April 24, 2007
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Community Development Director's referral of a Residential Design Review for a new,
two-story 2,693 square foot residence.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the project with the staff recommended changes.
BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2007, the Planning Commission took public testimony and reviewed the
proposed new two-story home. The Planning Commission continued the project to its
April 24, 2007 meeting and directed the following:
. Allow sufficient time for the neighbors to review the revised plans.
. Reduce the front entry feature (lowering its height and pulling it back from the
street).
One Commissioner also asked that the applicant consider providing more second story
recess from the first story along the right side elevation.
DISCUSSION
Neighborhood review of the plans:
A few neighbors expressed concerns that they were not given sufficient time to review
the plans presented to the Planning Commission on April 10, 2007. Staff emailed the
plans to the group of neighbors immediately after the Commission meeting. On April
17,2007, the plans were mailed to all of the neighbors within 300 feet of the project.
Staff received additional revised plans from the applicant on April 18, 2007. Most of the
immediate adjacent neighbors have received the revised plans via email on April 18,
2007. The hard copy will be mailed out to the neighbors on April 19, 2007, the same day
that the Planning Commission's package will be mailed out.
Additional neighborhood comments:
Since the last Planning Commission meeting, staff has received the following input
from the neighborhood (staff response in bold):
;2 -I
R-2006-62
Page 2
April 24, 2007
. The concern that the story poles at the project site are inaccurate.
Staff performed a site inspection and the story pole location matches the
setbacks as indicated on the project plans.
. The concern that setback of the front entry feature is not clear or inaccurate.
Based on the most recent revised plans, the proposed entry feature will be
setback 20 feet 9 inches from the front property line (please see attached
plans).
. The upstairs bathroom window along the right elevation should be fixed (non-
operable), obscured and raised for privacy reasons.
The upstairs bathroom window has been revised to be obscured window.
However the applicant would like to keep the window operable for ventilation
reasons.
. There needs to be a privacy protection tree along the right side of the property
screening views from the bathroom window. Such tree should be large enough
to provide sufficient privacy mitigation.
As a condition of this project, the applicant will be planting one City approved
privacy protection tree to mitigate views from this window.
. The second floor along the right elevation should be recessed from the ground
floor to provide additional visual relief.
The applicant has explored this option but decided to not recess the second
floor due to structural reasons.
. The applicant should work with the rear neighbors to select appropriate privacy
protection trees.
The applicant is agreeable to work with the neighbors in selecting a privacy
protection tree that will work for everyone.
. The privacy protection trees along the rear property line should be higher than
eight feet at the time of planting to provide more immediate privacy relieve.
The Rl Ordinance requires that privacy protection trees be at least 24 inch box
and 8 feet tall at the time of planting. The applicant has the option of planting
larger trees. The Planning Commission has the option of requiring larger or
taller trees.
. The privacy protection trees should be recorded on the property as a covenant.
This is a standard condition of approval.
. There should be a condition or covenant that requires discretionary review of
any future changes to the 2nd story rear elevation (especially changes on the bay
window and bathroom window).
)..~
R-2006-62
Page 3
Apri124,2007
A condition has bee added that any future change made to the 2nd floor
windows along the rear elevation shall require a director's minor modification
with neighborhood notification. A covenant shall be required on the property
disclosing this condition to any future owners.
. The rear facing 2nd story square bay window should not have any windows on
the sides.
No windows are being proposed on the sides of the square bay window.
Entry Feature:
The applicant has reduced the entry feature by approximately 6 inches and the entry
columns have been pushed back by approximately 1 foot (see the following diagram).
FUI
~
itlirv-- =-
FRONT ELEVATION
V'- - r-r
Even though the entry feature has been lowered and setback further from the street, the
visual effects are negligible. To satisfy the intent of the Planning Commission's
direction, staff recommends that the roof of the bay window on the front elevation be
simplified in order to allow the entry feature be lowered by another 6 inches (from 11
,)- :;
R - 2006-62
Page 4
April 24, 2007
feet to 10.5 feet at the plate). Please see staff revised diagram below:
Lower Entry By Another 6 Inches
,~~ / ~to!
~Cl:lFftt. ~ U.IIII r""o:u"Utlf.
. \.....m II II II II I. R IIIl"t...
~ 11111111 n 1I1~~ ~~ Illllll1t1l1~
....r1"1I11 III III 1I!~_,l) ~ II II 1I1~ II !11nt-
10 ....- "_- - I .. e" ~ I I
1 III
.......".-rl I \I I II J
~ '11'" Ir i
",.. ~ n 'fI': . . ..-1
~ ~~III/ ~~,~~~lfJJ
~II 1111 r- -- ~
~ ~ '11111111111l1li
- _ :J~~~~~:~ = [ lJ :'"
II [ = a;E E83
I:n J'-8" 117
fTJI - ::: .... I~ ] Eib
o.~ f-- 1F V 1.J ....... .I '- ~
Simplify Roof Feature
21 Q.\ GolLY'll CUTIIlt
~ FAS:1A IlWD
liAratsuxo
~~ cmx.
2tC) M 1'CI' PlATI
Ie. 00'
:'1:.:.-
.-
~.::w: IflKloN<<.
llI'.
~
1111 II
H" I II II
1111 till
.~ ~~~ ;;;--.-
II 111fT"-. ~ Jt~
II II II II II' - --
- - "--~
- -Yjr '* kcAT $NCCQ,
01 t~, r:::<< ". a:.oc
~ CJIl ~.Pt.lJ1riRN>
:q,-- ;::jC
. ~~ ~~"
..:.~~w~-" -=-,t~.~ -W~.~~
JO 101" AIO'I'I COte PAwtc. nP. ~~".~ nP. ~ ~ ru.SIt.
~(H)
II'XT ~ 1Tt11
-=:=m~..~ -~WE
5a{f SNl)I'C)tE at
FRONT ELEVATION
tI.- - "-cf
Other miscellaneous changes:
The applicant has increased the width of all window trims from 3 inches to 4.5 inches.
Submitted by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
ENCLOSURES
Revised Model Resolution
Emails of Concern from the neighbors
Planning Commission Staff Report Dated April 10, 2007 (with attachments)
Revised Plan Set received April 18, 2007
F: \ PDREPORT\ pc \ 2007\ R-2006-62b.doc
02-4
R-2006-62
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY 2,693 SQUARE FOOT
RESIDENCE.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
R-2006-62
Ray Chen
7453 Stanford Place
SECTION II: FINDINGS
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 project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, and applicable specific
plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title;
2. The granting of the special permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare;
3. The proposed home is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood;
4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application R-2006-62 set
forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of, April 24, 2007, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
,J. -5
Resolution No.
Page 2
R-2006-62
April 24, 2007
SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED PROTECT
The proposed two-story house is approved, based on the conceptual plans entitled
"Residential New Home for Mr. and Mrs. Lin, 7453 Stanford Place, Cupertino, CA 95014"
last updated on December 18, 2006, as amended by this resolution.
2. PRIVACY PROTECTION
The project is required to submit a final privacy protection planting plan consistent with
the R1 privacy protection ordinance. The row of required screening trees or shrubs along
the rear property line shall be planted at least 12 feet away from the property line in order
to stay clear of the over-head PG&E wire clearance easement. The required privacy
screening trees or shrubs shall be recorded on the property as a covenant to be preserved
and maintained. Said covenant shall be recorded prior to issuance of final building
occupancy.
3. ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES
The plans shall be revised to reflect the recommended changes outlined in the staff report
dated April 24, 2007 unless otherwise amended by the Planning Commission. Final plans
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance
of any building permits.
4. REVISIONS SECOND STORY WINDOWS ON THE REAR ELEVATION
A covenant shall be recorded on the property that requires a Director's Minor
Modification approval (with neighborhood notification) on any proposed changes to the
2nd story windows along the rear elevation.
5. APPROVAL EXPIRATION
Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number
issued) within one year of the Two Story Permit approval (by April 24, 2008), said
approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically
prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for
any reason, the Two-Story Permit shall become null and void. The Director of
Community Development may grant an one-year extension, without a public notice, if an
application for a Minor Modification to the Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration
date and substantive justification for the extension is provided.
6. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERV A TIONS 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 within this 90-
(2~
Gary Chao
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dan Borrego [dan@borrego.net]
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:07 PM
Gary Chao
Robidart Jr. Robidart
My concerns for the new house on Stanford...
Hi Gary,
I do not plan to speak about any of the myriad of issues that the other neighbors have
brought up. My main concerns are with privacy screening and to have that privacy protected
for the future.
My concerns and requests for the commission are as follows:
- I would like the commission to request that the applicant plant trees that are larger
than the 8' minimum. since an 8' tree will not provide any privacy for quite a number of
years. I don't know how many but I am willing to bet it is more than five years before it
reaches the second story window. And that is only if it is fertilized, irrigated, and
pruned properly. If the trees aren't cared for properly, then they may never reach an
appropriate height. If that is the case what is our recourse?
- I would like the applicant to work with us to choose privacy planting species.
- I realize that the applicant has agreed to plant the trees twelve feet from the fence,
but I would like the trees to become part of the deed (a covenant on the deed?) so that
they cannot be removed by the new owner.
- I would like to see something that keeps the rear elevation of the house from being
changed by any new owners. Mainly to prevent privacy issues like the ones we are currently
dealing with. If it can be a covenant on the deed then that would be great. If not, then
if there can be a requirement for a review of any changes, with notification sent to all
of the affected neighbors that might be acceptable as well.
If you have any questions for me, or other information, please contact me at 408-218-5266.
Best regards,
Dan Borrego
On Apr 18, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Gary Chao wrote:
Maureen,
You are correct in that observation. The side elevation is in error and the rear second
story bay window IS GOING TO BE A SQUARED BAY WINDOW. The last set of plans mailed to you
WAS THE PLANS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION that some folks complained of not
getting prior to the last meeting. I just received revised plans today (see attached) .
I won't be able to mail them out to you until tomorrow morning.
From what I can tell the following things have been changed:
. The entry canopy has been lowered from 11.5 feet to 11 feet at the
top plate and pushed back by 1 foot from the front property line.
. The window trim has been widened from 3 inches to 4.5 inches.
. The rear squared bay window now is accurately reflected on the side
elevations (w/o side windows) .
. Garage door windows have been squared.
Other than that everything else is the same. At this point the following will be staff's
recommendation to the Planning Commission:
1
() -tj
1 Simplify the roof feature of the front facing bay window thus
allowing the entry canopy to be lowered by an additional six inches.
2 Put back the privacy protection tree along the right side property
line (this is to address part of Cain's concerns).
3 Consider inset portions of the second story wall along the right
side elevation to provide additional articulation and relief.
The applicant has indicated that they do not wish to further recess the 2nd story wall
along the right side elevation due to floor plan and structural considerations.
We've heard you loud and clear at the last Planning Commission meeting in terms of
concerns. Some were specific and some were more general in nature. You also have
from the Planning Commission and the directions that were given to the applicant.
point if there are additional comments and new concerns, please forward them to me
tomorrow morning (by 10 a.m.). Thank you!
your
heard
At this
by
Gary Chao
Associate Planner
city of Cupertino
408.777.3247 (Direct)
408.777.3333 (Fax)
From: Sarjeant [mailto:hgtv75@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:31 PM
To: Gary Chao
Cc: dan@borrego.net; Sa Quan; line@jps.net; pyklaw7@comcast.net; rhc88@sbcglobal.net;
rwhitt6313@comcast.net; Pauline WU; Caine Yu; elainepeterman@sbcglobal.net; bernielisa2004
@comcast.net; hgtv75@yahoo.com; kpgreenly@gmail.com; Charles Robidart;
msarjeant@comcast.net
Subject: RE: 7453 Stanford Place
I recieved the courtesy notice from you in today's mail. The enclosed plan set is NOT
consistent with your earlier email about the rear bay window. The plan no longer shows an
angled bay window on the rear elevation drawing; however the left and right elevations now
show side windows on the protrubing second story squared bay. You said that "no side
windows are being proposed."
Maureen Sarjeant
Gary Chao <GaryC@cupertino.org> wrote:
8. Rear facing 2nd story bay window has been revised to a squared bay.
The projection has been reduced from 24 inches to 18 inches and no side
windows are being proposed.
Ahhh.. . imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
<4.18.2007.pdf>
2
;!.-C}
Gary Chao
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Caine Yu [caine-yu@yahoo.com]
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:20 PM
Gary Chao
sa _ quan@yahoo.com
RE: 7453 Stanford Place - REVISED PLANSET
Hi Gary:
We had a meeting with the Designer (Chen) about one week before the group meeing with you
and the other neighbors. He should have put this somewhere in his notes.
Here are the changes would be what we would like to see
1. The right side bigger window changed to a open window now.
The non-transparent wouldn't help much.
We'd like like to have them changed back to non-open, non-transparent, and same size,
same height as the other one.
2. Put back the privacy tree on the east side. The size of such tree should be enough to
block the view from east side windows.
3. Second floor push-back.
The roof skirt only makes it looks better, but no functional change.
By adding second floor push-back will reduce the reflection, glare and make the whole
structure centralized.
Thanks
Caine
7449 Stanford Place
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
1
,Q -/0
. ~o- . ~. .
Gary Chao
_.__~_~__._~_~_____~.._.. u" ,...__~..,_.~,v_._...._.__w_~.,____._~"...__~_._'____'_'""__""___,",,,_,,,_,,__'__'___U".___'_".W'^__~___'__ _.__'.."_..____~~._.YV__.___.YY._~__.,____._,,__^_ __._.__.'~......,.._..,'..__~_._.__T.......___~._,.._'__'...___.__"._._.T______.____...".___............'..
Sent:
To:
From: Maureen Sarjeant [hgtv75@yahoo.com]
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:31 PM
Gary Chao
dan@borrego.net; Sa Quan; line@jps.net; pyklaw7@comcast.net; rhc88@sbcglobal.net;
rwhitt6313@comcast.net; Pauline Wu; Caine Yu; elainepeterman@sbcglobal.net;
bernielisa2004@comcast.net; hgtv75@yahoo.com; kpgreenly@gmail.com; Charles Robidart;
msarjeant@comcast.net
Subject: RE: 7453 Stanford Place
Cc:
I recieved the courtesy notice from you in today's mail. The enclosed plan set is NOT consistent with
your earlier email about the rear bay window. The plan no longer shows an angled bay window on the
rear elevation drawing; however the left and right elevations now show side windows on the protrubing
second story squared bay. You said that "no side windows are being proposed."
Maureen Sarjeant
Gary Chao <GaryC@Cupertino.org> wrote:
8. Rear facing 2nd story bay window has been revised to a squared bay.
The projection has been reduced from 24 inches to 18 inches and no side
windows are being proposed.
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out n~_w_~~nL~LY ahQQLA!J1Q~,
4/1912007
d-I(
Gary Chao
Cc:
Subject:
Larry L. Line [line@jps.net]
Thursday, April 12, 200712:16 AM
Gary Chao; Caine Yu; dan@borrego.net; Sa Quan; line@jps.net; pyklaw7@comcast.net;
rhc88@sbcglobal.net; rwhitt6313@comcast.net; Pauline Wu; elainepeterman@sbcglobal.net;
bernielisa2004@comcast.net; hgtv75@yahoo.com; kpgreenly@gmail.com; Charles Robidart
Ciddy Wordell; HAG CHEN
RE: 7453 Stanford Place - REVISED PLANSET
From:
Sent:
To:
Gary:
Thank you for your email. Just so I can relate to the physical situation a bit easier,
would you mind explaining the positions of the wood framing on the house and the front
yard. Is this supposed to represent the physical location of the new building? That is,
is it and accurate representation?
I am having difficulty reconciling the comments made by the representative of the
applicant at the planning commission meeting and the position of the new house and portico
measured as distance from the sidewalk. The applicant's representative at the meeting
told me that the building would be
7 feet back from its current position. However, the wooden posts in front indicate just
the opposite, with no change at all in the position of the
garage. In addition, the applicant representative indicated in testimony
that the proposed height of the portico was 13 feet 1 inch. As I read the plan you
attached, the height appears to be 15 feet 5 inches. Which is correct?
I will come back to you with more comments and some suggestions as soon as I get some
clarification
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Chao [mailto:GaryC@cupertino.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:08 PM
To: Caine Yu; dan@borrego.net; Sa Quan; line@jps.net; pyklaw7@comcast.net; rhc88
@sbcglobal.net; rwhitt6313@comcast.net; Pauline Wu; elainepeterman@sbcglobal.net;
bernielisa2004@comcast.net; hgtv75@yahoo.com; kpgreenly@gmail.com; Charles Robidart
Cc: Gary Chao; Ciddy Wordell; HAO CHEN
Subject: RE: 7453 Stanford Place - REVISED PLANSET
Hi,
I'm hoping that I've captured ALL of the email addresses of the neighbors that were at the
prior March 23, 2007 neighborhood meetings, as well as the folks that attended the
Planning Commission meeting tonight. Please find attached a copy of the most recently
revised plans that were presented to the Planning Commission on April 10, 2007. The staff
report and plans are also available at the following web link:
http://64.165.34.13/weblink7/Browse.aspx?startid=17799
As you all know, the Commission continued this item to its April 24,
2007 meeting in order allow the neighbors sufficient time to communicate with the
applicant and submit comments. If you wish to have your comments be included with the
staff report to the Commission prior to the next meeting, please have them to me by
Wednesday (April 18, 2007) of next week. Otherwise, your comments will be presented at
the Commission meeting. Alternative if you wish, you may contact or email the
Commissioner's. Their email addresses are available at the following
website:
http://www.cupertino.org/city_government/commissions/planning_commission
/index.asp
I apologize to those that were not given sufficient time to review the revised plans
and/or were accidentally left out of the neighborhood outreach process. I want to
emphasize that neighborhood meetings and/or communication to the neighbors are not
1
d ,./:J.
required of the applicant so there isn't a formal policy setup to dictate the process and
scope. I have been trying my best to be the liaison between the interested neighbors and
the applicant. Between now and the next Planning Commission, I'm hoping to heavily rely on
your help to coordinate and reach out to those that may have opinions on this project or
would like to be part of any informal meetings that we may have. I'll do my best to
include everyone on any correspondences and updates of the project.
Mr. Line, the notice board will be revised within the next two days. I appreciate all of
your comments and input on this project. Please also let me know if you have any
suggestions on how to capture everyone's input in an efficient manner between now and the
next Commission meeting. Thank you.
Gary Chao
Associate Planner
City of cupertino
408.777.3247 (Direct)
408.777.3333 (Fax)
, .,.,.....
2
J-,3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: R-2006-62
Applicant: Ray Chen
Property Location: 7453 Stanford Place
Agenda Date: AprilS, 2007
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Community Development Director's referral of a Residential Design Review for a new,
two-story 2,693 square foot residence.
*This item was continued from the March 27,2007 meeting due to a public notice error.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the project as proposed with the recent changes.
BACKGROUND
The applicant (Ray Chen) is proposing to construct a 2,693 square foot, two-story
residence on a 5,994 square foot lot located along the north side of Stanford Place. The
immediate neighborhood is predominately ranch style single story homes (see pictures
below).
Sample pictures of existing single-story ranch style homes on the same Stanford Place
'- -I c..J
R-2006-62
Page 3
AprilS, 2007
Perspective of the proposed home
Generally, two-story permits are approved by the Community Development Director.
However, this project is being forwarded to the Planning Commission for final
consideration due to the number of concerns raised by the neighborhood regarding the
design compatibility of the proposed home.
DISCUSSION
Neighborhood Concerns
Staff has received email of concerns from approximately 9 neighbors. In addition a
petition was submitted by 21 neighbors expressing concerns about the project. On
March 23, 2007, a neighborhood meeting was held between the applicant's architect and
the immediate adjoining neighbors. Please refer to the attached letters (exhibit A and B)
and the table in the project revision section of the report for additional details on the
neighbor's concerns. . .
Neighborhood Compatibility
One of the principle purposes of the R1 Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level of
compatibility in scale of structures within a residential neighborhood. This is basically
achieved by having developments adhere to a set of specific development perimeters
(i.e., maximum lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, second floor to ground
floor ratio, building setback, building envelope) to curtail development intensity to a
level generally accepted by the community. Typically the City has allowed new homes
to be maximized within the approved frame work of the R1 Ordinance provided that
the design and the style of the home are consistent and/ or compliment the
neighborhood. New homes are expected to reduce mass and scale to the maximum
extent possible without undermining the property owner's functional needs. The City
has not in the past required new home proposals located in a R1 zoning district to
match the average size or be reduced to a single story home in order to match the
general pattern of the neighboring homes.
.;l -IG,
R-2006-62
Page 4
a
Aprit.!er, 2007
As mentioned previously, the proposed home is within the allowable maximum
perimeter of the Rl ordinance in terms of size, height and building setbacks. However,
there are some very simple architectural solutions that could be made to make the
project more in line with the style and character of the neighborhood (please see staff
recommendations in the table below). None of these changes will alter the proposed
floor plan or incur structural changes.
Privacy Protection
The project will be required to adhere to the required privacy protection plan outlined
in the Rl Ordinance. There are no second story bedroom windows facing either of the
side yards. Please refer to the table below for details on privacy mitigation measures.
Project Revisions
Revised plans were submitted on AprilS, 2007. The following table summarizes the
neighborhood concerns, staff suggested changes and what the applicant has done to
address each concern (additional staff recommendations in bold):
Architectural and
Design
Compatibility
Concerns
. Change the proposed
mission style red slate
roof material to flat slate
roof in an earth tone
color.
Scale and Size
Compatibility
Concerns
. Simplify the bay
window on the front the
applicant).
. De-emphasize the front
entry.
. Delete all of the arched
elements and introduce
wood beams, brackets or
trellis to embellish the
front elevation.
. Introduce a brick or
stone base along the
front elevation.
Introduce wood siding (or
hardiplankj fiber cement
sidings to mimic the look
of wood) along the front
elevation.
Roof revised to grey flat slate
system.
The bay window facing the front
has been lowered to match the
eave height of the rest of the
house.
Front entry element has been
lowered by 6 inches.
All arched elements along the
front elevation have been
removed. Applicant confirmed
that the garage door windows
will also be rectangular in shape.
Stone base is being proposed
along the entire front elevation
and partial side elevations.
The applicant prefers stucco
finish. The applicant has
introduced decorative grid
patterns on all of the windows to
enhance quality texture of the
house.
The arched
element on the
side of the entry
feature should
be deleted.
The window
trim should be
increased from 3
inches to 4.5
inches.
)-11
. R-2006-62
Page 5
'0
A priI1B; 2007
Privacy Impact
Concerns
. Revise rear facing bay
window (2nd story) to a
normal flat window or
squared bay (no
windows on the sides)
Landscaping
Concerns
. Obscure or frost the
bathroom (2nd story)
windows facing the rear
and ri ht east side.
. The row of privacy
screening trees should be
set back at least 12 feet
from the rear property
line in order to be
outside of the overhead
wire clearance easement.
. The applicant should
work with the neighbors
to the rear to clear out all
of the existing invasive
vegetation and repair the
rear fence.
The 2nd story bay window facing
the rear has been revised to a
squared bay. The cantilever has
been reduced from 24 inches to
18 inches. No windows are
being proposed on the side of
the square bay window.
All of the rear and right (east)
side facing bathroom windows
have been revised to non-
transparent windows.
The landscaping plan has been
revised to reflect that the row of
privacy protection trees along
the rear has been set back at least
12 feet from the rear property
line.
The applicant has verbally
agreed to clear out the existing
invasive vegetation in the rear
yard and work with the rear
neighbors to repair the existing
property fencing.
Staff Comment
The applicant has incorporated the majority of staff's recommended changes into the
project since the original staff went out to the Commission dated March 27, 2007.
The changes proposed by the applicant have effectively made the home more consistent
with the architectural style and design of the neighborhood. Staff supports the changes
and feels that the neighbors' concerns have been reasonably addressed.
Submitted by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ;)~
ENCLOSURES
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Emails of Concern from the neighbors
Exhibit B: Neighborhood Petition
Revised Plan Set
Material and Color Elevation
F: \ PDREPORT\ pc \ 2007\ R-2006-62.doc
~.L/
C1.A,r-'
d -/ to
R-2006-62
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY 2,693 SQUARE FOOT
RESIDENCE.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
R-2006-62
Ray Chen
7453 Stanford Place
SECTION II: FINDINGS
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 project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, and applicable specific
plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title;
2. The granting of the special permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare;
3. The proposed home is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood;
4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application R-2006-62 set
forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of, March 27, 2007, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
;}-,q
Resolution No.
Page 2
R-2006-62
A pril.!& 2007
SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED PROTECT
The proposed two-story house is approved, based on the conceptual plans entitled
"Residential New Home for Mr. and Mrs. Un, 7453 Stanford Place, Cupertino, CA 95014"
last updated on December 18, 2006, as amended by this resolution.
2. PRIV ACY PROTECTION
The project is required to submit a final privacy protection planting plan consistent with
the R1 privacy protection ordinance. The row of required screening trees or shrubs along
the rear property line shall be planted at least 12 feet away from the property line in order
to stay clear of the over-head PG&E wire clearance easement. The required privacy
screening trees or shrubs shall be recorded on the property as a covenant to be preserved
and maintained. Said covenant shall be recorded prior to issuance of final building
occupancy.
3. ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES
The plans shall be revised to reflect the recommended changes outlined in the staff report
dated AprilS, 2007. Final plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review
and approval prior to issuance of any building permits.
4. APPROV AL EXPIRATION
Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number
issued) within one year of the Two Story Permit approval (by AprilS, 2008), said approval
shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the
conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the
Two-Story Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development
may grant an one-year extension, without a public notice, if an application for a Minor
Modification to the Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive
justification for the extension is provided.
5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERV A TIONS 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 within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this!K"th day of April 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
d. -:;)()
1 USI",...< 1 \.Jl .:.-
Gary Chao
From: Dan Borrego [dan@borrego.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 20074:37 PM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: house at 7453 Stanford Pl...
Hi Gary,
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today regarding the house on Stanford place. I just wanted
to send you a quick email to voice my concerns about the project since we share a fence, and the second
story will be looking directly into my backyard, bedroom, and living room. As I mentioned, my house
and the others around me are under a use restriction in our CC&Rs that say we cannot build a second
story. The concerns I have regarding this are that a house with a second story immediately adjacent to
my property will affect the desirability and/or the value of my property should I choose to sell at some
future time.
The owners of the property at 7453 Stanford Place do not live there, and only have the intention of
"flipping" the house. Since they are not residents, they have no vested interest in the neighborhood nor
the impact of their actions on the residents here. I don't feel a second story fits into this neighborhood of
single story houses and would like to go on record as being opposed to such a project.
However, Ifthe project is to go forth, I would like to talk with you and the owner of the property about
at least keeping the impact to a minimum. The main issues are the size and placement of windows which
will take privacy away from me and the other neighbors, as well as the installation of privacy screening
materials such as non-deciduous trees and shrubs as mentioned in the Rl zoning requirements. Since
PG&E has an easement in the rear of the yard and has demonstrated their tree trimming inability, the
trees planted should be far enough away from the power lines so that PG&E crews will not "top" them
and destroy the privacy that they will provide.
As for the appearance of the house, I feel that it is being reasonable to request that materials, paint color,
finish, and trim that are chosen for the home, should fit with the other houses in the area, so as not to be
more pronounced and draw attention to the only two story structure in the neighborhood.
Gary this is only a fast recap of our conversation today. I'm sure things will change by the time these
plans have gone much further along in the approval process. If I can think of other concerns or solutions
to the issues that I have raised, I will let you know as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Dan Borrego
2/21/2007
1-,1:1
Executlve 1 eal ::,tatlOnery
.1 as\....- 1 VI- 1
Gary Chao
_..___.__._.".._..___._~.,~...._~_~_,"U ,_."_.....".._..'__N..__.._._._._.__.__.___,_ ",.~_..__w_~'._....~._"v___._.___. __...._""T._.__._._..._..__._'_'___O_H_""_._._,..___._.._......_,_...___.___,_,u__..____..____~'_'.,,__.__.n~.~_'.."__w_.._.'"....r..... ._.__..,."....".._....._.____..~__T..__._."...,...~...,._....,...'__________._._.__~.~_v.._v~...
From: Larry L. Line [line@jps.net]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11 :03 AM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: 7543 Stanford Place Construction Plans
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Chao:
I live directly across the street from the proposed construction at 7453 Stanford Place in Cupertino. I
noticed the sign posted in front of the house that lists your name as the contact for the city but does
not mention a hearing date or a date by which comments must be made. I hope this omission is not
intentional.
I wish to express my concern about the design plans. Because of the phYSical layout of the current
structure on the property, the proposed building seems to be much to large for the size of the lot.
Moreover, it will be excessively close to the street, magnifying the apparent monster size. There seems
to be no attempt whatsoever to conform to the general structure of housing on this street. Normally,
I welcome modifications to the houses on this street that improve both the comfort of the homeowner
but also improve the esthetics. This particular structure does neither. I do not want to see this
property developed in the manner envisioned in the artists rendering.
Please advise me when there will be a hearing regarding this property. Please also advise why there
is no deadline on the property notice.
Larry Line
Larry L Line
7452 Stanford Place
Cupertino, CA 95014 USA
CA Tel: +1.408.446.3513
FAX: +1.775.261.8054
Email: line@jQ~.net
2/2112007
J~d4
PETITION
February 19, 2007
To: The City of Cupertino Planning Division
Re: 7453 Stanford Place (file number R-2006-62)
We the owner-residents residing on Stanford Place and Tiptoe Lane, Cupertino wish to
formally express our feelings concerning the proposed re-construction of the house
located at 7453 Stanford Place, Cupertino
We feel that the architectural design of the house is not in keeping with the design of the
other houses in the neighborhood. It directly violates the Rl ordinance,
19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building).
C. Design Guidelines.
1. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be
generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director
of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the
following items are met prior to design approval:
a. The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the
predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be
disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms
of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature
heights;
b. The design should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls...
There are currently no multi-story homes on this street. Although many of the
homeowners have remodeled their houses, all of the houses have retained their original
design, which maintains the continuity of the established "Ranch style" architectural look
and feel. This proposed, Mediterranean style, two-story home with a stark stucco
elevation and disproportionately high entryway will be an eyesore, and is certainly not a
"reasonably compatible design." There are many talented architects that can, and have
designed homes in the area that are not only harmonious with the rest of the
neighborhood but also add to it's desirability, and serve to increase property values.
Allowing this house to be built as proposed will set a precedent of random building that will
serve to destroy the beauty and desirability of the neighborhood.
The owners of the property at 7453 Stanford Place do not live here, and since they are not
residents, they have no vested interest in the neighborhood, or the impact of their actions
on the surrounding residents. They are simply investors with dollar signs in their eyes. The
approval of this project as planned will set a precedent for other speculator-investors who
want to construct "monster" houses and change the character of our neighborhoods in
order to make a lot of money at the expense of Cupertino residents who care about the
city, it's neighborhoods, and the quality of life here.
1/5
J.-dllo
In addition to the negative impact on Stanford Place, there will be a significant impact to
the privacy of the homeowners on the south side of Tiptoe Lane. Their yards and every
window along the backs of their houses become part of the Stanford resident's view. The
Tiptoe Ln homeowner's are restricted from adding a second story. If houses all along
Stanford Place were to begin adding second story additions their houses would surely
become less desirable, and would suffer from loss of value.
For these, and other reasons, we, the undersigned, are against the present design of this
proposed structure. We ask that the City of Cupertino Planning Division to consider the
concerns of the residents of Stanford Place and Tiptoe Lane, please deny the approval of
this design as it is planned.
2fi
;{':)1
PETITION
February 19, 2007
To: The City of Cupertino Planning Division
Re: 7453 Stanford Place (file number R-2006-62)
Address
Print Name
,Signature
7403 Stanford Place
Ken and Patti Greenly
. ^
~ (
~j~-'S ::;tanford Place
r .. . /.J-. ('"' ::J .6'" "
~.."-:'" V\ ..~ 0
:$ " f
,..........1'\--1
7419 Stanford Place Elaine Peterman
7443 Stanford Place Patrick Law
7449 Stanford Place Caine Yu
74-71 Stanford Place
7/1^^ ~,Jr. V' l
- (
." ,/-r....."
-::-"t--.
v
v
1 Lf"~,
Stanford Place
Sa.h- c ~
7iflb
Stanford Place
r L IJ IV E t~J V\
/ -/0 /
__L-..,....-:./I ,/,.7
(/---~ .' /~7//i~/L-.
du-) (L)L~
/jLfJ1- Stanford Place OLIVe, C}ftXi
@~rc~
7 q.,~~
Stanford Place
i
d
.. / '-/'':'J \..-~
....,j ......., ,
L'Ttl/AI
vT F4~
~_.-e,:
J~k, '1 Stanford Place \<~l/' <2 '- '{ \~ '\.... \,/J v''-. .~~'X
~ ..-.----
Stanford Place
3/)
;J -:20
PETITION
February 19, 2007
To: The City of Cupertino Planning Division
Re: 7453 Stanford Place (file number R-2006-62)
'J ~~.gnature
/ .' '. /',;,} It
. ~'-..' i' / f /! I
:Y". ",to -f ~. _ I'VL.
t [/~' ~
.-...-------.---------------------------..--.----.--...-.--....------.----------.--.------.----------...--.----------#
/
i
Address
7438 Stanford Place
Print Name
Richard D. Whittington
7452 Stanford Place Larry L. Line
. -J-)(A'Hle ~; we
~
1 ~4 7- Stanford Place
--'I..( 1,'~ Stanford Place
! ..
-11/-:22- Stanford Place
Stanford Place
V I Df\L- 6eftUPDf.A
UI 14/ '
~-
~ '(( ~,-
(Y\A'I~S\> 1\ ~ ..~
fJ)z4f Af!l{!{L. ~~
Stanford Place
Stanford Place
Stanford Place
Stanford Place
Stanford Place
Stanford Place
4/)'
~ - ,)Jj
PETITION
February 19, 2007
To: The City of Cupertino Planning Division
Re: 7453 Stanford Place (file number R-2006-62)
7488 Tiptoe Lane
LI Hua Ho Lee
/'
Si 9 ~jlture-'--"'.
~ )
.,....... ~..--
D
I
Address
Print Name
,v
7508 Tiptoe Lane
Dan Borrego
,.-,,-
'\~/~\ '-" ' ') ?" ,,} ,,; ',,,
'- ' j. \ U. j. ' \ \l;-:""...C,,0-.;.....J~
f{kt(~\ \
7496 Tiptoe Lane
Mary & Skip Robidart
7J!\ 'l\.. Tiptoe Lane
[~S'~
6 l! NIL ~ Pi:J'. Pl H \ l1<t..rM( c..A {
~~jJ'
'7 ~2 ~ Tiptoe Lane
.,.! .' ~
-15 t..t 0 Tiptoe Lane
,,','1 - ,,;J
\ ../," t'-' 7- . ..-
n : 1......1
J / ../ '~....i '"-'-'-7 ,/ _ .
,J ''''~ ~_" ~
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
5/S-
d- - 30
SITE INFORMATION
OVINER: WEN PING UWfUH JUAN
AORESS: 1453 STPJ.FORD PLACE
ClF'ERTHl, CA95014
A..P.N.* 359-32-039
SCOPE CF WORK:
NEW CONSTRUCTION
'''"'''''
OCClPANCY.
CONSTR!X:l1ON TYPE"
R-'
R-3lU-1
V-N
(
\! T
r-r~
"1 I
nil k
I ,~ h:J~
I
,
w I ~
""I I
01",
b
o
z
(N)200.....P
ElEC P At-EL
'.k\ -.~:!t\\
\ / \
r- t-- --~ ---~':.. -;/
I
I
IV-2ND :ml~
I OUlUlE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t------.J
,
I
I
I !IN! SlORV DeL
~ r<:O~T AREA
It OUTUNE:
I
I
'------..,
I
I
I
-,_,~~~~~,~~~_.__._......l.....
LOT SIZE
ALLOWABLE FAR (45%)
AllOWABlE OVERHANG (S%)
5994 SF
2697 SF
300 SF
1 sr !rnlRY
ourut€
BUILDING AREA,
lSTFlR:
2ND FlIt
BDl COUNT
1430 SF + 428 SF lGARAGE)
726 SF
109 Sf
15'-0"
o
N
-.v
.-
.-
-.v
!;-~
64.5'
""
OVERHANG,
lSTFtR:
AT GARAGE:
2ND FlR
102 Sf
34 SF
'J5SF
r-------
I
66.17'
-.v
'"
. :~.}-:}~:~1
~'" >
: \! ,\.~;: ;;; ~;:'
oQ".~"
TOTAL PROPOSED RESIDENCE:
RATIO OF 2ND FiR TO 1ST FlR:
PROPOSED FAR:
2693 SF
44-9%
44-9%
TOTAl PROPOSED OVER HANG
PROPOSED RATIO
211 SF
4.5%
lEt: (40B)524-54-B8
'"
r~--
~ ~ w '" '" \11
I ">V '" -.v ""
-;.,.
..\)l w + '"
'" -.v ~ w
_lj .~542o.-.vN ~~.58'y!'
CONC WAU(WA Y
STREET PLAN T
I
-II
'b
I
~
'/..: ".~,>~,~~l. f,~',".':~'.
":~ ':.>: ':~. ,:,:.:~~'>'~ .1'.
~
RAISED FlOOR,
OOUBLE GlAZE. VlNYl@!AlLWlNDOWS
TOT Al2ND FlR WALL LINE 1:1).67'
50% OF THE WALL PERIMETER 6533'
WALl PERII.ET'ER WJ MORE THAN 6' EXPOSED HEIGHT AND HAS NO
'l hAlN OVERlAP FROM 1ST FlR ROOf TO 2ND FLR WAlL
WAU PERIt.ETER HAS LESS THAN 6' EXPOSED HEIGHT AND HAS
'l MIN OVERlAP FROM 1ST FLR ROOF TO 2ND FlR WALL
ARCHllECIURAL DESIGN AND
SlRUCIURAL.. ENGlNEERING~
RAY CHEN. P.E.
11 45" baywildow assembly is revised to rectangular flat wildow and pop-out deplt! reduced from 24"10 18".
2) ElM athnt bBy'.mdow assembly has been lowered to IlustI with the rest 01 the sWcture
3) FronlenlrBncehasbeenlowered6"thllnilsorigilal
4) Stone veneer has been added Ilthelront portionofsKle and sqUIR columns
These are just malt.ing is neighbcn h~py (their comments from last meeting).
I wit give)'Ou mI!Ilerial boa-d this week, ma'rbe 011 Thu And it is WIle to make
the building looks mucf1 smaler
1) Roof wi be slake, 15%Qf8'fand25%sortolredish(morelikeptrple
2jWlIlwllbesandlnlplmorelikeeBrthcolorj
3) TwowiHlows.fAABAhavebeencaledlcrnon-nnsp,nnl
41 Grid has been lidded \0 #le windows
51 Saeeningtreesblldlhavebeenrnovedlorward.108boullZ'lromthebeckyardlence.
6) Saeen sIN:) at right side ywd is removed per ils neighba's request
1) Wndowfomlcoouldbe4112".ltis3"lornow
Revision made on 04104107.
-Ii
".0
I
.10
~ if. STANFORD PLACE
~------
PLOT PLAN
1/8"=1'-0"
15'-0-
lREE. AABVT1J5 MARINA
IN 24" BOX NIN, a' Hl..
lYP.
*
'"
W
N
D
b
D
Z
D
"I
-v
+-
r-
.-
CONe LNlDNC.
SEE 'F1RS1 FtOCft
PLAN" SHEEl AO-3
10'~~
2ND FlR Ie'
5E1BM:K
SlROiARCE
~
n ,
u I (N)GAS MU!R
....
i -.v
L_ , .
! 0
* I
"N ill
.1
IE> ...-
N
.....
..
~
I
-;.,.
-
-Ii
b
I
1--
1&1
~
;
~
I~
~tl.j-
-1:55
. Q.1Cl
VJ Cl
CI:~<
::EoU
.....
0:<: .
z~~
<l:V1F
0:::
."lW
c::~D.
::E....3
~
I!!
m
REVISION
DATE 12,'1-Ja1
SCAlE
DRAW AHC
JOB 1_0&
!l1ET
0-1
STYROlE TRIN,
~iLo~ W1N10WS "". 12
SV/ISS ~ ~ .....,...n-II :::l"S1lP.
TIP. \......cr II II ~ II .....
28 CA CALVI) C .........,.,.., III 1111 II II I 111"1-... 2ND FlR lOP
~~/~aA9CM1lI) 'l""'I"rITIIIIITIIIIJ.I~ ~ JI 111I1I1J"'h.. la.~i!.
IIA10i 5T1JCCO _ _____--l_____ _~__
III SWISS lFFEE. [=
TYP. _ I I r16 HT I I MUlARIl -"Il. 0
D - - -- - '-- - - COLa!: WHIlE, No
~ nllll ~
i--!./ ~ IIII II , ~aUlllllNGEN~
V ...."IIIIU I .........../
V ~LJII ~~~11.50 tlufIl I lit,.. - - - --~-----
~ ~ fll .;~----~~ II II "b...... ~f"'---.-....
.A1T"j~ ~ 11_""'- __
~ __ --t _ _ _ _ II n II I r _ _ _ _.
=
I I 0 0 --7~'1H.~ cc
01 2-~,~ GF
PAPER. 0 Exr.
__ 'f ~~~~~~ COLa!: i!J YST
"'." J,!,
~ 3-6 ~ I m DDDDDD
~, ""- ~lj>o '" rl D [ J ~
~ - - Q9IDD ODD L')Ct;(l A~I:E: n:
- - Ii'""It] -J,Q.
2fI G.4. CALVo ~ !':CI2~N. - DBl PMlr ~lAZIN~ I J/4" THK SOUO CORD _ '--'
PI..A ~
IlL PANE.
01<<1
LOP
2ND FlR
10.00'
....r--
----"CIUNC
.L--,.oo"
S1\JCCo.
CE "I)" BlDG
S1R PLY. TIP.
or SAND TRAP
4" MIN ItBOVE FINISH ~RADE OR
2" MIN ABOVE ca-lC PAVING.. TYP.
VINYL SET. MILGARD L-OAK DOOR w/ RAISED
OR TD BE SIMILAR, l'fP. PANELS STAlIiED FINISH.
COLOR: WlITE OR COI..M! a-!ERRY
AlMa-lD
""00'1 WHEU.-l'6NG P"NEl.
CCll~ SANDrct-E OR
WHIIT.
VENNER STONE
COLOR: GRAY
FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
ClI CH: [A'\'rR 30t ral,
ClI 1/1' [XL SIR. RY. 1YP.
COllR lIlA~
~
IW
~-~
S~I
12
::I...~ NP.
lilT II II
'I--
2ND FLR TOP PI..A IT
18.:10"
___lC'':::'''''__
-t1
II
II
I
I
r=
---lE-tYr--~ -~
~
SPltRK Alft::STCR
~. DOWN FROM
2ND TOP PLA Tf.
rrP.
~
I I I
~
UTIllU IJ II U IJ III F
2N lR
I rf
~--= ,~ "'-.
Ie:
"rz
-~
~-------
I
~
IN
~Ul
1I1llllllTII
~I
r---
--
~
i-
17=1' 0.001 FLR
-~-~
-==-t---=----==-
-1----
---=a---Il;i5"--- =lI---;;;r--- =
rY "..
7/1" THK J-CDA T SlUCCO.
L- 0/ 2-LAYER GRACE '0" IlLDCl
I'APEll. 0/ [XT. SlR PI.. '1. nP.
lXlLOR, CIlA YSlONE
LEFT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
NOTe EXtERIOR PMNT Will BE
KElL Y MOORE PAINTS.
::!T_
16' HT
_L_ __
LR ~
'I
::!t_ CElUNC ~
9.00'
- - - - - - - -~-
EUl [T] 0
F1.R
~O'
== == == == - - - - - - - - - --
== ==
:N)
1&.50'
:N)
10.
REAR ELEVATION
'/4" = 1'-0"
, B" SOURE
COUJMNS. TYP
~~~~ ~
IIII 111111 111111 II
LI IIrTT1lll1 II II n II II I II 11 T1"1'i
III II 1111 u.,.rnlllll I I I I II rI "-
__ II II II",~
II 11 1f 2ND F1.R
lB.SO'
,C DJ rn I;: x.:--
Ui III II III II /I
III lIT ii
_ "r~~ ~
F~ IT IT II II ..... 2ND
.-" " -
. ~ ' " " n ",' .".; -=
J= _~_ y ~ ~)l- _ _ ,~ 8 8 - -
== ==
== ==
,
PlATE
CElUNG
~9.00"
F1.R
0'5
1 1/2" RrnESSEO
WA!J.. TYP.
RIGHT ELEVATION
1/'" = 1'-0"
I
rs
z
~ ~
is ~
M~ ~
II!~
z
::i
en
!
~
5
REVISION
DATE 12
SCALE
DRAW..
JOEl 12
SlEET
At)-
~
.-.0:-_
lZ'-ll"
l'-ll"
.
ID
I
-:..
a' =6."_
1lo40 SL
.1
b
I
,
'"
I
r-
lIMI!II"lU1I!
WI 9'-1S" RAISED
roUNG
(13'-9"Xl1'-ID")
.
CD
I
b
~
.12
(10'-2"X10'-4") ~
I
b
[r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-to,
IJ I
..., I
I I
I I
I I
....! I
n I
_.l..LJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
10
~
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
1/4." = 1'-0"
.,.
(10'-8"><9'-8j
....
I
;.,
5040 SL
S040 So.
'1'-0"
JOOO Sl. 1KlN-
lR/oHSP AIlENT, T[NP
~
..
li~
~z
:!!
ICCI
all
KXlI
KD
B
,----- ---- - ----
!
I
,__.1
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I AMLY ROOM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
$1>40 Sl
J'-Q"XY-o"
d
zu
/II~r; ~
izl! Iii!
~"X1B'-:"l
b1 u ci~LNG. T'l'F'.
10'-0"
~
I
U,
,
CD
I
o
....
~
'"
I
~
B
.
...
I
~
@
B
o
o EJtNG 0
o 0
o
GAS f\IltlNlCE
BY CAA'lIER
calC
LAllDtlC
BI~
....
'"
~
2
24"X2C"
UlIUTY
lJ'ENNC
@
B
I
,
I
-H
~ ;", ...,. ~ +
"-~O
t:::f! 1 ~~
~
~Wlr.t'c~'Wv~U
~II C {I j'eBD 12~ DREO
~ ~, RAISED CEIUNG
(ll'-Z"X11'-Jl
AlL AIR DUCIS PEtEIR"'lINC
AREA SEP ARAllaoI WAUl a a..G.
!tlAUl BE :It 10/1,. MIN.
31-1'1111
I
I
I
V VENT DRYER DJlSIlE
SNOOlH M1I. DUCT ..,
BACKDRAn DAMPER.
14 Fl MAX.
;----------------
I [2ND 5ltRY I
OUlUNE: :
---- -----t----J
!l/ff C"1P. III. TfPE Y
. WAU. '" CU; ON lOARAGE
!iDE AS I-tfl, liEPERt.1I0N
I .Il" WIDE. 2ll OA
HORIZ i5E1:lMC
l~~rln~
..-:
b
.1
N
b
,I
21'-0"
,,'-3"
a'X'lO'-1l"
CllNC
lNON!
6'-9"
o'
ND1E: KD SUBFLOOR VENnLAlICJII
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
'/~" = 1'-0"
flOOr PJlCll: ~.!inP.
ROOF DIAGRAM
N"Tli
I
a z~.
11.1 :::i:5;
Z .~,
~ lQlE:
::Eel
....
O~!
is ZI-i
<(lnl
.1')1
Q O:::~!
~ ~ ::Et-i
"'-
"'-~
~a.
i!~
~Q~
~I~
REVISION
DA TE 12/111/
SCALE
DRAW 1M:
JOB 120150E
:SHEET
Ao-2
o
I-----~---;---I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 10/ (0
I
I
I
I
L /s--L______l
"----
r------
I
I (0
I
I
I
NOTE: 2ND flR AREA, CD - '09 SF INCLUDING STAIRCASE, DOUBLE ccu.lnN~ AREA
@ - 726 SF INCLUDING SECa-lD FLOOR, BAY-MNDO'N
1ST FLR HlE.I'. G> - 14JD SF INCLUDING nRST flOOR, BAY-YolNDOW, PORCH
@ = 42B SF INCLUDING GARI'a.
FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
N1S
2ND FLR lOP PLA lE
18.50'
__-=:JL
2ND flR
10.00'
.:::.:::!!:-
~_;;:L~~---
C-r......- -- --
I WALL AT --
rSTAlR CASE
BEYOND
o
I
'"
DII.-G
R-19 INSULAlll>>l
tlRAlSED FI..R, TYPo
or IMJE
WINDOW
SLl
\p
I
\0
UASI&R .
~
.
o
I
ill
F....Y
R-l~ INSILATlClN
1lEXT. WIoU.., T'1P.
:0
I
110
M<<t
III~
2ND F1R
10.00'
--~--
'0
I
Q.
I'IM!II
BEYC/ID
GAMIl&
1ST FLR
0.00'
__T"::=
SECTION A-A
1/4" = 1'_0"
IW.lWlY
Ir~D
I
I HMlWlY
8NW1E
~~
I
I
I
I
I
R-19 INSULATll>>l
.cARAI:E lELNC
SECTION B-B
1/4" = 1'-0"
...
~
:E:
~ ~lj..
ILl ...J<~
Z . it:8
(/) 01
~ ~~()
i oZo'
~~~
ci:tl~
eI Ii:: :E~a
D:~
~
~
~i
~
w!
REVlSI()Il
DA 1E 1%/19/015
SCALE
DRAW ~c
JOB lmooa
91EH
Ao-3
I;F SHEE~
STYRENE TRIM,
A T ALL WINDOWS
16'1 HT
230 Graystone
23
Swiss CoHee
COLOR:
SWISS COFFEE,
TYP.
26 GA GA '
0/2X LVD GUT
COLOR. FASCIA BOA~ ~
MA. ,nu \
W:~~S~TI{,W~E, . II III
2ND FLR TOP PLAT
18.50'
I
MILGARD VINYL, DBL PI
COLOR: WHITE, ALMONC
TYP.
II r BUILDING ENVELOP
2ND
10.0
----
''$;r----C
----- -~--
/'
rnllln
r;:::::i
-
7 /8" THK ]- COA T ST\..,
0/ 2-LA YE GRADE"C
PAPER, 0/ EXT. STR P
COLOR: GR YSTONE or
FLR
0.00'
~
to
",I
1I1Lf) I 3' -6" III
~'-O'I~~'-O'i
--~
D
f5=f . 'fc::7'
16"1. I BBB BB8 BEE BEE Em BEE
TYPfOODDDD
OODDDD
-~OOOJDDD~
AVERAGE FG
1.17'
--~._---"W
26 GA. GAL V. WEEP SCREEN. -----'
4" MIN ABOVE FINISH GRADE OR
2" MIN ABOVE CONC PAVING. TYP.
DBL PANE GLAZING L 1 3/4" THK SOLID CORD
L- VINYL SET, MILGARD OAK DOOR W/ RAISED
OR TO BE SIMILAR, TYP. PANELS STAINED FINISH.
COLOR: WHITE OR COLOR: CHERRY
ALMOND
16'X7' AMARR STELL
L- GARAGE DOOR W/
WAGON WHELL-LONG PANEL.
COLOR: SANDTONE OR
WHITE.
L- VENNER STONE
COLOR: GRAY
FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
Sn-E INFORMATION
OIVNER: WEN PING UNlYUH JlUAN
ADRESS: 7-453STANFORDPl.ACE
CUPERTINO, CA95014
AP.N. II: 35!l;l2.Q39
SCOPE OF I'KJRK:
NEW CONSTRUCTION
ZONfNG: R.l
OCCUPANCY: R.Wl
CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-N
LOT SIZE:
AllOWABLE fAR (45%)
AllOWABLE OVERHANG (5%)
5994 SF
2697 SF
300 SF
(Nl2ooAIIP
Me P ANa
BUILDING AREA.
1ST fIR.
2ND FLR:
SOL COUNT:
1427 Sf. 441 Sf (GARAGE)
711 SF
109 SF
OVERHANG,
1ST FLR:
AT GARAGE:
2ND flR:
I02SF
34 SF
135 SF
rOT AL PROPOSED RESIlENCE:
RATIO OF 2ND FLR TO 1ST FLR:
PROPOSED FAR:
26S8 SF
44.8%
44.8%
TOTAL PROPOSED OVER HANG:
PROPOSED RATIO:
271 SF
4.5%
RASED FLOOR,
DOUBLE GlAZF. VINYL @All. WlNOOWS
TOTAL 2ND FlR WAll.UNE: 130.67
~ OF TliE WALL PERlIIETER: 65.33'
WALL PERIMETER WI MORE THAN 6' EXPOSED HEIGHT AND HAS NO
Z MIN OVERLAP FROM 1ST FlR ROOF T02NO FlRWAlL
64S
WAll. PERIMETER HAS UESS THAN 6' EXPOSED HEIGHT AND HAS
2' MIN OVERLAP FROM 1ST FlR ROOF TO 2ND FlR WAlL
66.17
ARCHITEClURAL DESIGN AND
STRUClURAL ENGINEERING:
RA Y CHEN. P.E. TEL: (408)524-5488
IHINGS HAVE BEEN DONE SINCE LASTJ-.1EETING WI THE NEIGHBORS
MAJOR REVISION ITEMS:
1J 45- bay window assembly is revised to rectangurr.- flat window and pop.<>utdeplh T9duced from 24"10 18"0
2) Eave at front bay window assembly has been lowered 10 flush with !he rest of the sIrudure.
3) Froot enlraoce has been lowered S"1I1a1is orilinal.
4) Stone veoe&I" hes been added in !he front portion 01 side <Ild squcre caumns.
MINOR REVISION:
These al'9 just making its neighbors happy (their corrmenls from last meeting)
! will give you material board this week, maybe on Thu. And it is !rue to make
the buikiing looks much smaller.
I) Roof will be slake, 75% gr"l and 25% sort oll>disl1(lOOle ike purple.
2) Wall will be SMdtrep (more likeea1h coiOIj.
3) Two ,.;ndows alMA BA h.... been called for naHrimpMlnt
4) Grid has been added 10 !he_
5) Screening trees bed< h.... been moved forwart!, to aboullZ froollhe bad<yart! fer<e.
6J Scteen shrub at ri!!'ll side yard is removed per its neiglbo(s request
THINGS DONE
1) Window 10Il11 changed 10 4112'.
2) CuI front enlraoce 12" inwart!.
Revision made on 04117107.
TREE. ARBUl1JS MARINA
IN 24" BOX MIN, 8' HT.,
T'IP.
LaJ
~
:E:
~
Z
~
F
~
!lei
a::e
~t!...
_1'<( -
-,0
. a. III
V'l 0>
a::@<
~Ou
lL.
aZQ
Z~Z
<((/)1=
a::
.I"'lW
a::lllD.
~.,.::>
"",r--u
(
\! t
j:'
.
1\
I ..b. II
: :~_~J
I I r--
!.-L.I i r 1ST STORY i~ -. :.
N , I OUl1JNE I
p. , II V-: 2ND STORY
g~' : OU'TUNE
Z : .!15'-0. I
- I I
Oi'
Nil I
~ I .~_____J
. I
.' '
~I V-' 2ND STORY DB
, I COUNT AREA L
5'-0. OUlUNE
I
I
I L
----l
L :
I
~
W
;., N
"c'. 0
'~;.I 0
-t ~
:;,
8, a
I~
,~
CONe lANDING,
SEE 'F1RST FLOOR
PlAN' SHEET AQ-3
10'-00.
r-------
.~.
.9
2ND FUl 10'
SE18AO<
SURalARGE
n
{N)CAS IIE1ER
I
!
~
,
N
I
io
N
b
I
in
..,
~
Q.
t!!
liS
_l
0;
b
I
'0
..,
.:Ii
'0
I
;....
~2*~~~W__I____
CONC WALKWAY
REVISION
<0
I
.....
STREET PLANT
.0;
io
I
<0
~<t STANFORD PLACE
_--L______
DATE 12/19/011
SCALE
RECEIVED II DRAW RHC
APR 1 8 2007 r: ,-
SHEET
BY: /U1fl,,~ C-1
OF SHEETS
PLOT PLAN
1/8"=1'-0"
FtR
o.~..:..
OIl. PNE. GLA2ING
'lint. SET, MIl.GARO
OR TO BE SIIlll.AR, T'fI'.
ca.OR: lHTE OR
AUIOND
"f1"l
2ND FtR TOP PlA- ~U
18.~ ~
7::.:E_
11
[[] I [EEJ]
I I
2ND FtR
10.00'
---';7 I ~1~IJV I
I~I IrTlIlIlllJlI1I
ELj lEfj
- - - -
REAR ELEVATION
1/4" - 1'-0"
2ND FtR TOP PlA lE
18.50'
-~:;.~
IIl.GARD \tIlO'I.. 08L PANE.
<:oLOR: IH1E. ALIIQNO
mo.
----t-----------
tJf~-...........J ~~~
s::-~::::::.
-~~.
1 3/4" 'fill( SOUO CORD
OAK DOOR wI RAISED
PAHElS STAIfED FINISH.
ca.OR: OlERRY
18'X7' AMARR S1EI.l
GARAGE DOOR WI
WAGON MlELl.-LbNG PANEL.
c:a.oR: SANDltM: OR
1ItlIlE.
"9lNER STONE
COLOR: GRAY
FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" - 1'-0"
CONC SlN(E llOOf1NC
2HO FtR TOP PlA lE
18.SO'
___z.:.::::..-_
-----
-
I
.
,
- -iiil- - ... - -- - - .- - --- - IIIi - iiii - -. - - - - - -
01 2-UYfR lORADE "0" IIUlG
= 9i<A~ PlY. TYP.
NOlE: EX'IEAIOR PAINT lIi1l.L BE
I<El.l Y 1l00RE PAlNlS.
LEFT ELEVATION
1/4" - 1'-0"
'~L"-':
p
~!-'? ~
~lIrr
D rl",
~oo'
--------.....--1--
----ill _
--
~~FtR 1
-~.
12 IlCIl QIOIN
IlOlIlIIl, l'IP.
2ND
~ 1000C
8 _ v-::
-.
-
-----
-
-
16" SQURE
COl.UIINS.
FtR
0..9.0'
RIGHT ELEVATION
1/4" - 1'-0"
RECEIVED
APR 1 82007
BY: h~i~
FlR
PlA1t
CEJUHG
w- 9.00'
..;;
PlAlE
1&1
I
;
~~.
,.j<-
.;[:5
Ul Ol
0::9<
:::!:C5o
...
Cl~O
Z....Z
<(IlF
.,.,15
o::ol'Io.
~;:i3
0::
o
u...
I
~
RE\IISlON
OA lE 12/1'/llI
SCAlE
ORA W IIHC
JOB ,_
SHEET
AG-1
OF SHEE1S
:0
1
;...
o
'I ~;'
o "
I rg
N /!~ n-"
or- I'"
,Ii
r~
l_i
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
-fro
~J :
I I
I I
I I
I I
'11 I
I'_J
-T
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
1/4" - "-0"
o
.0-4
21' -0"
12'-6"
8'-6"
'-.0"
ll'~li"
,t -=:cr
8040
I
MASTER BA SUITE
W / g' -S" RAISED
CEILING
(13'-2"Xll'-10")
I
J'''>..f.
<90
HALlWAYV
:0
1
"'"
.....
.1
BR#2
(10'-2"Xl0'-4")
.
N
I
b
BR#l
(11' -8"X9' -8")
5040 Sl
5040 Sl
11'-0"
~
S'Xl0'-S"
CONC
LANOINC 39' -0"
3026 SL. NQN-
TRAN5P AREN T, TEMP
("
1
b
N
B
..J
Vl
o
'"
~
~fXf$"
cJ'~G
~
B
I
.
I
~
A iil
~. ~
~Ill 17'-8~
1'-Qo
'b 'T ~
I (
;.,
~GASF\L
~II ( CE BY SUPI
IcaO 12301 OR EQ
l NOOK
W/ 10' RAISED CEIliNG
(11'-2"Xll'-3")
--"It
.
0
I
;.,
) I L....
.
0
I
N
S'X! 0'-6"
CONC
lANDING
11'-3"
6'-9"
~
10'-4"
10'-4"
ItlCl
ItlCl
FAMILY ROOM
1&.1
~
%
d ~ ~ Ztj..
z~ [IJ :J:5 c
Ill"" ~ Z a..1l
. ~z IilI en 0
~ ~ ~O
.1 GUEST - :::Egs~
,J qO'-0"X16'-9") ~ "-
9 GElLING, TYP. I"'" a Z c
10'-0" . ~ - Z~2
IilI ~ ~Vl~
"l~ (" .",e
~ 1 ~ll)Q
~~ B I II m ~ ,,~i
.
B ~
... , CAS FURNANCE
BY CARRIER
CONe
lANDING
CERAIIIC llLE OR EQ.
0/ GREEN GYP BOARD
a: 0/ BUILOlNC p~:
o
o
+
,
,
.
,
v-: IoEHT OR'tER OUTSIDE
: ttm 1ol11 DUCT a:
, /1FT OAl.tPER.
; 4 WAX.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
..-.."
.........
.........~
~
~~~
il~
~
GARAGE
'b
..
N
r 2ND STORY
OUlUNE
r
~/P( GYP. BO, T'fPE "X"
o WALL a: a.G ON GARAGE
SlOE AS l-HR. SEPERAlION
ALL AIR DUClS PEl'lElRA 11NG
AREA SEP ARA liON Wo\l.l It a.c.
SHALL BE 28 GA. MlN,
21'-0"
39' -0"
NOTE: ItlCl SUBFLOOR '<t:NnLA nON
REVISION
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
1/4" - 1'-0"
RECEIVED
DATE 12/19/1
SCALE
ORA W RHC
JOB 12Il508
SHEET
APR 1 82007
BY: Atvi~
o
8
f------------ --- ------
------
------
--------- -------- --. ---1
-------'"
0)
,
--, ' :
/r_J <---------------------------- ------~
NOlE: 2ND FlR AREA. CD - 109 SF INClUDING STAIRCASE, DOUBLE COUNTING AREA
CD - 111 SF INClUDING SECOND FLOOR, BAY-v.lHDOW
1ST FlR AREA. (]) - 1421 SF INCLUDING FIRST FLOOR. BAY-'MNDOW, PORCH
CD - 441 SF INCUJDING GARAGE
FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
NTS
2ND F1..R TOP PlAn:
18.5<l'
-~-.~..
2ND F1..R
10.00'
_-::2-r
1ST F1..R
0.00'
~~:.:i"!._
2
..........---;1----
~AT
....- I ;- ~;~R CASE
r BEYOND
,
I
m
DINNING
R-19 INSULATION
GRAlSEO FLR, TYP.
2' WIDE
'MNDOW
SlU.
~
I
10
MASTER SR
~
.
o
I
'"
FAMILY
R-30 INSULATION
CArnc, TYP.
R-13 INSULAl10N
ClE)(T. WALL. TYP.
~
I
10
BR#2
SR#1
2ND FLR
10.00'
_-:'C~
~
FOYER
BEYOND
1
GARAGE
1 ST F1..R
0.00'
SECTION A-A
1/4' - 1'-0'
I/~~o
HALLWAY I HALLWAY
~
rum,
~
R-19 INSULA110N
C1GARAGE CEIlING
GARAGE
SECTION B-B
1/4' - 1'-0'
RECEIVED
APR 1 82007
BY: -..LU.V'L&d
!
%
. ~t3.
1&1 ...J<-
Z .~~
~oa:
~ ~~~
F= Cl~C
~ z.....z
<(/)~
Q:
,nu.
a::~~
; ~ ~~C
en
!
j
~
(,)
~i
~
fi~
bt~
REVlSlON
OA IE '2/1t/C
SCALE
DRAW RHC
JOB ,_
SHEET
Ao-3
OF SHEETl