The URL can be used to link to this page

14. Reza Rafii appeal ~ ., CITY OF CUPERJINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408)777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. (~ Agenda Date: October 2, 2007 Application: RM-2007-14 Applicant:, Reza Ram 'Location: Byrne Avenue APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission's decision to approve a Minor Residential Permit for a second-story rear deck on a new 1,794 square foot residence. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has the following options: . 1. Uphold the decision of the 'Planning Commission; or 2. Uphold the appeal; or 3. Uphold the appeal with modifications. ~ BACKGROUND: On June 21, 2007, the Design Review Committee (ORC) approved a residential design review for a new, two-story 1,794 square foot residence located along the east side of Byrne Avenue close to the comer of Byrne Avenue and McClellan Road. Due to the extraordinary physical constraints' of the site, the Committee also approved several exception (R-2007-23) requests,to the R1 Ordinance (ground floor side yard setbacks, second floor setback surcharg~ and the second floor exposed wall rule). In addition, the approval included a Minor Residential Permit for a second story rear facing balcony. On July 10, 2007, Mr. Fatekh Vergasov, residing at the rear of the project property, filed for an appeal of the DRC's decision specifically relating to privacy concerns regarding the second story rear yard balcony. On August 28, 2007, the Planning Commission upheld DRC's decision and denied the appeal. Mr. Vergasov is appealing the Planning Commission's decision. ' APPELLANT: The following is a summary of the appellant's justification for the appealing the Planning Commission's decision: ' ~ · Existing privacy will be lost due to the proposed second story balcony. · The proposed balcony will have total control over his property. 14 -1 June 21, 2007 R-2007-23, RM-2007-14 Page2of2 The appellant provided analysis that compared the proposed balcony to a watch tower having views into his property (see attachment 1 of exhibit A). The appellant also suggested that all of the second story wirtdows should be raised to be higher than five feet in sill height and be obscured from any views. . J PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission took public testimony on this matter and found that the proposed balcony will not have significant negative impact on the adjacent homes. The Commission also determined that any potential privacy issues will be addressed with the required privacy planting and the existing trees along the rear and side property lines. PUBLIC INPUT: One neighbor expressed that she was concerned with the privacy impact from the proposed house to her rear yard and her balcony. - STAFF: The R1 Ordinance Section 19.28.090(H) states, "All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while s~ll allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, ----../ or any other similar unenclosed features. " The proposed balcony is modest in size (2 ft. by 7 ft.) and is located 27 feet from the rear property line. Privacy protection trees or shrubs are required to be planted to screen views from the balcony. A covenant will be recorded on the property to ensure this landscaping screening will be maintained and preserved. It is not uncommon for newer two 'story homes to h~ve second story balconies. It is also not the intent of the R1 Ordinance to have all possible views screened or eliminated, but rather minimized and curtailed. The project is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance and in staff's opinion all privacy concerns have been sufficiently addressed. ,Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for additional detailed information. Enclosures Planning Commission Resolutions Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2007 Appeal Request Exhibit A: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 28, 2007 (with attachments) ao, Senior P~er Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Approved by: ~~~7J~ David W.Knapp 0'" &. City Manager 14-2 2 ~ '-', ~' RM-2007-14 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6485 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN APPEAL OF A :MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TO CONSlRUcr A SECOND STORY REAR YARD DECK ON A NEW, TWO STORY 1,794 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE' SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal of a Minor Residential Perrn!-t approval (RM-2007-14), as described fu Section IT of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held orie or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the appellants have not met the burden of proof required to support said appeals; and have not demol,lStrated that the Minor Residential Permit approval meets the following findings for denial: 1) The proposed use, at 'the proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner that is not in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: , That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, tlle application for RM-2007-14 is hereby ,approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and, That the subconc1usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolu-q,on are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. RM-2007-14 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 28, 20Q7 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 14 -3 , Resolution No. 6485 Page 2 RM-2007-14 August 28, 2007 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION J Application No;: Applicant: Location: RM-2007-14 Reza Raffii 10484 Byrne Avenue SECTION ill: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE coMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT' DEPT. 1. 'APPROVED PROTECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, "P!oposed two story w fbasement dwelling unit; Reza Raf#i, 10484 Byrne Avenue, Cupertino Ca. 95014,11 consisting of, five sheets dated Received April 20, 2007, labeled A-I to A-5, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT , The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of th~ privacy protection measur~ and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-l Ordinance for ~ windows and second story balconies with views into neighboring yards and with a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by, the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community ---./' Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 3. PRIVACY PROTECTION PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a complete privacy protection landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Coqunissiori that shall include a site plan of the project, the 30-degree cones of vision from each second story window jamb and balconies, and tlle location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to satisfy the privacy protection landscaping measures for tlle project. 4. FRONTYARDTREE A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public WorkS and Commt,1l1i.ty Development Departments. 5. BALCONY SIDEY ARD SETBACK The balcony shall be revised to have at least 15 feet of setback from the right property line. Revised ptans shall 'be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of any building permits. -.-/' 14-4 ~ Resolution No. 6485 RM:-2007-14 A:ugust28,2007 Page 3 6. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with oth~r departments and/ or agencies with regard to the proposed project' for additi~nal' conditions and requirements. Any miSrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 7. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, ref;ervation requirements, 811d other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code SectiOl'\ 66020{d) (1), $ese Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of ~e amount of such fees, and a de5criptio~ of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approv~ period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other' exactions, pursuant to Gove~ent 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 challengmg such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of August 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning , Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: ~ AYES: NOES: ' ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CO:MJMISSIO~: Chairperson Giefer, Miller, Wong, Kaneda COM:MISSIONERS: none ' COM:MISSIONERS: none COM::MISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED:, Is/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/UsaGiefer Lisa Giefer, Chair Planning Commis~ion g:/ planning/ pdreport/ res/RM-2007-14 ~ 14 -5 Cupertino Planning Commission 24 nfj) €l:' t;~i:~",,- i..;;(.' t .......I[ It.&!; II August 28, 2007 Steve Piasecki: Suggested adding "The applicant shall return to the Planning Commission with 'a construction 'J anagement plan prior to construction to address the issues that have been rai e public te . ony and in the letter". · Said arate minute action regarding the replacement of the two Motion: pprove Application atlons: (Condition No.2, modify cant is allowed to phase the project Steve Piasecki: · Suggested that when the indicated that the last bu action on the project, it should be or the next meeting. (V f:lte: 4-0-0) Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to forward a Min rder regarding Wildflower Way, to replace the two trees that were rem two 48-inch box trees and direct Public Works that the sidewalk needs maneuvered, likeness for likeness, Ash trees. (Vote: 4-0(0) -:\ RM-20076-14 Consider an appeal of a Design Review Committee approval of a .... J Reza Ratii Minor Residential Permit for a second-story rear deck on a new 104894 Byrne A vel 1,794 square foot residence. -/ Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for consideration of an appeal of a Design Review Committee approval of a MinQr Residential Permit for a second-story rear deck on aI, 794 square foot residence as outlinec;J. in the staff report. The basis of the appeal is that the existing privacy will be lost due to the proposed second story balcony and the balcony would have control over the property. · He reviewed the city's policy on second story balconies, which is that the Rl ordinance allows for second story balconies provided that they come in for minor residential permits which is the case of this approval by DRC. He emphasized that the goal of the requirements of privacy impact is not to require a complete visual relief or protection; it was clearly written on the policy but we deal with what is reasonable to try to mask as much as possible the views from the balconies. · Staff feels the proposed balcony is modest in size and not excessive in design and that the privacy mitigation issue has been reasonably addressed consistent with the intent of the ' ordinance. · Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the options of upholding the decision of the DRC; uphold the appeal; or uphold the appeal with modifications. Fetekh Vergason, Byrne Avenue, Appelant: · Opposed to the application. J 14-6 Cupertino Planning Commission 25 R" ~"\ f'!1. &'n~ n :'Hl~' l' i' t~, [~7r!'~ It/"'':'\.. t& ~: August 28, 2007 '--' · Said that standing on a balcony widens the angle of view of neighbor's homes more than a window. · Said that there will b~ unhappy neighbors if the balcony exists. Reza Rafii, Applicant: · Said that the Mr. Vergason's landing is three times as large as the subject balcony. · The proposed balcony is two feet and is designed mostly for decoration. · He illustrated various photos taken showing views to the neighboring homes. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Rose Serio, Byrne Avenue: · She provided a brief history of the property. · Said she was opposed to the proposed balcony which would invade her backyard privacy, and recommended a window only. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to uphold the decision of the DRC, for Application RM-2007"14 (Vote: 4-0-0) Ciddy Wordell noted that the decision could be appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days. ' L None None GC . f Vice Chairperson of the Planning . ttee needed to be scheduled. C meeting. Com. Miller said . CTOR OF COMMUNITY D VELOP OURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the September 11, Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. \....- SUBMI'ITED BY: Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary 14 -7 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 [5)1 IE (C [E ~ W ~ rR\ ['U SEP" 7 2007 ~ ,CltYOF ,CUPEIQ"INO CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL 1. gH-200l- -ICf ApplicaIit(s) Name: /(E" 2- A RA {;'i '(I . Appellant(s) Name: c FAi~kk VE~G;4'SD,V, Ylo' Rt{/4t/eA! t(J/e:/ Pdot2!fo,OJ Ql.{3o I 6~O - LfbS:-71:r~ FV /q'fbfii)S 6~ k.L. Per Please check one:' , Appeal a d~s~on of Director of Community Development )( Appeal a deciSIon of Planning Commission . Application No. 2. 3. Address Phone Number Email 4. ~ 5. Date of determination of Director or ma.iling of notice of City decision: 6. Basis of appeal: i w,(d <fp )>,eife.e J/ eX IS If 11..1 eJ/e.L tl/ ~ Lot ?2t~r1cQ/' ~~ ,v~~,gs S?lo..PZ u,;,t 1H~,e. $0 ,we. cloA/t- ~W tW~~dco/Vr:f PIV lie ,e~ 1~~i'()A/ PI' Jife "t/6W ~Je j>~roseq I.C!. we c!p//li Wr1/'/t Sp/I1e I1wAtMt!J/l/e;l1/ tM~ w/d " . O;//"t.etJJ. ~ jl?ts i-ota?/3'. / SIgl1ature(s) , V rfieL-j /{E; Please co onn~ include appeal fee of $156.00 pursuant to Resolution No 07-056 ($150.00 fQr massage application ~pea1s)~ and return to the attention of the Ci~ Clerk --./' 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223.' " 14-8 htarfMj Ja-fe OcTober 2., e,Jt &UY\~'{ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM ~ Application: RM-2007 -14 Applicant: Reza Rafii Property Location: 10484 Byrne Avenue Agenda Date: August 28, 2007 APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of a Design Review Committee approval 'of a Minor Residential Permit for a second-story rear deck on a new 1,794 square foot residence. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Uphold the decision of the Design Review Committee; or 2. Uphold the appeal; or 3. Uphold the appeal with modifications. '- BACKGROUND: On June 21, 2007, the Design Review Committee approved a residential design review for a new, two-story 1,794 square foot residence located along the east side of Byrne Avenue close to the comer of Byrne Avenue and McOellan Road. Due to the extraordinary physical constraints of the site, the Committee also approved several exception (R-2007-23) requests to the R1 Ordinance (ground floor side yard setbacks, second floor setback surcharge and the second floor exposed wall rule). In addition, the approval included a Minor Residential Permit for a second story rear facing balcony. On July 10, 2007, Mr. Fatekh Vergasov, residing at the rear of the project property, filed for an appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision. The appellant's appeal focuses only on the proposed second story balcony. Therefore staff discussion in this report will only reflect that issue. BASIS OF THE APPEAL: The following is a summary of the appellant's justification for the appeal: · Existing privacy will be lost due to the proposed second story balcony. · The proposed balcony will have 100% control over his property. The appellant provided analysis that compared the proposed balcony to a watch tower having views into his property (see exhibit 1). The appellant also suggested that all of the second story windows should be raised to be higher than five feet in sill height and be obscured from any views. ~ Staff: The R1 Ordinance Section 19.28.090(H) states, /I All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring 'residential side or rear yards 'shall file for a Minor Residential Pennit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. Tire goal of the pennit 14 -9 June 21, 2007 R-2OO7-23, RM-2007-14 Page 2 of 2 requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second- story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar unenclosed features. '" ,-..J The proposed balcony is modest in size and is not excessive in design. The balcony is approximately 24 feet from the rear property line, approximately 23 feet from the left property line and approximately 14 feet from the right property line (the applicant is required to revise the plans to provide at least 15 feet setback from the right property line as required by the Ordinance). In addition, privacy protection trees or shrubs are required to be planted to screen views from the balcony. This vegetation will be recorded on the property as a covenant to be maintained and preserved. The Design Review Committee considered Mr. Vergasov' s concerns, but decided to approve the balcony because the privacy mitigation issue has been reasonab~y addressed consistent with the intent of the R1 Ordinance. It is not uncommon for newer two story homes to have second story balconies. It is also not the intent of the R1 Ordinance to have all possible views screened or eliminated, but rather minimized and curtailed. The project is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance and in staff's opinion all privacy concerns have been sufficiently addressed. If the Planning Commission desires additional modifications or measures to address the appellant's concerns, the following options are proposed: 1. Eliminate the 2nd story balcony. 2. ,Convert the functional balcony into a faux balcony where it will not be functionally accessible and only be for architectural enhancement to the rear elevation. ~ 3. Consider larger or tailer trees at the time of planting. , It should be noted that the site line analysis provided by appellant (exhibit 1) that attem~ to illustrate the potential angle of views from the proposed balcony into his yard is not to scale. Prepared by: Approved by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner /;; ., Ciddy Wordell, City Planner (!;..~./__< - .~;;";?_7 :~~;.;.. Attachments: 1. Appeal application and justification from Mr. Fatekh Vergasov, dated July 10, 2007. 2. Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes, June 21, 2007. 3. Approved Design Review Committee Conditions of Approval. 4. June 21, 2007 Design Review Committee staff report (with attachments). J 2 14 - 10 ~ [i5) f oc: IE 0 \ig IE Inl WU JUl 1 0 2007 lW City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 CUPERTINO CITY' ClE~K CITY F , CUPEIUINO APPEAL 1. ;e-CBO::r-25J ~).{- ?(H);Z~ Iy , Applicant(s) Name: ~e iZA R~ tTi/ Appellant(s) Name: filldA V..qR t.e~o V . - ~.J?.?/ ~ 'C.d'cd~/ f?/ ~fo .e~4I/e~dve Address -, 6" c.; I - - J4- fl,L1I ~Ct' CA'ff'.50/ Application No. 2. 3. Phone Number UlJ 1(~S:-s713 ~, 1'"1/ 1f5"6c;;J~j~~~ Email \....;' 4.' Please check one: Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development Appeal a decision ofPlann;ng Commission ..; ge.rr ,J:WJ,w ~A.-?, Date of determination of Director or mailing of I).otice of City decision: ck..v-e .?ff,.~ : , '. -L h~~ / 'II jl/ei'a4JtJ..RS, ~ ,vtP/t' '7/'cr- Basis of appeal: '~~.L~ ~~' \. ...c? ~ ~ L7 _ ' ..e eAC /~Ti~tf' f>.l2/J/fi2.fjI, ~Je ...,;p LAU?5e ~ (/ '")~ ~~ ~I// fi"M..e tJL~C~~/, 4'd p- /170/0 ' . th"e.e t'J/t.€ $!!;;5 .. . L 5. 6. Signature(s) Please t fonn, include appeal f~e of$ , .00 ($150.00 for massage application, appeals), and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. 14 - 11 Page 1 of2 .J 10484.Byrne Ave. Cupertino CA 9501.4- De_WIIll WIW1L-w'-? ..-----...... ,:<''':; ir,cr~i :"~..e:e.,, T- ~ _.II!III'!.~~IIl.\'O'~ ./,'/,"'~9_~("!l!J"__~ ':-~:4.-~tI:t,Qj),lL"':.:-:.Q9-cr.! ,;.1.,' ',:)e .:J.. .1n~51~$ _"~.~,"'.c...' ..c..J.' tfiJ~fI.".. '<r... Ill, I i , I Ii I! I~. M I r.::= -- ~" l ~-1.-'&Ir.~ ' Slal't" L.H - x I Irc- .=:' ".foil I -- g- J - . i - -..... I -- .~ I -- -- "'-- tr ~. '1;:-6: ~. =-- -.Jof; ~ :r.. fJ' ""F ".11" ~.-=" :'D'<( 11 JI ..:I .... :.:- '.. 3:1 ,,*,c:'l'_ '. ...::1..,. ."'.11 '" ':::it.... ",.:.,- 1iiW'_ _ ~~o1MlK LWf~" .;;,. ,_.r.rc... J If PfmnIng o.p.trnent of the CItr wants to pIIICe ___ Walc;htowIr '*'-. they wit ~ blIlcony at I1Ia proJect \Iv. don' WW1I to looN CKI' eidIlIng prtvM:y C htIp:lfwww.pseudology.org/desigDll0484_BymeProb1em_Ol.htm ") 14 - 12 7/1012007 L- Page 2 of2 Ob8ervatlon from unnecessary balcony ~ o -. ... ... 8. 6' ,: " I 21121 ..--cr - '1 I 28" 10tU Brme In rrry AuIoCAO ArchIt8clur1II desktJp I fNlde IIIudan modIrI of the fuIln project WIth bIIIcany It becIIme deIlr enough, thM.u tIur neer8It nMghbora w11100M they eD:IsIIng ~. bec8uM of Did b8Icony w.n I*-.aft wIII_ to IIIId bIdc:ony he will get men then 180 __ obHrvaIlan angel boIh horizanIIdIy _ vertlc8Iy ~ why - don't WIII1l this bIiIcony now and in fuIure tDCI To pralectour eldsting priv8cy ..second Ioor wInclowa cllIIId prqect IhouId be p1ac:ec15' from -=ond tIoor IMIl III'ld hIM blUr glIzIng ----------. 211121 MaClaIIlln RcU -.------.-------- ------~._~------._-_.._--------_. -------...------- -_.._--~_._--- -------- .--- ---------------------------- \......... -,puu:IaIagy.cllil "-' FtL 1:e"th FV tqLfb G) VeR!~SOV SbcJLo bal. pet- if 0 Ae.ee cw) ~l 14 - 13 7/1012007 . . http://www.pseudology.org/design/l0484_ByrneProblem_01.htni 10300 Torre A'De7'Lue Cupertino, Califtmr:ia 95014 J T~lephone:' (408) 777-3308 FAX: ,(408) 777-~333 CI F .CUPEItTINO CUMMUNH Y VJ:;;Vt;LUJ:1Mt:N'l' June 28, 2007 Reza Rafii 1729 Marich Way Mountain View, Ca. 94040 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW ~O:MMITrEE ACTION L.l:H"lHK'- Application R-2007-23, 1Th1-2007-14 This letter confirms the'decision of the Design Review O?mmittee, given at the meeting of June 21, 2007; approving a residential design review for a new two-stOry (approximately) 1,794 square fo<?t resid~e, an<:l'a minor residential permit for a second story rear yard deck on the new residence and exceptions to allow five foot side yard setbacks instead of Ii combination of 15 feet, an,exception from the 10 foot second floor setback surcharge requirement and an exception to allow more than 50 p~cent of the J second story perimeter walls to' ~ve over six feet of expose~ wall heights, located at 10484 Byrne Av~, according to Resolution No. 257. , Please be aware that if this permit is not us~d within on~ year, it"sliall expire on June 2i, 2007. . Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be ma4e within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter. If this ~ppens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which will be scheduled before the City Council. ' Sincerely, Enclosures: Resolution No. 257 Approv J 14 - 14 L L L Design Review Committee June 21, 2007 Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON June 21, 2007 ROLL CALL Committee Members present: Marty Miller, Commissiner David Kaneda, Commissioner Committee Members absent: Cary Chien Gilbert Wong Staff present: Gary Chao Staff absent none p APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRl'ITEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None f1 CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBUC HEARING: 1. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: R-2007-23, RM-2007-14 Reza Rafii 10484 Byrne Avenue. Residential Design Review for a new two-story 1,794 square foot residence and a Minor Residential Permit for a second story rear deck on the new residence and exceptions to allow five foot side yard setbacks instead of a combination of 15 feet, an exception to allow a combined second story side yard setback of 23 feet instead of 25 feet, an exception from the 10 foot second floor setback surcharge requirement artd an exception to allow more than 50 percent of the second story perimeter walls to have over six feet exposed wall heights. Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. 14...: 15 Staff member Chao explained that the application is for a new house with a basement. The application has several requests for exemptions to the Rl Ordinance because the lot is a very 2 Design Review Committee June 21,2007 narrow and substandard in size. Staff supports the exemption request for 5 foot side yard setbacks instead of the required combination of 15 feet, the request for exemption from the required 10' second story surcharge and the exemption for exposed walls on the second story. -/ Staff does not support the second story setback exemption request since the second story can be redesigned to meet the setback requirement. If the second story is redesigned, the exemption for the 10' surcharge may also not be necessary. The current design calls for a rear balcony which will need to be moved about l' in order to meet the side yard setback requirements for a rear balcony. The applicant did not ask for an exemption for this aspect of the proposed structure. They will be installing privacy plantings and perhaps also frosting some of the upstairs windows to further mitigate any privacy concerns. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the setback requirements and measurements. He also asked about the existing landscaping. The applicant, Reza Rafii,' addressed the committee. He will be living in the proposed house with his family. He has worked very hard with Staff to come up with'a design for the lot. He feels that the design is the best. it can be considering the lot size and trying to conform to all the City's rules. He said that he intends to keep the existing trees that are already on the site. He is ok with planting more trees if the committee asks him to. Staff member Chao talked about the proposed bay widow. There are several different requirements for bay windows. Commissioner Kaneda asked for clarification on the different R zonings in the area. Staff member Chao explained that the lot would be substandard in any zoning area. Corrunissioner Miller asked the applicant which re-design option he preferred. The discussion, continued about which redesign would be better and still conform. Such as moving the second floor in order to conform to the required second floor setback and surcharge, lowering the entry way and the bay window. The rear balcony will be functional and is very small so it is mostly a decorative feature. The discussion continued about privacy plantings and obscured glass in the upstairs windows. Commissioner Kaneda approved the 5' side yard setback exception and the -----./' 10' second story surcharge exception. He clarified that the house would be redesigned; by moving the second floor, lowering the entryway and meeting fire code with a cantilevered bay window. Commissioner Miller concurred. MOTION: COl;nmissioner Kaneda moved to approve R-2007-23 and RM-2007-14 with the above mentioned conditions SECOND: Commissioner Miller ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none VOTE: 2-D OLD BUSINESS: None NEW ,BUSINESS: None Respectfullr submitted: / s/Beth Ebben Beth Ebben Administrative Clerk -/ g:planning/DRC Committee/Minutes062107 14 - 16 cm OF CUPERnNO , 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 ~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: RM-2007-14 Applicant: Reza Rafii Property Location: 10484 Byrne Avenue Agenda Date: August 28, 2007 APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of a Design Review Committee approval of a Minor Residential Permit for a second-story rear deck on a new 1,794 square foot residence. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Uphold the decision of the Design Review Committee; or 2. Uphold the appeal; or 3. Uphold the appeal with modifications. \.- BACKGROUND: On June 21, 2007, the Design Review Committee approved a residential design review for a new, two-story 1,794 square foo~ residence located along the east side of Byrne Avenue close to the comer of 8yrne Avenue and McClellan Road. Due to the extraordinary physical constraints of the site, the Committee also approved several exception (R-2007-23) requests to the Rl Ordinance (ground floor side yard setbacks, second floor setback surcharge and the second floor exposed wall rule). In addition, the approval included a Minor Residential Permit for a second story rear facing balcony. On July 10,2007, Mr. Fatekh Vergasov, residing at the rear of the project property filed for an appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision. The appellant's appeal focuses only on the proposed second story balcony.' Therefore staff discussion in this repot will only reflect that issue. BASIS OF THE APPEAL: The following is a summary of the appellant's justification for the appeal: · Existing privacy will be lost due to the proposed second story balcony. · The proposed balcony will have 100% control over his property. The appellant provided analysis that compared the proposed balcony to a watch tower having views into his property (see exhibit A). The appellant also suggested that all of the second story windows should be raised to be higher than five feet in sill height and be obscured from any views. ,~ Staff: The Rl Ordinance Section 19.28.090(H) states, "All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit 14 -17 June 21, 2007 R-2007-23, RM-2oo7-14 Page 2 of 2 requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to addl'ess privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section, applies to second- st01Y decks, patios, balconies, or any otTter similar unenclosed features." -...J The proposed balcony is modest in size and is not excessive in design. In addition, privacy protection trees or shrubs are required to be planted to screen views from the balcony. These vegetations will be recorded on the property as a covenant to' be maintained and preserved. The Design Review Committee considered Mr. Vergasov's concerns but decided to approve the balcony because the privacy mitigation issue has been reasonably addressed consistent with the intent of the Rl Ordinance. It is not uncommon for newer two story homes to have second story balconies. It is also not 'the intent of the Rl Ordinance to have every possible views screened or eliminated but rather minimized and curtailed. The project is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance and in staff's opinion all privacy concerns have been sufficiently addressed. If the Planning Commission desires additional modifications or measures to address the appellant's concerns, you may consider the following options: 1. Eliminate the 2nd story balcony. 2. Convert the functional balcony into a faux balcony where it will not be functionally accessible and only for architectural enhancement to the rear elevation. 3. Consider larger or taller trees at the time of planting. It should be noted that the site line analysis provided by appellant (exhibit A) that attempts to illustrate the potential angle of views from the proposed balcony into his yard is misleading and not to scale. J Prepared by: Approved by: Gary Chao, Senior: Planner Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Attachments: 1. Appeal application and justification from Mr. Fatekh Vergasov, dated July 10,2007. 2. June 21, 2007 Planning Commission staff report (with attachments including the plan set). 3. Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes, June 21, 2007. 4. Approved Design Review Committee Conditions of Approvals 5. Design Review Committee approved plan set. ---/' 2 14 -18 R-2007-23 RM-2007-14 L CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 257 ' OF THE DESIGN REVIEW C01vflvfl'ITEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY APPROXThfATEL Y 1,794 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE AND A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY REAR YARD DECK ON THE NEW RESIDENCE AND EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS INSTEAD OF A COMBINATION OF 15 FEET, AN EXCEPTION FROM THE 10 FOOT SECOND FLOOR SETBACK SURCHARGE REQUIREMENT AND AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE SECOND STORY PERIMETER WALLS TO HA VB OVER SIX FEET EXPOSED WALL HEIGHTS. SECTION IT: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: R-2oo7-23 Applicant/Owner: Reza Rafii Location: 10484 Byrne Avenue L SECTION TI: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an application for a new, two-story approximately 1,794 square foot residence with exceptions to allow five foot side yard setbacks instead of a combination of 15 feet, exception to allow a combined second story side yard setback of 23 feet instead of 25 feet, exception from the 10 foot second floor setback surcharge requirement and exception to allow more than 50 percent of the second story perimeter walls to have over six fee exposed wall heights. Also, a minor residential permit for a second story rear balcony, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, wi~ the exception of the request for a second story combined side yard setback of 23 feet, the Design Review Committee finds that that all other requests are beneficial and compatible with the surrounding area and the following findings for the exceptions can be met; 1. That the literal ~nforcement of the provisions of this title will result in , restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this title. The purpose of the sections 19.28.06OD2 (ground floor side yard setback), 19.28.060E3 (second floor setback surCharge) and 19.28.060G3 (exposed perimeter second story perimeter wall rule) are to ensure sufficient building separation are L provided to the adjacent neighbors (ground floor and second floor), sufficient 14 - 19 Resolution No. 257 Page 2 R-2007-23 & RM-2007-14 June 21, 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- wall offsets are provided on the second story walls from the ground floor walls and the visual mass of the second story perimeter walls are minimized. The project as proposed with the changes suggested by staff will sufficiently address the spirit and intent of the above mentioned ordinances. J 2. That the approval of the exceptions will not result in a condition that is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The exceptions should not cause any negative impacts to the neighbors or the public. 3. That the exceptions to be granted are ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. , ' Due to the constraints of the width and size of the lot, the proposed exceptions are necessary to facilitate a reasonable house plan with the least amount of modifications to the prescribed R-1 regulation. 4. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. The exceptions should not cause any significant visual impacts to any neighbor. WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee finds that the changes are beneficial and compatible with the surrounding area and the following findings can be met to approve the minor residential permit for the second story balcony; -J' 5. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purpose of this title. The proposed balcony is consistent with the General P~an and the R-1 Ordinance. 6. The granting of the perinit will not result in a condition ~at is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to'the public health, safety or welfare. . The proposed balcony will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. . 7. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. The proposed balcony is modest in size and located at a reasonable location consistent with the gene,ral pattern of the neighborhood. 8. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. Privacy impacts will be reasonably mitigated by the requirements of privacy screening trees or shrubs. -" 14 - 20 Resolution No. 257 Page 3 R-2007-23 & RM-2007-14 June 21, 2007 =================================~============================== L NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. R-2007-23 and RM-2007-24, are hereby approved; and that the sub conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning applications R-2007-23 and RM-2007-14 as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting of June 21, 2007, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION Ill: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based, on a plan' set entitled: "Proposed Two Story W /. Basement Dwelling Unit, Reza Rafii, 10484 Byrne Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014" Consisting of five sheets received April 20, 2007, except as may be amended by conditions contained in this resolution. \.- 2. SECOND STORY SIDE YARD SETBACK The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except that no second story side setback may be less than then feet. The project shall be revised accordingly. Revised plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. PRIVACY PLANING The project shall be consistent with the privacy planting requirements specified by the R-l Ordinance. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval indicating appropriate privacy screening trees or shrubs prior to issuance of any building permits. Said trees or shrubs shall be recorded on the property as a covenant to be preserved and maintained prior to the final occupancy of the project. 4. ENTRY CANOPY The entry canopy and the adjacent front porch roof element shall be lowered in height by 1 foot. Revised plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to issuance of building permits. 5. BASEMENT COVENANT The applicant shall record a covenant running with the land that precludes the new basement from being used or converted into a second dwelling unit. L 14 - 21 Resolution No. 257 Page 4 R-2007-23 & RM-2007-14 June 21, 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 6. SECOND STORY BALCONY The required side yard setback of second story balcony is 15 feet. A revised balcony plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval confirming compliance to the 15 foot side yard setback requirement. J 7. ARCHITECTURAL PROTECTIONS All architectural projections including but not limited to bay windows shall not project more than 3'-0" into the required side yard setback and must maintain at least 3'-0" from any property line (measured from the edge of an eaves). Bay windows as referenced here shall be cantilevered off the ground and/or do not have any foundations. 8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, , dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, ,pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. -J PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATIEST: COMl\1ISSIONERS: Miller, Kaneda COMl\1ISSIONERS: none COMl\1ISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Chien, Wong APPROVED: /s/Ciddy Wordell Ciddy Wordell City Planner /sIMarty Miller Marty Miller, Commissioner Design Review Committee J 14 - 22 To: ~ From: , Subject: Location: Design Review Committee ' Gary Chao, Senior Planner Application: R-2007-23, RM-2007-14 10484 Byrne Avenue Date: June 21, 2005 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Residential design review for a new, two-story 1,794 square foot residence with exceptions to allow five foot side yard setbacks instead of a combmation of 15 feet, exception to allow a combined second story side yard setback of 23 feet instead of 25 feet, exception from the 10 foot second floor setback surcharge requirement and exception to allow more than 50 percent of the second story perimeter walls to have over six fee exposed wall heights. Also, a minor residential permit for a second story rear balcony. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project (R-2007-23 and RM- 2007-14) subject to the model resolution and deny the following requests: 1. Exception to allow a combined second story side yard setback of 23 feet instead of 25 feet; and 2. Exception from the 10 foot second floor setback surcharge requirement. ~ BACKGROUND The project is located on a substandard parcel approximately 44 feet in width and 3,987 square foot in size zoned R1-7.5. The project site is surrounded by predominately larger and wider residential parcels. The proposed new house is approximately i,794 square feet (45% FAR) and is within the required building envelope. The applicant is requesting several exceptions relating to side yard setbacks and second floor wall heights due to the constraints of the substandard width and size of the parcel. DISCUSSION Ground floor side yard setback , According to the R-1 Ordinance (19.28.060D2), the combination of the two side yard setbacks shall be 15 feet, except that no side yard setback shall be less than five feet. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure sufficient side yard setbackS from adjacent buildings on lots with at least 60 feet in width and larger than 6,000 square feet in size. In the R1-5 zoning district, the side yard setbacks are five feet on both sides because the ordinance recognizes the physical constraints on narrow and small lots, and therefore provides more flexibility with less ground floor side yard setbacks to facilitate reasonable floor plans. The proposed project site is extremely narrow and small, but it is not located in a R1-5 zoning district. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an exception to allow five foot side yard setbacks instead of a combination ~f 15 feet. Staff supports this exception since it is consistent with the intent of the ordinance, and the Design Review Committee has approved similar requests in the past. '-- 14 - 23 June 21, 2007 R-2007-23, RM-2007-14 Page 2 of4 Seco11d floor side yard setback Similar to the ground floor setback requirement, the R-1 Ordinance (19.28.060E2) specifies that -.J the combination of the two second floor side yard setbacks shall equa125 feet, except that no second floor side yard setback shall be less than 10 feet. Again, the rationale behind this requirement is to ensure sufficient separation from the adjacent properties and that proper recess is given to the second floor from the ground floor to minimize the visual mass of the second floor. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a combined second story side setback of 23 feet (10 feet and 13 feet) instead of a combined 25 foot setback. The City has not in the p~t approved exceptions from the second floor setback requirements because of the sensitivity level of the second floor mass and scale. Also, there are usually other development options thari to encroach into the required second floor side yard areas. In this case, staff does not support the two foot exception request for the second floor setback based on the following reasons: 1. The second story master bedroom (19'-0" by 13'-0") could simply be reduced to 17'-0" by 13'-0" in order for the project to 'meet the required combined second story side yard setback of 25 feet. 2. Alternatively, the applicant has the ability to locate one of the second floor bedrooms on the ground floor toward the rear of the house. The applicant chooses not to. In light of the available development options, staff recommends that the plans be revised to meet the 25 foot combined second story side yards requirement. Second floor setback sU1.charge The R-1 Ordinance (19.28.060E3) requires all new second stories to provide 10 feet of additional second story setback (along the sides and/ or front, or a combination thereof) in addition to the base requirement. Since the proposed home does not meet the required combined side yard of 25 feet, naturally it will not be able to meet the required 10 foot surcharge. The applicant is requesting an exception from the 10 foot surcharge requirement. Due to width of the project lot, the applicant can not previde additional second floor setbacks in addition to the base requirement while designing a reasonable floor plan. Staff supports this exception provided that the minimum requirements are met. Secont,l story exposed perimeter wa!ls According to Section 19.28.060 G3 of the R-1 Ordinance, 50% of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be structti.r~ and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane. The intent of this rule is to provide sufficient visual second story offsets from the ground floor wall planes and to help minimize the visible wall mass of the second story perimeter walls. ------' 14 - 24 2 June 21, 2007 R-2007-23, RM-2007-14 Page 3 of4 L- Portions of the proposed second story walls along the right and left elevations have v~ible walls less than 6 feet tall exposed; however they are overlapped by adjoining first story non- structural arcades or covered porch features. While this does not meet the letter of the ordinance, it does meet the spirit in that the second story perimeter walls are well offset from the ground floor roofs and the exposed second story visible walls are not overly massive. Staff supports this exception. Entry Feature Given the narrowness of the project parcel, all of the vertical features on the project will be accentuated and appear taller. In addition:, there is an abrupt change in plate height between the garage and the entry feature (approximately 2 fe~t of differential). Staff recommends that the entry feature and the adjacent porch roof be lowered in height by a foot in order to lower the apparent mass of the entry feature. \..- Second story balcony The applicant is applying for a minor residential application (RM-2007-14) to allow for a second story rear facing balcony. The size and general location of the deck is appropriate and will not cause significant privacy concerns for the neighbors to the rear and right (south) side. However, according to the R-1 Ordinance, the side yard setback for the second story balcony is 15 feet. The right side yard setback of the proposed balcony appears to be approximately 14 feet to the property line. Staff recommends that the plans be revised so that at least 15 feet of setback is provided. A detailed privacy protection planting plan shall be provided by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits indicating appropriate landscaping screening within the cone of vision from the applicable new second story windows and the balcony. FINDINGS Staff believes the project satisfies the required approval findings: Exceptions 1. That the literal enforcement of the provisions of this title will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this title. The purpose of the sections 19.28.060D2 (ground floor side yard setback), 19.28.060E3 (second floor setback surcharge) and 19.28.060G3 (exposed perimeter second story perimeter wall rule) are to ensure sufficient building separation are provided to the adjacent neighbors (ground floor and second floor), sufficient wall offsets are provided on the second story walls from the ground floor walls and the visual mass of the second story perimeter walls are minimized. The project as proposed with the changes suggested by staff will sufficiently address the spirit and intent of the above mentioned ordinances. 2. That the approval of the exceptions will not result in a condition that is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The exceptions should not cause any negative impacts to the neighbors or the public. ' L 14 - 25 3 June 21, 2007 R-2oo7-23, RM-2007-14 Page -4 of 4 3. That the exceptions to be granted are ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. Due to the constraints of the width and size of the lot, the proposed exceptions are J necessary to facilitate a reasonable house plan with the least amount of modifications to the prescribed R-1 regulation. 4. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. The exceptions should not cause any significant visual impacts to any neighbor. Second story balcony 5. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purpose of this title. The proposed balcony is consistent with the General Plan and the R-1 Ordinance. 6. The granting of the 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. . The proposed balcony will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 7. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. The proposed balcony is modest in siZe and located at a reasonable location consistent with, the general pattern of the neighborhood. J 8. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. Privacy impacts will be reasonably mitigated by the requirements of privacy screening trees or shrubs. Prepared by: Approved by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner Ciddy Wordell/City Planner Attachments: , 1. Model Resolution 2. Letters of support from the neighborhood 3. Plan Set -J 14 - 26 4 R-2oo7-23 RM-2007-14 L CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. Of THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITIEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIC;;N REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY 1,794 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE AND A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY REAR , , YARD DECK ON THE NEW RESIDENCE AND EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS INSTEAD OF A COMBINATION OF 15 FEET, AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A COMBINED SECOND STORY SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 23 FEET INSTEAD OF 25FEET, AN EXCEPTION FROM THE 10 FOOT SECOND FLOOR SETBACK SURqfARGE REQUIRE~NT AND AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE SECOND STORY PERIMETER WALlS TO HAVE , OVER SIX FEET EXPOSED WALL HEIGHTs. L SECTION II: PROmCT DESCRIPTION Application No.: R-2007-23 Applicant! Owner: Reza Rafii Location: ' i0484 Byrne Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an application for a new, two-story 1,794 square foot residence with exceptions to allow five foot side yard setbacks instead of a combination of 15'feet, exception to allow a combined,second story side yard setback of 23 feet instead of 25 feet, exception from the 10 foot second floor setback surcharge requirement and exception to allow more than 50 percent of the second story' perimeter walls to have over six fee exposed wall heights. Also, a minor residential permit for a second story rear balcony, as described in this Resolution; and ' WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee finds that tht;! changes are beneficial and compatible with the surrounding area and the following findings for the exceptions c~ be met; , ,1. That the literal enforcement of the provisions of this title will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this title. The purpose of the sections 19.28.060D2 (gro~d floor side yard setback), 19.28.060E3 (second floor setback surcharge) and 19.28.060G3 (exposed perimeter second story perimeter wall rule) are to ensure sufficient building separation are L provided to the adjacent neighbors (ground floor and second floor), sufficient 14 - 27 Resolution No. Page 2 &-2007-23 & RM-2007-14 June 21, 2007 ================================================================ wall offsets are provided on the second story walls from the ground floor walls and the visual mass of the second story perimeter walls are minimized. The project as proposed with the changes suggested by staff will sufficiently address the spirit and intent of the above mentioned ordinances. . .--.-/ 2. That the approval of the exceptions will not result in a condition that is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The exceptions should not cause any negative impacts to the neighbors or the public. 3. That the exceptions to be granted are ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulationS and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. Due to the constraints of the width and size of the lot, the proposed exceptions are necessary to facilitate a reasonable house plan with the least amount of modifications to the prescribed R-1 regulation. 4. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. , The exceptions should not cause any significant visual impacts to any neighbor. WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee finds that the changes are beneficial and compatible with the surrounding area and the following findings can be met to approve the minor residential permit for the second story balcony; '---"" 5. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purpose of this title. The proposed balcony is consistent with the General Plan and the R-1 Ordinance. 6. The granting of the 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. The proposed balcony will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 7. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. , The proposed balcony is modest in size and located at a reasonable location . consistent with the general pattern of the neighborhood. 8.. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reCl$onably mitigated., Privacy impacts will be reasonably mitigated by the requirements of' privacy screening trees or shrubs. --./ 14 - 28 Resolution No. Page 3 R-2007:-23 & RM-2007-14 June 21, 2007 , . , ================================================================ L NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. R-2007-23 and RM-2007-24, Me hereby approved; and that the sub conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution axe based and, contained in the public hearing record concerning applications :R-2007-23 and RM-2007-14 as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting of J~e 21, 2007, and axe incorporated by reference ' herein. SECTION ill: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on a plan set entitled: "Proposed Two Story WI. Basement Dwelling Unit, Reza Rafii, 10484 Byrne Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014" Consisting of five sheets received April 20, 2007, except as may be amended by conditions contained in this resolution. L 2. SECOND STORY SIDE YARD SETBACK The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except that no second story side setback may be less than then feet The project shall be revised accordingly. Revised plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. PRIVACY PLANING The project shall be consistent with the privacy planting requirements specified by , the R-l Ordinance. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval indicating appropriate privacy screening trees or shrubs prior to issuance of any building permits. Said trees or shrubs shall be recorded on the property as a covenant to be preserved and maintained prior to the final occupancy of the project. 4. ENTRY CANOPY The entry canopy and the adjacent front porch roof element shall be lowered in height by 1 foot. Revised plans shall be submitted to the Plamling Department for approval prior to issuance of building permits. 5. BASEMENT COVENANT The ~pplicant shall record a covenant running with the land that precludes the new basement from being used or converted into a second dwelling unit. \.....-, 14 - 29 Resolution No. Page 4 R-2007-23 & RM-2007-14 June 21, 2007 ================================================================ 6. SECOND STORY BALCONY The required side yard setback of second story balcony is 15 feet. A revised balcony plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval, confirming compliance to the 15 foot side yard setback requirement. ~ '7. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERV A:nONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions, of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, , dedication requirements, reser;vation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to ~o:vernment 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 9O-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 iegally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: CO:M~MISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: J APPROVED: Cicldy Wordell City Planner Cary Chien, Chairperson Design Review Committee ....J 14 - 30 L TO: City Consul of Cupertino . Name: /?o beJe. T' Se.Je J () Address: jD C/{," ,6 yme.. A-(,.E I have seen and reviewed the plan for new house in 10484 Byrne Ave Cupertino Ca 95014 I approve and support the plan. 'JJ~ 3/t,k 7 L Co tYJ h1 e.n +- : Sincerely, ::Ji:JJl.eN"tS .-r~.I?-t rtO/\r(e"\' fhstt< h~vJ; eNtei'eA fJ2.,;j=>~~ /J-t ~,~",~J, ""t/;...,€.. 7A'f )J A .{:/.:..-e. h.-1l.A-/o?..( AN,( s4'1'i..Ji..,f ~'-<.'"feh7~L.lt~./, /'f..i ~~.{}N IlJ />OSS/~{S;:: ~7l. ~ 14 - 31 TO: City Consul of Cupertino . Name: ~Ci\n {rYAf\ C\f\d U fV\CIv ~0 o.,NvlAtt1-AA.11 Address:. III 4% B\J y I\L ~ (~+u\2) .J (A-qsv/~ I have seen and reviewed the plan for new house in 10484 Byrne Ave Cupertino Ca 95014 I approve and support the plan. /)MP.MJtt~ C,o m YY\ e.M f-. ~ Sincerely, W<- 3lffO:V+ 'I-k rYI}rtd- tt~ wlIJ tL/fre.uak- . 4- tu ~ t-oYlstw cAOrA I/J. ~ ao ~ c-on a.o plJ'Hih1e. I ~ .L.UN fv-rA.-fcJw~( ch/chut ho:J !vf rn\. f-&.-. /;[,A jeL. ..4 fk '1 ~iA"Y-'cl e.. . CLAd 1o.L4 d.vrJ LUAej,- ~i.. ~~ CTtA-- ~ -J' 14 - 32 L TO: City Consul of Cupertino Name: 0 t"-v\.d.. .::r -n.~rtiS Address: I e~C\5 g'1~~t Au't... 'c...,-,~.qo;-.\\\1'O Co." o..S-Ol~ I have seen and reviewed the plan for new house in 10484 Byrne Ave Cupertino Ca 95014 I approve and support the plan. Co (Ylme-i1T : Sincerely, ~*-~ ~/~/D7 ' \..-. \ \. + "\ \1..0 ~e-A .Q.v-:hcd .f 1.J' :e l0e.. CH e... \oJ .e..~'{ t.l9I1'L Q ()-\J'I. eO' cUl>00 ~ '- ~ . \\o.t,,-,cl. +k-\- ~'t-\';t ~ \.~ -\\kf e.'t,,9:'~t.\ u,}OOO~1I\ 'i7\:~\jt-\v~e. of \-.eu:>e.. A.~\>('t)~'t 0-5:. 5ooS/'\ cAS ~~~5\ b\e ~~...~ '<00. ~G~~~' ~ 14 - 33 TO: City Consul of Cupertino Name~ :: 11- ,j}l2l..e~5 \.j Pe AI tV j C It /2-L /:;:- Address: /0 '-17 ~~ l3y;eNe '/l ~-e , C v (elf!- f fA d ) C A q!:> CJ I Y J , I have seen and reviewed the plan for new house in 10484 Byrne Ave Cupertino ca 95014 I approve and support the plan. Com WI eA..J-. , Sincerely, {ltclM .0 C&:-- ~ I. . '/(.. L~'~-- C/ ~ ~ I M ~(jr :7 ~ L$~ . ," / .1L /L~--~ t;;t.--< 'f/.11 -ct-T LP lilt:.:-- . ----./ ;----,' , 14 - 34 ( GENERAL NOTES CDNT. 1.,AJ/f'IIUh....",.w16l~_l(ffrom",.",,'/ii1 """"tlfH#M~t41.~I/IofMMlIIItH n_.c~IItftJ1%_,"ptM/&flO'. 2.rnwter:f'OM~tirwrt;"1t/w;6101tptlfLn. 5-5mPt&t~Muif".hIJrtInt&~4 ..,_01__ 4-==:;=-~~of 5-Y.uw/u.fMJr (l(J6pi /n..h)~ ~fII/I"ffllVVlJt_5.r"pKhlvwtrh ;~~&palntl1f~IItItIl>#lItlNwt 3'O"frwrtMr,fD,.,m,.. 7- 205 f/IJI1d1r. f.uut"". 6hww MM ".",..wIth f1_~_""~~ ~6thtI"'~~~ 9-W1td'at.r tMk ~u f1IduM5fa fII Mt... ""'- 1O-f"rtwI.h~r."Muwl1llwtlttwm6.kIt&Mn. .... 1t.~f1t'fMhMUfttJua_lr;IMnp_~ 1Z-f'rtMthUliIdnl'tJ9WplmlthJt#fi'pI--. B-~/",.,gf*hIt1f1nt1~te1n____wnh U<<~ts-5I1hi~t5-DJ"'2. 14- Y.rf4yffMNlwslvlJ ""mhl.trtJ. 2Hcu..w. n-nitl. ~fh1mt:tllft/Jr1hld. 15-"""""IIIftI.~MJ___.uflxtin& 16-~"".1Wtk;IIi...6NtIfHflMJ>>/rNt:tIl/I1tltt" f'IMheJ~1ttI.26G.5.M.JWH&t:I<<t~ 17.rr~M1ti.6&IIltI"",_f:ljfbttlrt:& 18-W.w-rMn.ntm.ltNrtl,wrIMUHiDtt'tuil'~WIIII. 2~~Jra,-'fIKt'.6rltN''''''MA/MtJ.frIlII'# ~1wI r(ffJf'f1r_".",.....MtJrftw.l'ut.~ tknn)Mwflt$fMfttr/8hMf/tJeHo, 21- W.:.r 1wfl:K tllhktc> ~ _1Id6t* Wttp. 18- ~~ ~f1<<Jr""'~pnr(fh6",tHJt6IJe. - f-~r<<1f""'SI12. t.r~_&t."""*IOtl!iK-.:; :';:;:;':::.-T--- ~-ftrIvIi6--r&.NtwItt~~ .,..w..,,.,..., 4-AJ11'f111f.............~ 5.(1U)1IrtIIN#fIIr-~~.",. 6-AS#or~. fIf.riif..........1If l'lZ-...1aI.",,,..../lfM:kllyivt!wMI -- ~ "~"'^'''''"'-'~~~-~-=q~~.~-';''-) r APPROVAL f.,:J.co 7' -i3~7<M ' .;loo 7 .,y+ l AppIIcaIiOn Number ; tORe - ~ f./tJJ . t ! ~gnaWre ~ _ ~.J ~'5i".~'C"!~r ( 1EmPWR;ItiAM5IllENr !11~.!J5Q.fT.~rnlr.95Q.Ff. -- i~ -"""""" a; _WIIl5) 1o&.S5Q.FT._lO&.5SQ.FT. E ll; " CMlI'tIl:IIW/.srAlfS 96."'6l1fI"._96.&SQ.FT, ..., ~~ ~ ~ ~I " """""" l5U~. _ 151.!!ISl1.FT. "'" ill -- " ~> 0 ~t ! ... (+4.99'l;) E .- LaTtOIIA6E: (#.34t.) ~' .. -- Iii~ ~ !ECONP MOl rEltllo'lE'fU WAI..L: 12&'18" $CONDI"LOOlV15/t1oLeWiUOVER6'0" I-UGHTI fdIfl....<64'.. INDEX SHEET ...' ~ A-1- SITE PlRH, IKJEX SHEET1 VIl:INr1Y1"IFP, SITE 1lRTR. ~ A- 2- PROPOSED FLOOR PLAtt ill A-3- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS. ~ A-+ SECTIONS, ROOF PLAN, FLOORS AREA CAlCULA-TION. ~ it tu:t A-S- ElJILIlH; OETAn.5_ ::0 " ~~ II) III '" GENERAL LEGEND ;'i N ~~ " 'ie, :;; I.ti >''' ~=- 1===1----- >' III 10" " ~~ {D_~ ~ (1D-~tonoI II) ~~ ~ ..... GENERAL NOTES "... fil r< II) i!'~ "/!NERGr FORM CF.6R THE 11I5TALLA'TI01I AIIO 11I5ULATIOII ~ CEI!.TiFlCATE5 5HALL 5E f'05TEO ON THE JOft 51TE OUR/lleJ ~ ~:l; CON5~UC'TIOII OF THf f'f!.OJECT." ,,~ ~<> FIRE 5f'f!.IIIKLER5 WILL 5f 11I5TALLfO FER MUII/C/f'.AL OROINANCE <>t n "ALL WORK AT f'U5I.JC AREA 5HALL UQUlREfJ: A 5Ef'AIUlTE f'ERMIT ANO 5HALL COMf'LY WITH .ALL AmlCA5LE -- f!.fI3ULA'TIOIl5 COOf5 "Y f'U5L1C WO/1K.5 O/!f'ARTM/!NT OF - CUf'ER'TIIIO CrTr, " 06-145 A-'n pr"pt:rt.yllfle#..3O' JNIN ... .- --~ ~X a ~ . ~ f ~ ~ ~ ; 11 ,.. ---,---,. -- ul If, U j /MIl 1I~ -+4--. 30' 10484 BYRNE AVENUE SITE n,~N CODES AND SAFETY - DON01'KolUi:1I'EDMWMMl, ,."...~I/t --- ~~....... 1IIlI...............t--' .......,................ ....""""-"".......... ""'.........1lIIIII1II ~~h-.... ...........-'~,.,.. lIr1",*,~""'" =~... :-"=~~ LALLCONSre:lJCT1OIrl!KJ""AU.AllONl!IHAl.I.~101HEFOI.1.OWINGCCDESI 200l 1H!'IltWQDN:i ca: (lK) 2001 l.III'CIlbI;WECHlItCJIL~{\IIIC) ZOO! 1R'OD.Iru.lIllttJCotlE(IrlO} 2001 llIiFI:ltWI'tiCODe(\I'Q 'ZClO4 AA'l'rIW.aEcmc:cODEIlE) Tm.I!.~~COD! TtI1.EM~~COOE" HDNlfl7JHE1r~'CIlla0lPlN0lltlCE$""Al.L.O'IHEJ:~1'lOftS OI'LOCAL.wfI;I3IaW1.O'I1B CJlIVIlIllENf....AliEN:a Hr'nD..ua!lOlCTlON. 1lE eotmACfOEltWl~ALLl.AIlOI: N'l>loIA1'BW$N.~ TllCllllt'LY MllieucHcoteHD~WHmBOI.""'&lOWNON1HECCMV.C1DOCuwalTe Ml'HOUT ANY AlltllfIOlrW.Oio\tOEl'OfHECOIRAGf.!UW JNlHEEVeNrOl'COIfiJCf.1lfEwcsrml&Nl'~S!IW.LAm.Y. SITE" DATA R. P. N. 357-14-013 10484 BYRNE RVEMJE CUPERTINO, en ZONE , Rl-7.5 CFIlSS lOT SIZE I 4.43.Q05a.Ff; I'ET lOT SIZE I :3.Se7,OO 5G.FT MAXM./I'I A..1XJI AREA I 1.19-1-.155/UT. iEl\1EPlMItGlWI (K1IIIr'W~ -::~ 1:s'::o~ -=:. -WSM 5Q.Ff. 1Wll'~eMN1f .0430.56 sa.FT._ 430.56 5a.FT. - "' ~1t'J'l'1lG1Un1EllIL'III'IIft ......-.. --- ::r:t::r....::.- .....................-r: ........11.....'........, ..,......~ -n............tlIlII...... E ~ ~.......llftWl. ...' .........._.......rNI~ ......-..........-.. =~- ,"' ..' ..' eo' ....' eo' =-~..~W$hM ..' .'0 rh. ..' " ...' eo' ....' eo' .'7 IJ~ ...' ,..1.". .. . n' n' ...' 1. n' l~ I'll 'I 1 1 I r~ 1 1'1'1 ~ 1-... - ....... -- "'~r i1J~ Ir-- - L_ . IF i~ -- - h ~- ~I F.E'I . i WALCIrO r----------l ~,...m ....... ,---, >An< t1 ~::../ I . I ..!.. I r;:.t,.., 1I1..J;X:]~ --, I I ~ I I I I Q: I I "/ I I ~ I I ......... """""" "I ItECWlTION I I~ . I -.. I k-- 1=' I " \~I . ..... ~ .. I 8ED<1JOIo/ I ; I I - - 1\ I I I ; ,,1 I I I , . I I ~ I p >Am I I I' KJrCHfN II I I . I -1 I'~ Fft , I l I I I I \ \ I~ , I I I tin FAW4YfeOOJl ~ ,Mil , I --- i , I t .. I ,I ~_+!"c _J I I ~ , I , , I ~ ~ .11111 IIII r4 ;4: I ~':~ ilL I I 4} I I . ~ ~ , iJ I I I -- '11111 111\ T- I 1111 III' I I- I I - 1111 , I ~ I ~ ~~ ~~ """.,"'" . , ~ I 11 ; - \ ~* , I . I li , :J I Ii \ 1 I ~~ E ~~ ~ " iB - \ , I '" lti , 1 i@ , 1 ~ I ~ ~l ~ ~ , I r 0- f-- 1 '( If \ -- , , I r FAUlL' " ~;: ~ I 'I : I " ;< ! -~ """" E Ji i~ VIA~ ! ,\ I I .. , \ :; --- /..1'IN9tOOM I I ..II1II- $- ;! , \ , " ~Ji , , """ , I \J 1 ro , \ I ~ 1 ...".. , I ~ , \ '---.. 1 \ =":'~ I I - ~ , -- ; . 8ED<1JOIo/ M , ; ; I !" JYL ....,- i d , I Elm" , I . ....I!!L I , - I , , ~ tv ~ ~ "'" "'" ....~-- ... , , ,- " ...... ...... --" - -....~__:::r'O::_____ --- ~ ~ ~ , , ".,..,ArnW ......tI1o....... . '"""""" ITl '- ~ , , ..__ Kttf- . 1111 , ' 1111 l'I .. , - ~ hW ..' hW -,' , , 1WO~~ -........ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ '<-( ",1.1 "'.' ~ it ~~ Ii ~ " "(: n' .... w.' ;li ~ ~~ >- ~ ~~ r....rNtw l:! '" .~, .. .'''';';~.'~':~'' .........!:.~::::.'.,...!. ,.._~-.. "':->;;'l;.Y""~ ..",~-..:r.~i"" .,--. '~:-O~':."; ~.;-,~;:",;',,:.---:,:..~'-- ",' ..' " J " ~ ~.:: r. ,"' .0' n' I ~'< APPROVAL R.".3,0f'J7 - ~3 RJ4 .~O{)7 -II; i!!~ N., ..,' ~~ i Application Number I t: ,,~ I 't.,..~ "()7 ~.' ~<> ORe . E ~ <>t I Slgnatur" ~~ , n i I . , . 1 .... ....- r .7' .../Ca~Manager -~ IlIbWlltll II _.~.J .. l_,.,...,., - "...- ~'" ... "" """'" ... 00-145 ~ =" -... SECOND FLOOR: 661,~ SF, I """"''''='<7' 1 4- FIRST FLOOR: 1,1~2,66 SF, I SCAl.E:lIif"= f.f7' I :3 I'MSMENT FLOOR I 5CALE:f./Jf"=T'-d' 1 2 \. .. A-2 ~ -- '\ ( 1 l' ..' r 1'lIrllW...._Ilc-J(I/It. 'T m m 1" ,~ ..,' nMiWoowll_tJ'I7"Ji,h1. LltIIC1I!lUU:M~ 1'lII\...,........." --- ~.::==--..... ..............IIIIIil-' ."...d................ ""........ .......... ",............tJI.....1lI ~"'"'...1IISINl. ...kmalawllll--.I..... -:lftlIr~..... _1Uf..~ ~:.....:::.:--.. ::"-=-..~~ rn -.,. ~---------------- ~~---- -- m '-'-~ ..- ~~- . . ~~~~ c::::J c::::J c::::::J c::::J c::::J c::::J c::::::J c::::J c::::J c::::J c::::::J c::::J c:::J c::::J c::::::J c::::J ..0~~/)." ( L.EFI EL.EVA110N ~tI+.=f'-O" F/I?ONT EL.EVATION KNE:fI4"=t'-tY' ~~ ~ E ~~ rn -ll ~< m ~ ~t 0 " i~ ~ E ~~ ! ~~ ~ ~----- ~...--- 808 - ___":!!rLh >! ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ! ~ ___flIIi"~ U'i ~~ - -~.. ~ il: ~~ ). ~ 1\" ~ ~ ~~ ~ '" ~" ~ \-" <:\- ~ ~'< ___f11I!.... ~ I!!~ l ~~ ~" ct: --~ n 06-1<5 I'fWJECTNO<1H 5 A-~ 1 ..,' ~__Ii't7'*"", !;!"I'.!h!.. _ _ _ _ _ __ '; <.-- ~ fI!fr...____ ~ -- "~"""_""""~_"'''X_~~''!'''"''''-''}I''''~~~~ '7 /I?;t/l? EL.EVATlON _/ $CAJ.E:tI+..r~ j I /I?/GHT EL.EV A TlON 5CiUE:fI.f-.r-tY' SIgnature EL.EVATlONS 4- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T--- I I I I I I I I I I 1II"2tllIII\llL'" :O;~_ "l'IT~ """".. ....MI "'OW, ..J ~ o a: 0. 0. < I t= _m___mm_m_ ~ "~r""" I. 1 'i -.hi' ... (9 ~ ~ ~) o a: c ROOF PLAN Q)-~O..8. _ 2S.5!l1' @-tl7"X7'O' - atJ'" @--""7'X732"_ Mi.!f!Jf @-IIVSOXt7Z" - 170~5F @-'lt1S-lC1/1!1'_.wt56SF @-t12X3'O"('2'O"tBO"H7.o9f 0- t!f'"X1lrl"-I1U5' @)_ l6'8'X""-2<4&.2.~ @_14IS'UIO_msTS' @_lO'Ct"Xf'O._to.o5F @_5'7.X"'...._'....4SF @-3'7"X-+'Z"-I4.858F 6ECOWfUJf'R:6tif-' +Rtt5fFUJOft.:~66SF. I I rOTALR.OOlC5:11U8l!!I/~A1 14F1.. (#,!JS%) FLOOR AREA CALCOLATION ~ I _____L.. I ~-4 c:> , , 'I ~- -.. F,...,. ""'" SECTION B-B ~7 T " ;".,- .r ... ( \ , \ ~~----- lff~tf#;::. l!!!I ffI[.____. ~~--- SECTION A-A - =:=~ --- ==~~ ................. ..... .111-..1.1_............. QoII.........~ "*......""'1011_.. M1\IIIIItlIII... .,..4 .........-~.... .....--................. tIttt.............. ==:.~- 1:*...=...=_.... ~~ ~ E I,) " Iii .. ~~ 6 ~ ~~ ~ " ~~ .. " ~ E .' ,,~ .. ;0. j;; "" I l ~ ~ ~ ..i ~ ~i ~ ~~ ~ it <' ~ti :s ;'i ,,~ 'i ~ ~~ ).. " " ~ _IJ ~ ...', "... I ~'( ~... ~ " ~;l; ~ ,,~ ~" ,,~ n O&w.i A-~ 19 CIWWNMOLIJINe Off AIL lG RIPGe DerAIL 13 TYPICAL cAve 10 '"",.,. - ...""- 0 l.i - ~ E <- Ii '" .. m " ~ '" '" '""- ~ ~ ~ '" s: r---- 0 .. ~ E ~ =.":: ! i .. ~ ;! , ! ...J --- ~ - .,- --... I ff g I~':- __JlM""'-'. a. i a. EXr€I110K INTEIWK <( C 2.0 OKYWAU COKNEK.6EAO 17 IUiK,OffAlL ROOF VALLey peTAIL nCAL WINIJOW <I f)OOK 11 ~ ..:::r~~ 'l! ~ ~ ~EDEi!IL'''' I ~~ \!1 ...-. il: ~~ --"" ~ ....,... li "iO ~ ~~ ,..,i_ >- ~ o i!>o ~ " I __M/MrM -\.> I ..-- ., ....- IX IV__ ~ ~,:: TorVlEW f/&'lt2.1I2" -- .....I6"a.e t 2'0"",~ t-G~ iil ~~ ~ """'- ~ ~< @~ t ~~ vr__ ~<> 7WCEWENT <>t iZ.!.IlYel!l n DET,q."^" ... "...---'! ( NO'fE:U5E1I4'5fOVEtIOI.15 1~1'Ul~1tSmN'15 wetrOK INTE/CIOK ""',.". USEP,FQRNcl.SG1IIJGE WItE, WVI' 'IE 'OftOLlaH '"' 06.145 ~D!mJ.EDHOLES. LAmA/. SUI70/{TFOK WAT,K Hf'ATEiK 21 eV7Tff {)EfAIL 18 /CooF i'ENITVt nON 15 WINOOW SIU Off AlL 12 A-l~ ", \ ( "(;.'::::;) 0 0 .....- '"'".....'-' =.- - . ...00< " fIJMJ/;/V --. "--.. .....- ~ " ..,.. D(lPlOTec:AlEM~ --~ ....,--..,....,.. ::r:t.::::...n.I..... .......~...II!-.l....1I'I M.4....dlll'T'fl'f....~ ...h.....~. n......r.u...-.l.. _~wtl.~~ ~.-..I.IllIl:rIM.wJ. MYlI'thr~......... 'Ilwt__...."..lIIiW. ~:.*::;..-... DJII.1lIIt.~...hod hlIlIll'f\:WIl,..,...... ~W"CP*""r'llllftWt/llrv ,__ ___fIh*. bf__~.I6"O.c. vr_'-'